HomeMy WebLinkAbout0246.094o
(Conunissioner Ojakian opposed and Comnissioncl'.' Beecham absent)
adopted a motion recommending approval of the ol'dinance with the
title modified to "Dev(jlopment Project Preliminary Review" and (\
number of text changes recomTIcnded by staff.
The attached ordinance establishes a Prelimil'tary Review process
that would be available for proposed development project~ pl."ior to
filing a regular development application eSect.ion 18.97.030{cl) or
for pl.'ojects that h;;lve filed a development ~pplication (Section
18.97.030 (bl). In all cases, undertaking the pt'climinary ravie""
pt.'oceas requires City Council approval. Ii fee wi l1 need to be
established for preliminary review conduc'te<'l iHl a separate process
prior to filing a development application. Staff anticipates
recommending that the new separate process, if included by the
Council, have a full cost recovery fee consistent with the fees
established for zone changes and Comprehensive Plan ... mendmantB.
Staff will provide an amendment to the Municipal Fee Schedule as
part of the 1994-95 City budget process.
The basic preliminal."y review procedut"e would be a
Commission study session follo\wd by a City CouncD stud~'
The City Council can modify the process to:
Planning
session,
Have a study session conducted solely b}' the Planning Corrroia-
Have a study session conducted 60lely by the City Council;
Have a joint Planning Conlffiission and City Council study
session; or
-Have a joint study session of the City Council and any other
City boards, commissions. or cOlnnittees.
As noted in the March 4 staff report, the purpose of the study
sessions would be to take public comment on develo~~nt projects
and to provide elected and appointed official corrrnent to the
applicant. These sessions would be voluntat'y, and the C01Mlents
made would be non-binding. The pur.pose of prescreening is not to
resolve :.the merits of a project, but to provide guidance and
commentary that may lead to improved process and projects before
final decision-making.
The main benefit of prescreening will be to pro'Jide a puplic
opportunity for community involvement at an earlic.l" stage in the
development process than usually occurs. This should encourage and
facilitate discussion and resolution of City and neighborhood
concerns and issues. In turn, this process should lead to
development projects that are more re8ponsive t.o City and neighbor
hood concerns, with those concerns being identified earlier in the
process. Early identification of such concerns should make
~/28/9~
Pa~e 2
' ..
development processing more efficient from both time and expense
vi~wpoints.
Bnyironmental Reyiew
Adoption of the recor!Ul\ended ordinance is exempt from the California
81lvironmental Oualit~· Act, and thus no environmental review or
finding is neceflsary.
RecQrrmendatiou
Staff and the Planning Corrrnission recorrmend City Council adoption
of the attached ordinance adding Chapter 18,97 to the City' B zoning
re.gulations. establishing procedu~'es for tha conduct of study
sessions for pl"eliminary review of development projacts.
Respectfully submitted.
~M,u;{ 7f: ./c/H&k.>'
KBNNBTH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Attachments: Ordinanc,":
3/4/94 Staff Report to the Planning Commission
3/9/94 .Planning Commission minutes
cc: Planning Commis~ion
CMR,246,94 4/28/94
Page 3
-'.:.,-
:;.
j
1 ~ .,
,.; . . .
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THl! COlllCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
ADDING CHAPTBR 18.91 TO TITLB 18 [l'.ONINGI OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODB RELATING TO PROCBDURES
FOR THB CONDUCT OF PI\I!lMUNAR¥ \)B"'BbO __ ~
OORBBlHNG STUDY SESSIONS WlrpI\IILll1~~l\RY:ll.lWIBlIQI1,
'p~!~~~f~,,lf~o..rll¢'r$ .
WHBREAS, the Planning Corrvnission~ after a duly noticed
public hearing held on March 9. 1994, has recommended tha,t Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alt.o ~,'unicipal Code be amended as hereinafter
Bet tort-hi and
WUBRRAS, the City Council
enable non-binding preliminary
projects; and
des1_res to establish a process to
review of certain development
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and detennines that these
procedul.-cs will facilitate orderly development consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan by providing an opportun:ity for the public and
proj ect pre1ponents to provide convnents on proposed development
projects at an early stage in the process; and
WHBRBAS. the City Council finds and determines that by
providing an opportunity for preliminary review, more efficient
public and private investment decisions will result due to the
greater levol of factual information available to the public and
project proponent"_ as a result of the preliminary review; and
WH8RBAS. the City Council finds and determines that
preliminary review will also encourage project proponents and the
public to develop independent public forums and mechanisms for
~-esolving land use concerns, thus minimizing the time alLd expense
associated with City review of development projects; and
WHBREAS, the City Council intends that these procedures be
implemented in a manner consistent with and supplemental to
statutory and constitutional law governing the processing of
development. projects; and
WIiBRBAS, the City Council has determined that these
procedures are necessary and denirable to protect the health.
safety and general welfare of current and future residents of the
City of Palo Alto; and
WHB'R~AS, the City Council has deten'llined that these
procedures are necessarj and desirable to assist in implementation
of the City's comprehellsive plan and adopted specific plans.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alt.o does
ORDAIN as follows:
£B.crIQN-.!.. Chapter 18.91 is hereby added to TItle 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows!
1
•
i
j
1 ,
;
i
\ -'-'
,I
:. , ',' ,." .. ,," :;.~
~-,--::~.,-·"~'~~'i'.~~';;'i:J;i __ ':}:7~.~~~~~.i~·---.\lt;;'+4r'2;. -."
o o
CIIAl'TBR 18.97
PJ\BLIHlI1t.1U· DKVBLOPMENT PROJILC7' PRJn.U\XNARYREVIBW OORBBNHIll
PROC!roI1RB B
Section 19.97.010
Section 18.97,020
Section 19.97.030
SectiQ" 18.97.040
Section 18.97.050
Section 19.97.060
Purposes.
Suppl.emental Procec1,ul."Cs.
Applicability and Initiation.
P:rescl::eening Review.
Pr{!scl:eening Public Study Session
Pr0cedure.
Voluntary Compliance.
18. 91 ~()10 .Purposes. This chapter establishes procedures
for prel imil1d.xy 9cl:"eenill9 of development proje'cts (·prcscreening").
This chapter 1e intended to achiF.!ve, and shall be implemented to
.accor\\pllall~ the following purposes:
Cal To maximize oppo:rtunities for meaningful public
di8CUf3aion of development projectt1, at the earliest feaeible time.
for the guid.ance cf the public, project proponents and City
decision makers.
(b) To focuo pllblic and ~nvi:r:orunental review of
development. proje(!ts on the issues of greatest significance to the
cotrmunity, including. bllt not limited to, planning concern9~
nei9hborhood compatibility~ comprehellsive plan consistency.
economics. aocial cmn:s and bellefits~ fiscal costa and benefits,
technological factors. and legal issues. These procedures axe not
tntended to pel"lnit or foreclose d(>bht-e on the merits of approval or
disapproval. o~ any given cievolopment project.
(c) To provide members of the public with th~
opportunity to obtain early information about development projects
in which they may have an intorest.
(d)· To provide project proponents with the opportunity
to obtain early, nO.\l·binding preliminary comnents on development
projects to encourage :lound and efficient private decisions about
how to proceed.
te) To encour.age early cot1't:'lunication between elected and
appointe1 public officials and staff with xespect tc the
implementation of City policies, standard9~ and regulations on
particular development projects.
{f) To facilitate orderly and consistent implementation
the City'S comprehenpive plan and development regulations.
Sec.tion 18.97.020 Supplemental .Procedures. These
procedures are supplemental to any other authority under state or
local law wllich permits prelimirial."y screening of development
pt·ojects. inclUding, but not Umited to, the California
Hnvh-onmental Quality ACL Public Resources Code section 21000, .e.t
2
~)
~.. and the State Planning and Zoning Law, Goverruncnt Code
section. 65000. l!l:. .uQ,
Sootion 18.91.030 Applicability ond Initiation, Cal
These procedures may be applied to the fOllowing types o(
development projects:
(1) Substantial zoning regulation or district map
change proposals:
(2) Comprehensive Plan A....,c:ndmentu~ incltlding specific
plans;
(3) Any other developil1ent project. or petmit 01'
entitlement application, ~i"!l ~'ncll)(lin9 a
major alteration or' expansion of 6>':iatlng f)t"
M-a-t~lea-l-usee, ~hldl impl icates ll\:.'\jOL' la.od use or
other policy or planning concerna.
Ib) Development project ~eefl-h19 fI}.·elimJn.. ... ry, t:eview
may be initiated by motion of the City council. .,{t~ the
~on;c_urrence',pt, the pl.'ojeet proponent,' or upon xCQ\lest of tile city
manager or 'project pl'oponent with the conctu_"rence of the Ci.ty
Council, at any time after the City has received a development
project application and before the develop;1ient pro1ect is noticed
for public hearing on the merits of the application, if allY is
required.
.Ie) [Jevelopm""t project .preliminary ."vil''' may aleo he
,i.nlctiated .p,,1or to tho fUing of an appH<:J\ti'''', UPOIl the re'lueBt pet· the pl'ojec~ proponent with th". cOllcun-..nee of th" City COUl,eil',
,!*ep",6joct pr.0pol1ent shall pay a prellmilluyrevi6" fee as set
f<;>.rCh.:in the .municipal:fee 9cheOul" •. Xfthe projectproponont
~i!6i:tetJ",_to pro.ceed with tlle prQject atter preliminary rov!ew, he 01..'
~h":111\I8t. theu file an application and pay ... regular applicatioll
,j,.-e,~,~
+<>}-,{<I)' 1'he City may from t !me to time eatablish
application forms, submittal requirements, fees, and such other
requirements, guidelines and informal regulations as will aid-in
the "efficient implementation of these p~ocedur~B.
Secdon 18.97,040 P~e •••• """"" "'.liG!11l6ry Review, (al
upon initiation as provided in Section 18.9'1.1)30, one or more
noticed public study sessions will be held to SOlicit cOI'Nl1ente
which will aid in accomplishing the purposes of these procedtlL-ee-.
(b) The noticed public study sesaion will be conducted
~§M~}, by th~ Planning COlMlisBion; or 'bytlt. Planning COOrn.(s,,~Oi1
1nIt1aUy~ftt;-lcYT ",ntl then by the City Council; or ~ol"ly
!?>,,:'.~l\~,gj.,~'y<;¢UnCUi or aa a joint meeting of the City COUilCil and
'planning Co:Tinfsslon, or as a joint meeting of the City Council and
any other City boat'ds, comnissions Ol-cormdttees whose
participation is deemed desirable by the City Council. Unless
directed otherwise by the City Council r the Planning COfmtission
shall_ conduct a stUdy session on all p:r-esel:eeHiI'l:9 prelimln~ry
~~~""' matters and forward its comments to the City Council. .
3
I i'
I.
I·
f
. '
o o
(c) Notice of the study session and the opportunity-for
public. participation shall be provided ill the same mann~r as may be
required by law for action on the underlying devel01-'1nent project
application.
Cd) No formal action may be taken during ~eenin9
pi;;"ll.jti~'!!aij review.
section 18.97.050 Pl'Bs6:teMl:i1t9 ~;:",H .. m111ary .R~vie\f Public
Study Session Prooedure. {a) ~i-»g ,J>.l".oltnunary -rev.\.ew
study sessions may be conducted in any manner deemed 'appropt'!at.e by
the City Council.
(b) City Ataff will prepare a BU!iYt\ary outl ine of the
proposed project. which highlighta any information rehwant to the
purposes identified in section 18.97.010, including but not limited
to any initial study prepared for the project. In addition. the
project proponent or any interested person may provide Ol:al or
written convnents consictent with the purposes of thesf~ procedures
during a l'reee~e.efling preliminary rcv,tew study session. Subsequent
city staff reports on development projects which have been subject
to preSelfceft.i-Hg prel:i.mi.,nary review should Burnrnarize any co~entS
n~de during the process.
(c) ~ 'pt',ellroinary reviow study sessions shall
not be for the pUl1>0se of taking evidence with respect to a
development project. Neither the City Council, nor any City bo<trd,
commission, comnittee l or staff person may rely upon information
?btained or corrments made during the pree:ef.'eefl-if'l9 preliminary
,W~\f~~Sl process for any final decision, unleso such information or
comments are re·introduced during a subsequent noticed public
hearing on the mel'its of the devalopment project.
Sec.tion l8.97.060 Voluntary Compliance. Ca) Compliance
with any development project revisions, alterations, or (;onditions
suggested during the ~reet\ifig pre~~m1n~;l'y l:eview process shall
be voluntary. Failure to comply with any such revisions,
alt.erations, or conditions shall not affect consideration of tlw
proj ect" by the City.
Cb) Nothing in these procedures is intended j nor shall
any provision be construed I to constitute r permit or result in any
binding determination of the rights, interestB j or entitlement.s of
the City r project proponent, or any interested person with respect
to a development project upon which ~ prel~inary revi~w
is conducted.
(c) Development proj ect !3resereening preliminary ,r~view
shall be without prejudice to the ability of the' City, project
proponent, or any interested person to proceed with a development
project in any manner, notwithstanding any suggested revisions,
alterations, or conditions,
Cd) Whon ~ifig preliminary review has been
initiated I a project proponent shall have the right to withdraw a
4
. ~,
developm<2mt pr.oject application at any time before commencement of
a public hearing on the first discretionary permit, license, or
entitlemetlt for· the proJ'ect.. Such withdrawal shall be without
prejudice to the project. proponent's ability to re-apply fol..' the
same or a substantially similar development project at a future
date, subject to the regulations, standards, and policies in effect
upon re·application. Upon auch withdrawal, the City shall refund
any application processing depOSits to the project proponent which
have not yet been expended.
~N~. The Council finds that this ordinance can be
seen with certainty to have no possible environmental effects, and
upon that basis finds that it is exempt from the California
Bnvironmental Quality Act.
JLEcrrON 3.
commencement of the
adoption.
IN'l'RODUCBD:
PASSEm~
AYES:
NOBS:
ABSENT:
ADS TENT roRS :
ATI'SST:
CIty Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
~26 Ite 0050221
This ordinancf) shall be effective
thirty-first day after the date
5
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
COfOOlunity Environment
on
of
the
its
Mar<h 4, 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, California
Members of the Commission:
' •• <
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
011 Janllary 18, 1994, the City council unanimously approved Ibe following motion:
MOTION: Council Member Rosenbaum moved, seconded by Simitian,
that staff be directed to develop preliminary screening proe<dures for
del'clopment projects that involve zone cbange~, Comprehensive Plan
amendmenl~ or major altt':Nltions or expansions of ex.istiDg historical uses.
Tbe pu rpose of th~e procedure~ is to develop a mechanism for Council and
the public to make nonbinding comments on development proposals at an
early stage in the process. Further, that the procedures be reviewed by the
Planning Commission prior to returning 10 the Council.
~ eil)' Auomey's Omce bas prepared the auached ordinance establishing a
prescreening process as part of the City's zoning regulations. An i!lltial draft ordinance
was circulated by the City Attorney's Office to local developers, wilb a copy placed in
the Cil)' Council packet as an infoffilation Hem. No comments have been receiVed.
On reviewing the initial dtaft ordinance circulated by Ibe City Attorney's Office, staff
suggested including an)' CEQA initial studies for review during the proc~s. In addition,
staff suggested limiting the types of projects to which pr~creening may apply, in order
to assure that unusual projects --referred to by one Council Member as projects "which
don't fit the box" -receive the most aUentLon from this lime-consuming process. These
changes hal'e been incorporated.
The procedures envision an initial Planning Commission study session followed by a City
Council study session, or a joint study session of the Council with the Planning
Commission and/or any other City boards, conullissions or committees identified by
. ~, .
6
\
·, . . :-, '.:",;,'
. "_''''~'';':'!_'~:''''_''~'~~'''''r.~ri..~~i&t-:.;.-,"_.,
o
Coundl. The purpose of the srudy sessions would be to talee public comment on
development .projeclS and 10 provide elecled and appoinled official conunent to the
applicant. These sessions would be voluntary, and the commenls made would be non
binding. 11>. purpose of prcs<Icening is no! to resolve the merits of a project early, bUI
10 provide guidan« and oommenlary that may kad to improved process and projects
before rLMI dedsionmaking.
The mail! benefit of pres<r~ning will be 10 prol'ide a public opportunity f(lf community
involl'emenl al ~n earlier stage in the del'clopment process than usually occurs. This
should eocourage and fadiilat. discussion and resolullon of City and neighborhood
COIl'".tms and issues. In turn, this l'r<>oess should lead 10 development projects that arc
more respoLlSive 10 City and neighborhood concerns, with those oollCerns hemg identified
carlier ill the process. Early idenlificalion of such COrKcms should make dev<lopmcnt
proce.sing more efr",;.nt (rom bod, Irme and expense viewpornlS.
RECOMMENR.1.JIClli
Staffrewmmends that the Planning Commission recommeoo 10 the City Council.doption
oftbe al1ached Oldrnance,
Respe<!fully submilled,
;f;,f1tff~ 7f: Yd~
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Dlrccwr of Planning and
Community EnI'ironmenl
Att&chment: Ordlnance
ce:' Archilectural Review Board
Hls,loric Resources Board
J·4·94
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THB COUNCIL oF'i'ilETITY OF PALO ALTO
ADDING CHAPTER 18.97 TO TITLE 18 (ZONING) OF THE
PALO ALTO MU"NICIPAL CODE RRI.A'£ING TO PROC&DURBS
FOR THE CONDUCT OF PRllLIMlNAAY DBVBLOPMENT PROJECT
SCRBENING STUDY SESSIONS
WHEREAS, the Planning COtrmission, after a duly noticed
public hearing held on March 9, 1994~ has rec~nded that Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Munici~l Code be amend~ a8 her~inafter
flet forth; and
WHEREAS, the
enable non-binding
project.s; and
City Council desires to e8tablieh a process to
preliminary review of certain devclopme'nt
WlIERBAS, the City Council finds and doteminoa that these
procedures will facilitate orderly developtnent consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan by providing an opportunity tor the public and
proj ect proponents to provide corm-.ents on proposed dcveloprr,ent
projects at an early stage ill the process; and
WHEREAS. the City Council finds zmd deter:minea that by
providing an opportunity for preliminary review~ more efficient
public and private investment decisions 'Will result due: to the
greater level of factual information available to, the public and
project proponent as a result of the pre:liminary l'evie ... ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that
preliminary review will also encourage project proponento and tho
public to develop independent public forums and mechanhm.s for
resolviug land use concerns, thus mlnimi7.ing th~ time-and expense
associated with City review of development projects; and
WHRRRAS, the City Council intends that t.heRe procedures be
implemented in a manner consistent with and supplemental to
statutory and constitutional law governing the processing of
development projects; and'
W}tBRF'A~, the City Council has determined that theae
prQcedures are neces9ary and desirable to protect the health,
safety and general welfare of current and future residents of the
City of Palo Alto; and
WHBRRAS, the City Council has detet:lllined t.hat these
procedu'res are Ilecessary and desirable to assist in implementation
of the City's comprehensive plan and adopted .specific plans.
NOW, THBRBFORB, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
l!!lcrJJl1L),. Chapter 18.9'1 is hereby added to Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
1
. '-.,
o
PRELIMINARY Dl!VELOPMEN'I' PRone'!' SCREENING PP.OCEDllRBS
Section 18.97.010
Section 18.97.020
Section 10.97.030
Section 18.97.040
Section 10.97.050
Section 18.97.060
Purposes.
Supplemental Procedures.
Applicability and Initiation.
Prescreening Review.
Pre screening Public Study Session
Procedure.
Voluntary Compl.iance.
18. 97. 010 Purp~selC. This chapter estabU.shes procedures
for preliminary screening of development projects ("prescreening·).
This chapter is intended to achieve, and shall be implemented to
accomplish. the following purposes:
fa) To maximize opportunities for meaningful public
discussion of development projects, at the earliest feasible time,
for the guidance of the public, project proponents and City
decision makers.
(b) To focus public and envirorunental review of
development projects on the issues of greatest significance to the
c;ornmunity, including, but not limited to, planning COnCel"nS,
neighborhood compatibility, comprehensive plan consistency,
economics, social costs and benefits, fiscal costs and benefits,
technological factors, and legal issues. These procedures are not
intended to permit or foreclose debate on the merits of approval Ok."
disapproval of any given development project.
(c) To provide members of the public with the
opportunity to obtain early information about development pt:ojects
in which they may have an interest.
(d) To provIde project proponents with the opportunity
to obtain early, non-binding preliminary cortU'tlE?'nts on development
proje'cts to encourage, sound and efficient private decisions about
how to proceed.
(e) To encourage early communication between elect.ed and
appointed public officials and staff with respect to the
implementation of City policies, standards, and regulations 011
particular development projects.
(fl To facilitate orderly and consistent implementation
the City's comprehensive plan and development regulations.
Section 18.97.020 Supplemental Procedures. These
procedures are $~JPpleme-ntal to any ot.her authority under ~tate or
local la..... which permits preliminary screening of development
projects, including, but not limited tOr the California
BnvironIllental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 2.1000, .§.t
2
"
\
,
l ,
I
.. :" .
ll~., and the State Plann:iog and Zoning La"", Government Code
•• ctlon 65000, ~~ ~,
Seot.ion·18,97.030 Applicilbility alld Initiation. (a)
These proceduL'e~ may be applied to the following types of
development projocts:
{l) Substantial zoning regulation or dtstrict map
c}Jange pr.oposalsi
{2) Compreheusive Plan Amendments. including specific
plans;
(3) Any other development project, or permit or
entitlement application, involving a major
alteration or expansion of existing or historical
uses, which implicates major land use or other
policy or planning concerns.
(b) Development project prescreening may be :initiated by
motion of the City Council, or upon request of t,he city manager or
project proponent with the concurrence of the City Council, at any
tlne after the City has received a development project application
and before th~ development project. is noticed for public hearing on
the merits of the application, if any is required.
ec) The City may from time to time establish application
forms, submittal requirements, fees, and such other. requiremento,
guidelines and infonnal regulations as will aid in the efficient
implementation of these procedures.
Section 1.8.97. o 4 {'I presoree.ning RevieW. (a) Upon
initiation as pt"ovided in Section 11;1.97.030. one or more noticed
public study sessions will be held to solicit comments ~'hich will
aid in accomplishing the purposes of these procedures.
(b) The noticed public study session will be conducted
by the Planning Commission initially or independently, by the City
council, or as a joint meeting of the City Council and Plarming
convnission, or as a joint meeting of the City Council and any other
City boards. convniasions or conunittees whose participation is
deemed desirable by the City Council. Unless directed ot.herwise by
the City Council, the Plau ..... .ling CO[T1ffiission shall conduct a study
session on all prescreening matters and forward its comments to the
City Counoil.
(c) Notice of the study session and the opportunity for
public pa.rticipation shall be provided in the same nlanner as may be
required by law for action on the underlying development project
appHcation,
review.
(d) No formal action may be taken during prescreening
Se~tloll 18.97.050 Prescrcening Public Study Sesaion
Procedure. (a) Prescreening study sessions may be conducted in
any l'I'.anner deeml~d appropriate by the City Council.
3
, . ~
. ,
\
I
,j
.,' , :., ,,',
__ '~:'-''''-vl>'>:''.~~~1.v:-,'¥'';''1~ic.:·r~~~--.,u.~",~>.i:~n.~:';
o o
(b) City staff will prepare a Slwnary outline of the
proposed project which highlights any information relevant to Lhe
purposes 1df-~nt1fied in Section 10.91.010 1 including but not limited
to any initial s,tudy pl"epared (or the project. In addition, the
project proponent or any interested person may provide oral or
written comnents consistent with the purposes of these procedures
du~in9 a pres~reening sLudy seasion. S\lbae<j1Jent city staff reports
on development projecto which have been subject to prescreetling
shoi.lld surftMri ze an~' coomcnts made during the process.
(c) Prescreening study sessions shall not be for the
purposn of taking' evidence 'With respect to a development project.
Neit-her the City Council~ nor any City hoard, commission.
comnltt.ee, or staff person may rely upon information obtained or
c~nts l'l"ade d\n:lng the prescreening process for any final
d~ci6ion, unless such information or co.TI"nents at"e re-introc:1uced
during a subseque11t 'noticed public heal"ir.g on the merits of the
develop~ent project.
Seotion 18.97.060 Volunt.ary CQ~li.allce ~ {al Compliance
with any dev€'~op*nt project revisions, alterations, or conditions
fHlggested during the pl"€!scrt!'ening process shall be voluntary.
Pailure to cO!nply 'lrJith any Buch revisions, aJ.teration8~ or
conditions shall not affect considel:ation of t.he project by the
City.
(b) Nothing 1n these procedures is intended, nor shall
any provision be cOnfltnled, to constitute, permit or reU\llt in any
binding detelmination of the rights, interests, or entitlements of
the City, pl."oject propom;mt, or any interested person with :t':espect to a development project upon which preacreening is conducted.
(c) Development project. pref:lcreening Shall be without
prejudice to the ability of the CitYI project proponent, or any
.interested person to proceed with a development project in any
lr.anner~ notwithstanding any suggested revisions, alterations, or
c<>nditio" •.
(d) When prescrE:ening has been initiated, a project
proponent .;hall have the right to withdraw a development project
application at any ti~~ before commencement of a public hearing on
the firat discretionary permit, license, or entitlement for the
project. Such withdrawal shall be without prejudice to the project
pl'oponent''S ability to re·apply for the sam!? or a substantially
similar development project at a future date, subject to the
regulations, 8tandards, and policies in effect upon re·application.
Upon such withdrawal~ the City shall refund any application
processing deposits to the project. proponent whiCh have not yet
been expended.
"SJI~tI.QlL.2, 'the Council finds that this ordinance can be
SQen with cert~lnty to hav~ no possible environmental effects, and
upon that basie finds that it is exempt from the Calitornia
Environmental Quality Act.
4
,'-,""'"
""
.,'-"
",,' .
SECTION 3.
commencement of the
adoption.
INTRODlTCBD:
PA.9SBD:
AYIlS:
NOI!S,
ABSBNT:
ABSTBNTIONS :
ATTEST:
Ci ty C"il;-;e;;r"'k---
APPROVED AS TC FORM:
cfrY-Attorney
This ordinance sh.ll be effective
thirty-first day after the dote
on
of
the
its
5
APPROVBD:
Mayor-------.. --~-~---~-------
filrecto-r-OI-pIannlngan-d---
Corr.;nunity E'nvironmnnt
PUBLIC, HEARING
AGENDA ITEM 6
"'".
.':." ,"
EXCERPT Planning Commission
Minutes of Barch 9, 1994.
City CounCil D.ve1opment Project Pre screening Process:
Zoning ordinance amendment to allow the City Council to
conduct public pl'escreenin9 of cerhin deve10PDli'nt
03/09/94
-14-
o o
projects in advance of other required entitlement
hearillgs.
Chairperson Schmjdt; Are there additional comments from the staff?
Mr. Schreiber: By way of a little introduction, this item really has
germinated out of several issues that have come to the council that have
generated a sense that it would be appropriate to have a prescreening
process, r.ther th,n putting applicants In the position of only being able
to get to the Planning Commission and City Council by filing a full
application. last year, we spenrl a great deal of ttm~ pr~cessing lho
Hamilton project .t Middlefield and Hamilton Avenue. Commissioners who
were Involved in that will remember the difficulty of that initial
application, wh1c~ raised maj~r policy iss~es, yet uncertainty in terms of
where It should go .nd how that process should be handled. The applicant
had to file the full Planned Co""oity zone app1 ieation h ord,,· to get a
hearing at .ny level at all. The ooly way to get the policy issues to the
City Council wa~ for the Planning Commission to deny the application.
Since that time, we have work€d internally and with the Planning
Comrnission with the idea of trying to use the Planned Community zone
proc~ss in a way tnat is closer to the original intention 1 instead of the
way it has evolved over the course of years. That would oe to have the
initial Planning (ommiss1on revi~w be a much more conceptual review,
rather than the detailed review that has developed over the past 15 or 20
years. Even wlt~ that process, you are stlll putting an applicant in the
POSiti{Hl of needing to file some considerable information. The suggestion
before you, the recommendation from staff, again c~me out of council
discussion. The council discussion that trlgg,,·.d this was 753 Alma
Street and the possible development of lhat sHe wlth • singl e-room
occupancy hotel facility.
The prOtflSS that the council asked us to pursue was to find a way for
applicants with projects that particularly "don't fit the box~ and involve
some significant regulation or policy change to get a reading of
commission and council views on their project prior to entering into
~etailed design and fotmallzing or locking into some kind of (oncept that
they th.n feel a neeessity for carrying through the process in a formal way.
There are two amendments that are clarification amendments at your places
tonight, prepared by the cHy attorn.y'~ office. They should be
incorporated in the 'recOl'Mlend3tion appro~1ng this item.
Chairperson Sdmidt: I have several questions for staff. What is the
difference between an application in this suggest~d process versus the
application that The ~IClrnllton did. i.e., the current application process?
Mr. Schreiber; The best comparison 1 can draW' (and Nancy lytle may want
to join in on this) is the Architectural Review Board process wher~ we
haye had in place for a number of years a preliminary application. An
upplicant can come in with a site plan, with g~neral concepts 1 and talk
with the ARB, not getting any Approval, not getting any formal co~~ents by
way of conditions, etc., but just talk with the ARB and their conce,'ns
about the site) ~et their vjews about relationships to adjacent
properties. height. hulk, whatever,is ~f concern to beth the applicant
03/09/94
-15-
\
.,.
~nd/or the AR8.
What It does Is to provide the applicant with direction. He doesn't have
to follow It, but the applicant hears the concerns that arc raised before
the applicant has expended time and money 0" detailed engineering or
.rchitectural "wk. In this p,·ccess, II\)' sense is that the same type of
thing could happen. The Issue may be access to a particular stl·eet, or it
~ be • change which would involve new circulation issues. It may be
height Or perhaps a change in use, a change in plan deSignation. The
~aterl.l that is submitted by the applicant may be as simple as a site
plan with a project description saying that to Implement this particular
project, We need to change the Comprehensive Plan from an A to a B
classification, and I would li~. Input on the feasibility of changing the
Ce»prehenslve Plan from A to 8, and what the concerns are.
At that point in time, you have an application in a very preliminary way.
From there, the applicant can e'ther drop the issue or move toward a more
form;)l process.
tb.a.i.u>..tt.$.91L~: lhe ordinance, as .nOw w<lroed, says·, .. at any time
after the eity has received a development project appl ie.tion" (on Page 3
of the ardinance), so it seems 1 ike there has ta be some sort of formal
application before th1s can happen. So it would be a s1mplified
app11catJon process? Further down, tt says t~at ·Th€ c1ty may, from time
to tfme~ establish application fo~s, submittal requ1rements~ fees and
such other requirements ... • I wondered 1f that needs to be clarified,
saying that you ~ll1 have some SGrt of application,
Hs. Lytlg: If V.e process th,t Ken Is describing is to be developed, then
what needs to accompany this ordinance to the council is a fee amendment~
setting up a separate applicat10n fee and submittal requirements. The way
the draft ordinance reads right now, you have to be an applicant to
request this prescreening, So that would need to be amended. I think, to
reflect Ken's concept~
Hr. Scbrelbi[: We normally requ1re applications, before getting
processed, to be complete. In this case, my sense is that we would be
sending forw"d technically 'Incomplete" appllcation •. A complete
appllc.tion noods to have the environment.l reylew and all the detail wfth
H. 1 would think that what we are talking about here is a very
preliminary type of application. It would not qualify for the l.ter
pTo~ess., whatever that process might be .• ~· a plan change, a Planned
Comrn~n1ty lone, whatever. But it would be enough to allow c~mmission and
council and staff to get a sense of what the kay issues are.
lU~: 1 feel tnat Uiat point needs to be clarified by the corrvnission
in their d'scu.sion as to what they want. The way the draft ordln.nce
reads now sounds much more formal, and it does , in fact, sound like it
would ~e subject to the .• treamlining act. So to the extent that the
commission would 1 ike it to be more akin to the preliminary rev,ew by the
ARB, I think th.t needs to be made very clear so that the draft ordinanco
can be modified 1n • w.y to make it clear th.t that is your intent. I
believe that the way I read the ordinance now, it is much m~re formal than
that. It is actually someone who has filed an application and who, if not
for this process. w~uld get their application heard in the normal process.
03/09/94
-16·
"
..
t,
I
i
I ,_ j
!
I
j
..
. \' .,' , :....~~~ .. ~~~~;.-i'i.,:~f,-;H~-'_ t:d1>K~_;;.;!-j.:.:..~:,-_
i, .
o
thii1f?TSOO ~S: In the sl~rf report, it states -These sessions would
b. vo untary, and.t~. c~n!' .ad. would be nonbinding.' Th.n In t.e
ordinance. Page 3. Settlon 18.91.030(b). It says. 'Dovelop.en! project
prescreenlng oay be Initiated by ~t\on of the City Councilor upon
requ •• t of the elty .. nag.r or project propon.nt .ith the concurrence of
the CnyCouneil.' It .tll1 says that based on what happenS th ..... the
proje.ct proponent can accept, volunta:l'lly, or not ac<:e~tl or wh3t~yer they
want. Ther. IS nothing binding cooing out of It. I was wondering If that
~.ns the process Is voluntary? If the {lty Council .ant.d to review
thh, could the project. proponent uy, no, ] am not Interested In this
pre>cr.enlng?
lli...J:.ill' ! have spoken with the author of thl s dr.ft ordinance. and I
think (he Ide •. that t~e council would act on Its own Initiative .Ithout
getting a boost fr"" the project proponeht never entered his mind. So he
did not re.lly think of that .cenarlo. and th.t I. why we have suggested a
changtl' that 'k'ould' S!l)' that the project proponerlt 'Would ha\'& to CfJnCilr l as
well. If t~. City Coundl wEI'e inltlatln9 t~e request. It does M.ke
st!nse, espHlal)y If t~e protess: ends up th~t this -extra proc~ss would
also bE' soocetMng thC' project proponent would be paying for. Jt makes
sense that they shl}uld have s~e say as "to whether we would have tMs
process.
~Q,Q.ill.a.!gMr ..... hluJ.e.r: I need sorn~ legal advice, so 1 would ask the
attorney. suppose so;r..eone w~re to cOloe berore us, .and whi 1~ no fOYmal vote
of any kind would be taken. there 'Would be substinUal i"dication both on
the part of the Plannln9 (o.ml"ioo and t~e City Council that a project
simil.r to the ones being discussed In this prescreenlng process would be
appro't'\!d. For whatever set of r.eHons, when the project came before us,
It was denied. Is the ... any leg.1 or fln,ncial liability th.t w. mlgh!
Incur I despite the fact that no formal vote was taken.
ML~~: ~e f •• 1 pretty confident. with all the disclaimers .e have put
in here onder Section 18.9J.~60t that the c~unc11 or,c~~~lss1on could
blSfcall), reverSe Itself wit~oul I lability. Under the law of vested
rights. you are pretty ""ch open to the reasonable whims of t~ •• g.ncy
"otll you 9.el your bunding pe""lt.
~ioner ~chJ.nl;, Can you explain a little further how.e deal with
this being an application. but it is going to be called something else.
because If It were a co>pl.te application. which Is what it would need to
be in order to be heard by people. we would have to t.ke some kind of
'ction within six ~<nths. How are w. going to deal with that requlrem.nt?
~~~: If wh.t is Intended is s~'~thin9 ll~e the ARB preliminary
review. I think th.t words to that effect, that It is preliminary and that
it is not subject to the streaml inlng act. we would probably .anl to put
language like that in ther.. The w.y it Is written now. it seems to Imply
that that process would b. included within the streamlining .ct. I h.v.
no idea If t~,t was intended or t~ought about. frankly.
~.QITmi:ut.9l1J~r.~jrr..<t"t,£!2: J have a Quest10n for Sue. Would this preliminary
meetin9 ha,e the same kind of puoHc Input as we would have In a public
lwari ng?
H1..!...Call.: Under the Br(.own A.ct as it will be, starting April 1st, ellery
03/09/94
.]7.
• r'"
; ,
Item on which action Is going to be t.ken must allow public testimony.
This specifically says that there Nll1 be no action taken, so legally, you
would not have to, My sense Is that the city llk.s to encour,ge public
Input, and I would also assume that an applicant might want to g.t all of
the Input up front, but I may be wrong on that. lherefore, J do not s"
any problem with It. Legally, you would not have to.
~Schr.lber: Pleas. not. that we are not talking about a Planning
Conmlsslon or City Council meeting In the no .... 'l s.ns. of that ter... W.
ar. talking about a study session. City Council study session" which ,re
held more often thin Planning C~ls'lon study s.sslons, or even joint
City Council/Planning Commission study sessions, II they have ~Inut.s at
.11 (an~ they usually do not), they would have lhe most su ... ry not.,.
The me.tlng Is for putposes of discussiOn, not for purpose of any ootlon.
So that Is why the thinking was to have the review as p.rt of • study
session, when Hr. Calonne put this t0getner, rather tha~ as a ~arl of a
foro,l me.tlng, with the minutes and all of the foro.l~ty that goes with.
formal meeting, That conveys ~re pe~a"en(e to the co~~nt$ and
ObS3:fvations, and can lead one to conclude that acticil Is b~ifl9 taken 0)'
I, Implied. We want to .vold that. Ther. will b, nO ~tlons, no
reeomendatlons to the City Counef!, If 'this coroes to the Phnning
Corrrntssion. There will be (aments: t{l thi! (ounel I, which 'h'o-uld be
indhidual COiMl1ssi{ln~r tOlmlents, and out of that Jri4Y c",-erge a: consensus
or difference of opinion, etc. But it Is our sense that it h'ould not
involve a for~lilIl reco;rm~ndat1on.
Also ple"e note that this would not be .ccOo,panled by the tradltlon.l
stoff report. Stoff would prep.r. an outline of the po'opo"l, but not a
detailed .nalysls of the propos.l. ~. would highlight the Issue or issu.,
that .re gen.r.tlng this, but thero would not be , long detailed ,",lysis
and environmental review and all the other 1tufr you are used ta seeing
wHh an 1Iem, Again, we would not hav, the full project on which \0 do
th.t. The ide. is th.t this Is not, regul.r application: It 1$ not a
full project.
Chairperson Schmidt: K~n, did you say tnat a study session dv~s not ha~e
offic1al mlnut.s, so there Is no official record of this? Is th,t
correct?
Mr, Schreiber; That Is certainly the st,ndard operating procedure. You
had a retreat, which is a form of study s~ss1on. out 1t was noticed as a
meeting. Even there, you had very short minutes. lIorm.lly, If you have a
Planning COil'lllission/Clty Council study ~e5s1Qn, there are nG m1nutes from
th.t.
CO[t!j1 SS;ODer Ohkw.; Ha'oling heard what yew just said. Ken, and having
sat In on $ome counci1/c(){MIiss,1on study sessions in the past, there ts; a
little bit of • difference that I am senSing her.. That Is th,t the
,pplicant Is going to leave wi tn sooe sense that they should go forward
with tbeir project. Is that true? Or perh.ps not g, forward with theh'
pYojeet, on the other side of the coin.
Mr. Schreiber: I think what the applicant Is expected to leave with .re
the conwnents 'lnd observations of the decisionrnakers involved in that
process, whether it be a Planning C~mmission meeting, City Council
meeting, a joint meeting, or whatever. The ide~ here is that th~
, '
03/09/94
-18·
\
., \" .-.
o o
applicant will need to make .n .ssessment of those comments. Thoy may
find that the decisionmakers are In disagreement, as you did with The
Hamilton project I for example. Sorr~ commissioners, in denying the
project, said, we really think this Is • good project, and to get it
hefore the City Councll, I ~1I1 vote to d,"y It. Other coomissioners
said, I don't thin, this is a good project at .11. It Violates this
policy and that policy, and I vote to deny it) because I really want this
project denied. But if you didn't h.ve the minutes, you could try and
pick tip Oil 'What the issues are in that. discussion. Again, it is up to the
applicant to use that information as t'ie deems appropl'iate. There is a
section in here on voluntary compliance. lnat is 1n here on purpose,
There is no expectation that the appllc.ant is going to necessarily follOW
something, or If they follow something, th.t they are going to get .n
approval.
CWfTlissioner Glazier: What Is the benefit of this to a potential
developer? When you get right down to It, if plans are very prel~mlnary,
perhaps it is unwise for a potenti.l developer to take what might be a
very political isstle and make it political sooner rather t~iClO later,
giving forces the opport~nity to rally s~pport against it, especially when
you have the alternative {If talking privately tD some key decisionmolkt!rs)
opinion leaders, etc" who are tn publiC bodies, People do that all the
time, and it Is a perfect1y legitimate process for input. As written ~ere
in this proposed amendment, it looks like a 900d jdea~ but frankly. r
think about the people who do ·out of the box· dev,lopments like Jim Baer
and ChDP Keenan, and If J 'Were to scratch my h~ad and g~ess fight nO~1 I
would say probably none of tn~m would want to do this. They have quieter,
more eff.ctive ch.nnels th.t don't play their hand In such a public way.
Is this. feeling that you share, or Is It just my n.tural cyniCism coming
forth?
'~r. Schrejber: Clearly, over the course of yeal'S, there have been various
rep~at Rpp11cants who have da~eloped, through thelr knowledge of the
system, their knowledge of the reguhtioflS and (amiJ iarity with the people
involved in the decis10nmaking process, a very finely attuned sense of now
to evaluate the likely success or failure of a p~rticijlar proposal, They
ar. not always right, but th.y do have that sens.. W. are faced with
other applicants who are perhaps into the process f(l1' the first tim?, or
maybe seldom gets into the process, who really do not have the sense of
how to get a reading on a project. They then come to staff asking, how do
we get a reading on the project? On. of the probl.ms that staff is faced
wit" is th.t that can put us Into a position of second guessing the
commission .nd council. We do not 11k. ·to do that. We want to try and
focus on policies, etc. If you focus on adopted policies and tne project
inherently would require a change in policy, that then leaves the
applicant wondering just 'What are his chances of success, The way the
process now works I they can fi1e an application; they can gc off and talk
to some collection of dec;sionmakers and try to get a reading in one-on·
one or one-on-two types of conversati{lns, lhe effort here would be to try
and provide a process where there is a much more public, op~n discussion
of that, the public can get into that pl'ocess, So J thiflk this is a
positive addition to the process. We ",ould h'int to try and steer people
into that, rather than telling them that you can either file an
application or you can just go off and talk to people.
~ssioner Glazier: That is a good explanation, but J guess J still
03/09/94
-19-
\
b.lieve that a lot of tha familiar d.velopers probably wfll ,tfll choose
not to us. thfs, but ff the only thing ft does is to provide an
opportunity for other folks to get a bett.r reading, I thfnk it fs useful.
~~: To follow up a lfttle on that. a critical thing that will
hopefully b. occurring also, that may minimize this process, is that if w.
can modify the way in whfch Planned COlllllunity lones are treated so that
they go back to the way in whfch the ordinance was originally intended,
which was that the fnltial Planning Commissfon review was conceptual,
follo~ed by an ARB ravf.w, and then the detail was all developed. Then
the detail cam. b.ck to tha Planning CommissiOn, and it then went on to
the City Council.
The way the process has evolved over at least 20 years fs that in the
first line review. w~ich Is the Planning Commfssion review, your
predecessors nave 1ncre~ental1y pyshed the level of information expected
of applicants higher and hfgher and hfgher, to the point where the plans
going to the ARB are essentially the same plans that come to the Planning
Commissi~n. That is a lot of wGrk j and for something that may not fly, it
(an be a very major investment.
If we can get the PC process back, that will provide another alternative,
but again, with the PC process, the problem there fs that the only way to
get. Cfty Council reading is for the Planning C,rrmission to deny. That
som€t1rn~s puts you into a strange sltuation of endorsing a project and
yotlng to deny. That is a lfttle strange for both the public and the
a,plicant to understand.
QLajroerson Schmidt: The staff report notes th.t this ordinance was
distributed for review to the development community, and that no comments
have been received. Is that still true, or have some coments come back?
~~: The only one J am aware of fs that Steve Play.r called, with
the clarifications that J offered. from his point of View and reading, he
endorsed it in concept.
Ch.irperson Sth~: J will now open the public hearing, and J believe
the entfre audience lIould like to speak on this item tonIght! That
consists of three people.
Trjtl. Ward-Dolka,. 41? EVerat! Street. pal. Alto: My co"",ents on thf s
are primarily from the perspective of b.lng a member of the Comprehensive
Plan Advfsory Committee (CPAC) and being a member on the subcommittee of
CPAC that fs dealing with governance and Iss",s. This came to our
att .. tion In.dvertently last week. Sue Sucher found it and distributed it
to all of us on the subcollY11ittee. Basically, I think we are at a point
with the ideas that there is a very strong ground1ng and strong basts of
support across various groups In CPAC to go forwa~ with a pr~cess ~nd
implement a pl'Gc.ess as part of the Comprehensive Pl an that w~uld, in
spir··it. be very simil ar to what is being proposed here, but in
practica11ty, could be very different. My concern is that if you act on
this and take this forward, how do we thon bring the two together? The
ideas are evolvfng, and certainly are focused on the idea of a
facilitated, impartial process to encourage early comment ~n proj€cts on
the part of the publ ie and develop ... and to have more of a bralnsto,·mfng
environment where people who own the concerns and people who own the
.,:~, "
03/09/94
-20-
<., '
" 4 . ',;._;,:', ~'J
.:,
;
I
I
I
\
o o
Intere,t can g.t tog.t~.r and find the 'olutions themselves without
necess.rlly r.lylng on the declsionmakers to •• ke the decision for th.m.
So philosophically, [ tllink our group Is heading in a little bit of a
dlff.rent direction from what this is, with. similar objective but maybe
lopl ... nted differently.
J ~~ also concerned t~at (PAC was not routed on this as another group to
review this docu .. nt. It really happened Inadvertently. I would hop.
th,t because or the CPAC meetings and actlyltles planned over the next two
month, th.t we ta'. this as an opportunity to have the staff who I,
supporting CPAC, and CPAC work on this together to figure out som.thlng
"th.t "Ight blelld these Ide., before It I> InHiat.d. Certainly, the
(~renel')s1Ye Phn will not be in phc!! for a nllmber of months or years)
and th$s could be put in place ~uch sooner, wh1,~ wouJd be an advantage to
ta~e an action on thIs. But J wc~ld strongly recommend t~at you not send
this to council and"th.t you give the opportunity we have of haying a
group Of yolunteer.s put their thoughts into It, along with staff and work.
tDgether on It. Those 'rre my coments.
~~mJ.~_t~j:.l!r..U .. &.2:: Can you sumarhe where CPAC is going verstJs where
t~I' Is goIng? I did not quite follow that.
HL_~ .. usl:..QQJk.u:: To date, I can surmarile f<lr yotl what we have come up
with as an Idea. It really ha, no! been distussed with the whole CPAC,
and J know that if) the month of March~ in our all-day session. it is going
to be one of the things that we want ev~rybody to loo~ at within the
section dlstuss1ons. So I am sure that the idea will evolve and change,
but as it stands now, It is the idea of having S{lme sort of irlfoNtlal
protess before an applicat~on is $utfflltted that would encourage the
citizens to kind of reeontlle their differences before the application is
~!de, as best they can, to have a process ~here you have representatives
of th~ 'Iarfol1s 1ntE:re~t groups. One ~'ould be the devel<lperj two would be
the neighbors; and three would be the city int.erests or the corrrnunitywide
Int.rests. Th. sugge,tlon Is that you have people of those three Interest
groups, p)us • c .. plately Independent facilitator. The Idea on the table
would be to use so.ething like the Mediation" Task force, wliich are trained
vol unte .. ers , having no spec1flc interest in the outcmlUh and are only
Interested in helping the group come to som< sort of clear understanding.
The idea would be that this facillt.tor would guide the group Into coming
up with a definitIon of a project th.t would maximize the common Interest
across the bo.rd. You would get a dialogue between the d."loper and the
neighbors. They both know that they need to try and come to an
agreoment. Then you have the citywide interest being represented by a
third volunteer, s~ .. advisQry group that would represent the city
Interest. It is also trying to take the other CPAC vision of trying to
g~t more and more volunteers t~ support the city and the city process. So
the Idea of volunteer1sm and encouraging that is the other aspect to
thIs. But It would not bypass .ny of the form. 1 process. It would just
be a way to try to resolve differences so that when tne application is
brought forward, ideally the neighbors and the appl ieant are saying, we
are ill agreemenl on this. Y{)l1 try to minimize the political cOlltrGllersy
or antago.nism.
~p~~is~lor.~~~~q: SG would you add another sectiQn here that says)
you must resolve neighborhood differences bef<lre you make the appl icatl<ln?
03j09jg4
-2J-
\
. " ., . i •
,1~: __ ~~':'~~~''''''''·''':'':':~~·:='''o.(,'''''~-/·
I!~, Wan!·QolkU: I don't think you are ever going to resolve .11 of the
differences, The key thing is th.t these three Interests need to coma to
a definition that .a~I.lzes the common interests across those three
Interest groups. We ore not looking to COlOe to consensus or 'gr.e""nl In
all cas.s, but to .. xl~iz. the c~n Interest, .nd that It be dono by the.
people who own the propos.l, It Is not th.t we .re trying to set policy,
Certainly, the couneil and c~lsston ~re here to ~a~e po11cy. Where
people have an opinion that Is not ne,ess.rlly based on policy, it would
give th .. th.t opportunity. to 9,t tho>. opinions out .nd resolve them.
tl>~ISSlone[J;A!.Ull.Q: I Vol stili not uMerHondlng the process he,·e.
"olld im.glne that you would say that the council \$ th.t body th.t
eventu.11y loo~.s 1I the broader c"", ... nlty Inter.,1> .nd resolves minor
dlffer~nc!$ 1n s~ cle~er'"ay. '
Ms. Ward·Qoltas: I think ,ou would .lso potentially have tne tounei)
appointing an advisory c~1ttee to rcpr~s~nt those CitywIde int@rests in
th1s kind of dlscuss1on. When Sue wa. talking about you possibly not
being .ble to vote on the Hldto'~ situation Is • little bit of .here we
get Into .... 'hat If council and' cG..'T-ltSS1<HI gel im.:oJved. they (annot vote on
thin.gs, In this ,,,,y; U YOli rave that sort of discussion, then mo!ybe "'"e
don't take away YOU)' abllHy to "iote on things.
tlillin.ILfr£lli!eI1!asl, ~~O~l~~!lJ:.5illll...£dJLAltQ: I am speaking
prlrnnlly as fxeclitive Director of the Palo Alto Hous!ng Corporation.
a~ not sure If everybody is a~dre of our being In the middle of t~is
pt'ocess. As Ken spoke, there have been many de'Yelopers who have expressed
an interest, and J hZlve worked fl'l m~IIY cities, and d~\lel(lpers have always
expressed an interest In getting early feedb,ck fro« pollcym.kel·s, or at
least a sense, or C~'Its.1 or a reaction, etc. flut thts aettJally came up
speclf1cal1y, and! thlnt .. as forwOJ'ded, because of a p,·ojec.t th.t "e are
possibly involved with at 753 AI". Stre.t. The cHy has an option to
purcha,e land there "Ithln ,year. We .antod to Coree forward with .n
application for a project. a~d the only process there Mas, because of its
being an S~O project and therefor., • different density, etc., was.
Planned Community zone. So we met with the ,t.ff, and we .11 concluded
th.t the process was. PC zone and that It probably was going to Involve
an envlronmental i~act report. ~e th~n needed to come forward to the
council w1th a bu~et, bec~us~ we art often fu~ded by ho~sing reserve
funds .,. CnaG funds, tho! kind ~f thing, to build .ffordable housln9. The
budget was In the neighborhood uf $300,000 plus an EJR. The council very
legltlm.tely said, Isn't there ,_ way that .. e can look at the poliCies
here, that is, Is this • sulh~l. site? What about the parking? What
about the land use? Without spending $300,000 to decide whether this
shou1d even go forward. A$ always, there was neighborhood opposition.
So J was not sure whether c&rnmlss10ners are generally aware of this being
part of this proposal. So It really geminated from a desire to reduce
process rather than to exparld precess, and to reduce costs rather than to
expand (osts. We certainly had no intention of byp.ssing any working with
neighborhoods or dealing "llh citIzens or tryln9 to reath con'ensu" but
there is a POifit at which you only r€concilE differ~nces ~hen you thr6W it
out th~re, and you get some reaction froIII the pcllcymakers, even though it
cannot be official and even thouQh it ls not an official action, etc. So
that is a little bit of background, although J am cert.ln th,t olher
developers hav~ expressed interest in this kind of a process, l{)o. because
c .• ~
. "',.
03/09/94
-22·
Ii
..
I
I
!
i
! I ~
,',
"
i
I
I
o
I know that they do.
I did .ctually send a FAX to the city .ttorney's office on February 22
with some comments. Vou have picked up on a couple of the co~nts that I
made. On. of them was In reference to the de"lopment project ap~IIcation
that you have asked about. I think that that, as written, does su9gest •
complete application in tenos of a permit streamlIning act. So if it Is.
full blown applicatIon, then the require~~nts may already be really hefty
for someone who simply wanted councIl feedhack that Is nonbindIng and
purely gratuitous. So It would be hoped th,t the planners would envI,ion
what the submittal requirements would be in this situatIon. It is • fine
line between re~uir1ng enough to comment on the proposal I dnd Ken is
right, prior planning c"",issions for year, and years hawe be.n v"'1
irritated when there wasn't enough informatIon for them to really dIg Into
something. but there is a ffne line betwsen enough and requiring so ~cn
that it really isn't worth 1t to the developer to get Into this prot.ss.
J have on. other small que.tion on Section 18.97.030(.)(3) where there Is
a reference to e.xisting Gr historical uses. I am assu~:'Iin9 that 1;t!3RS that
the use has been th~re nistoricallYt rather than its being historical in a
deSignated sense. Jf that is trlJe, H seel!ls sor...ewhat redundc.nt. You
don't have to say existirig or historical, btit H it Is not the casi!, then
if you LIse the word -hi storical," it seem~ a 1 ittle amb19uou~. r a&l
wondering if that means just like anything that we kind of think is
historical, or something th3t the city has actu~lly des1gnated as
historical. I am not involved in th3t issue, but H 1s sor:-.eUdng thOlt
came to my !Rind.
I hope that this process is of limIted utillly. I woul<1 not thInl you
would want to have a pr~cess that everyone \Jses with every project. You
would just then add potentially two or three lay.rs to the proce,.. But
think it 'Would be useful ir, sHuati<lns where t~ere are real policy
qup.stions. The PC zone has gotten to be very b19 and extraordinarily
expensive and long, just to kinda ask, Is this even possible in y~r
minds? So r think it wOLild be very useful in certain sittlations, o1nd
think perh.ps ours is one of those situations. I think it do" rlise
legal questions, but [ think it h.s been very carefully dr.ft€~, and I
would urge you not to spend many, many more mont~s having many, many ~~
co..rtnissions look at it, because there are some tricky Issues there, but
th~y have been fai rly carefully addressed, in my opinion, as far as the
legal concerns.
I ~a .... e one question in your new amendment, Sue, in the se~olld secUon
where it says, -The noticed public st~di session will be conducted solely
by the Plallning Co","ission or by the PlannIng Co""lssion Initially and
then by the City CounCil, or solely by the City Council." Oo.s that
antiCipate that the Pl aflilin9 COlMlission could be the only place-where this
hearing or!,study session or conversation occtJrs? Those are all my
corrments alia questions,.
Coml1lssion~~\ Cassel ~ Marlenc i you c(lrr{l1ented ear11er or someOM! else did
about gOing \,'ack to the old PC process, when it was really just a
prelimlnary re,',w. That does not gIve you an Oppo"'unIty to comment wIth
the City Councl'l or to do a study session with the ... Ity Council.
Ms. Prendergast: That is true. Sut it did afford an opporttJr):1ty to COiM
",. ,.
03/09/94
-23-
forward wH~ a much more preliminary conceptual kind of thing ."d .t 'Ie.st
get some reaetlon. But it didn't work very well, because people seemed to
want more information, in fatt, maybe thfs PrQC~SS won/t work that we)l
fo)' the same reason.
CqrnmissioDer Casse1: Wo~ld it be better to go back to the PC process as
it was originally conceived?
Ms. Prenderg.st: ~e1l,! think you are right that the desire, at least on
our part, is to get to the council however the process ~s designed, and 50' If th.re is just wild, negative reaction: Th.t Is • massage, or vice
versa. It does not preclude working wi th neighborhoods or .ny of that, I
don't think.
Cpmmiss10ner Glazier: Marlene, the group you represent Is a reasonably
savvy group, politically speaking. You have cont.cts with the approprlat.
opinion makers, and you can take readings on things. Subsidlzod housing
and affordable housing projects tend to have neighborhood oppOSition, as
you said. The quieter you can take a reading, the less antagonism or
pUDl ic opposition you can inspire eat'ly on in the process, probaDly the
better off yo~ are, because you can do y'our planning In a ratfonal
environmont, One would then think that I f you Hanted to take a reading at
the City Countil or Planning Com.ssion level, you would talk to people
p,'I"tely and do not do it in a public w.y, because then articles st,rt
appearing In the Palo Alto Weekly and In the San Jose Mercury Hews, and
all of a sudden, it gets to be a hl>t topiC) tnd emotions start, and 11 ll!iiY
get a bit out of control. Would you really want that to happen?
Ms. Prendergast: As a new developer in town, I look a little bit askance
at more process, and it is an odd thing for me to have thir~ posture, but
also really feel personally that <juiet readings somehow are tiDt good in
terms of the total process. Actually, quiet r~adings are ~hat seem to
enrage the press, even more than public confrontations. So although I
ta~e a deep breath and think, here we go into more process, it is batter
that we get it out there on the table, That is g~neral1y my approach.
Mr, Schreiber: To follow up On the quiet reading com.nt, having now been
In Palo Alto for almost 20 years, r still .m pleased and professionally
thrilled quite often as ! sit in the cha.bers and! watth the Planning
CO!!mission or the City Council grapple with a tough development issu., and
it is clear that the decis1on~ak-eI's are sorting out the issues and
".i9hln9 the publ ic com.nts and really •• klng up theil' minds, as Hike
Cobb would say, in real time. Th.y .re not w.lklng In with
preconceptions. So! think there is a major limit, whIch is very, VCl'Y
good and posHIY., on getting qui.t readings. The 1 imlt is that the
publit process in P.10 Alto works, The public input is impo.·tant. r con
think back to any number of 1 and use issues, some of them irw{llvin,g very
prominent indivldu,ls In this community, that didn't turn out the way that
they wanted, didn't turn out the way I expected it to go, and maybe didn/t
turn {Jut the way staff recommended 1 but the public dec;sionmaking process
unfoldad i~ a way that decisionmakers wcrked with each other, triggering
each otherls thoughts, and coalitions and combinations of decisionmakers
emerged during t~e cours. of the meeting.
Commi sSigner G1aziel': I concur wHh you that there; s no bac.k door
approach to making things happen in this city, of all cities. The public
03/09/94
·24-
\
0;)" •• _~,.~"': •• .,-,. ,'.,,-~_ >,' t~'lg~i::Di ..
,-".
. ~" ',;~ .-, .,'. .
'", '
',;,
,', \ , " -:'
.->.;.;:.....-!.''>' .. A*.·l';~ .. :'~~~~..;.~ ......... ~;;.., .... ~-,.
o
process is extraordinary, and perhaps "excl'uciatlng" might be one way for
davelopars to describe it, l. too, have been up here on s€vp.ral occasions
and .. ade deCisions in real time, and ! am sLire the City Councn does the
s.me thing. It is Just that In the cOlltext of this prescreenlng, there
are only limited things that are going to be addressed. We are not
talking In real tim. about condltioi1s; w. ar. not talking In real time
about specific envelopes, buildings, etc, lney just tend to be general
polley issues where opinions are expressed in a v~ry general sense. It is
not 11k. there Is anything s.cret that would happen during a quiet
readi09. It Is jusl that people hold opinions about certain polley
iS$up.s, and they can be addr€ssed in public sess10ns or CQuid also be
~ddressed in other ways that may be as effective for the purposes you are
interested in, not to make something happen but just to understand hnw
people ar. f.ellng.
thAirPersQn Sc~rnld1: Th. lasl ,pea~.r Is Herb Boroc~.
liti:b Bot<!ck. 273L,furon Street. palo Alto: I have a number of corrrnents,
The first is how I perceive t~at th1 s direction came from the council. At
least, In the case of 753 Alma Str •• t, and possibly also In the case of
the 8yxbee House, there was actually a two-stage process in t~e case of
7£3 Al~a, lhere was a Comprehensive PhOn change on whith tne council
spJ H 4-4, because so,'M' council IIlfmbers felt that some housing should bE:>
provided In exchange for a cnange in the C~m~rehensive Plan map. Between
the tl .. of that meeting and the meeting at which 7S3 AIm. came up, the
pUDlic hearing had been closed. So you had a situation Where Vicp. Mayor
Sfll1itfin now came forward with pros on 753 Alma, and nobody could speak to
It from the public. That would have be.n a good place to have som. sort
of cGn.ceptual d1s(uss1on perhaps, flow we have a similar case whic.h is
that two things are driving the process from the ho~s1ng corporation.
first 1$:, thel'e Is em option agreement, so thet'e is a time constraint on
when the housing corporation (an corne in with a proposal and get it all
done, So the housing corporation is mot1vated to do it in a hurry and try
to do eVfrythlng from the beginning, raUer than dOing it in stages. The
second Is that It !s • controv.rsial project that is probably going to
re<wlre an environmental impact report, in any case. So 1 f ; tis gOing to
go forward, that report is going to have to be made. So we have here a
speclffc problem for which a general law is b€ing written. I am not
certain that Is the best way to go.
The secon~ concern J ~,ave is tht'! broadening of t~e proposed ordinance
language, compared to the direction given staff an~ council. You can
compare the motion that was made by Councilmernbers Rosenbaum and Sim1tian
with tho text In Section 18.97.030. Th~ council direction referred only
to zon'e changes. Under Subsecti(Jn (1), it broadens that to incltJde zoning
regulations. The council direction referred only to Comprehensive Plan
amEndmellts. This has been broadened to include spetific plans. The
council direction referred anly to historical uses. In the co~text of the
council distussion, it was clearly referring to historical categDries.
The prop{)sed language inserted was the conl1J;!ctive "or'r so instead of
saying -existing historical uses,~ it now says *existing or historical
uses a and extenas it. So I belicv~ that it might be a good idea to go
back and try to get langu.ge that clearly tracks what it was that the
council direction had asked for.
Also] mentioned the Planned COrMlunity zone history, There have been
03/09/9~
·25·
".-• >" '
"-'.\'-',:-:~'~-,~.'
proposa1 s, 1 bel fevE: ft was three or four years ago, to have s<lme process
in the front of the eXi,ting, two·,tage PC process that is simil.r to what
Is here In this ordinance. At that tl .. , no one was told th.t applicants
were co.lng In xlth detailed, ,rehltectur.1 dr •• ings In the flr,t ,t.ge of
the process, "Tho idea 'Was that the preliminary process for pes, as ,
written In the code •• as not conceptual enough. lhey needed some other
protess, similar, r guess, to what Is. descl'ibed in this ordinance.
i under,hnd that the two· stage process of PC applications Is th.t there
will b •• first ,t.ge at the Planning CommiSSion, where It will go no
further, .t your option, so th.t the detailed, architectural drawings
would not h,"e to be done. 1hey would only h.ve to be done H It then
goos on to the Jl~8. let ~ give you .n ex.mple of what I think this
or<lln.nco Is talking .bout. let ... project It on the screen. 1hls Is
sOli:eth1ng: frM (OMissiMer Carrasco's dl'awlng, I 9U1BS I as an example of
HldtOlffi, K.ybe th!> 1s tho kind of Idea that perhaps staff or the
cO<Ris.lon can Indicate that Is what you think the council Is talking
about. Suppose s~one (:.a:~,e 'in under this ordinance with somethfng 1 ike
this? I. t~I' the Id.a? Is this the conc.pt th.t you 11k.? There ar.
not lois of details, but It .... nll.lly says, It might Involve some zone
changes .and f",ol'ing around of buildings, KOhl dD you feel abotit this? J
would think that the declslo,",kers would want to t.lk .bout th.t. In
fact, If .>'ou look at the ordfnan:e again, you will note that the council
direction wanted It to c~ just to the council. They w.nted the
dec1sionw~~ers to s~t fn t~e conteptuaJ st~ge to discuss these thin~$, yet
the dr.ft ordln.nce talk. about the Planning Commission as an and/or type
of hody revl.wlng It. So again, It Is dlffer.nt than what the direction
WH on tMs.
That Is on. propo,.1 for Hldtown. I could come in and say, the block
betw.en Horeno and Colorado on the e.st side of Hlddlefield should be
Neighborhood Co","rcl.l and everything else should be RH·IS, Is that
anoth,r e,.~ple of a concept",l propos. I that would fit within this
ordinance? Is that the l.vel of det.11 w. are talking about, or are "e
talkIng .bout sooethlng .1,.?
Ffnally, t hal'~ a legal concern and do not have the e~pertise to answer,
th.t Is, .hether or "ot you would want to lImit this to leglsl,tlve
decisIons <r,d exclude quasi-Judicial decl,lons. PCs are sort of a
hyb,·ld. It Is a slte·speclflc entltl.ment which you might think of ..
quasl·judlth), but It co.,., \lnder • legislatIVe ch,n9< that Is subject to
ref.rendum. 1h. Ide. Is whether this Is something that cau,es more
proble", If you do It for a quasl·judlclal decl,lon. Thank YOtl,
~ntlrPprs9n Scn~1d1: With that, I will close the public hearing and bring
this back to the (ommI3slon. Are there additional questions?
Comrnissloner_~tbln~: I don't feel 11k •• e have quite closed the g.p on
this Ques.tion of an application versus what we are actually going to be
dOing. Ooe, st.ff have ,ny ~re comments on that?
liL~UJl' It "ould be Interesting for me to hear what you would like.
'Ihen we can take It from lhere. You ne.d to tell us whether you .re
thinking .long the lines of what Ken was saying, which Is simi],,-to the
ARB preliminary process. That then take, you outside of the confines of
the permit streaml1nlng act. It requir .. less than what you would
"L',' "
'.,-.....
03/09/94
,l6·
-,
\ .,
_.:,
", . ,,}':;':':',',;, :
,:~f,i,i~it~lr" __ "Lv=~" ..
o o
consider. compl";e .pplk.tfon. Along those lln.s, you "lgM gi,' sollle
thought to .hat you might thin~ would be sufficient. It ~ay be that 1\
would b. different In ,very c.se. The way It is wrill,n, lhe developer
has to submit so.~thl"g In order to start the process. I belle,e th.t It
is written that way because of so .. concerns fro. st.ff that you kOuld get
what J have heard referred to as,,·tire k,id,en-who want to C-O!ll:E' in on the
cheap and not only not pay substantial .""unts, but pay·virlually nothing
and take up a lot of ti"'. I suspect that he wrote In lhe fatt that you
would have to be an applicant In order to require lh.t they pay full
freight for what they were getting froe tho city.
Commissioner Schlnk: Would It be that terrible if w. h.d to declare their
application complete when they co"", inlo this, and then tied our hands
with a six-month process?
M~, lytle: don't think it would be t.rrlble, as long ., It Is •
cost·recover~ process.
liG.5>JlJ:tiill: As regards tne tI~e liall, If you had sh ."nths and you
went through tho conceptual phase at, ,.y, the Planning C~~lsslon level
and tnen at City Council, you could get yourself down to 1he pOint where
It would be extremely difficult to proc.ss th,l application within th.
time left in the six-fIl.Jnth period. $0 I ""'ould certainly like to see these
not be co;nplete applications Unt start. the clock under state law.
let rna take a moment to comment on 7S3 Alrn~ Street an~ follow up on
Marlene Prendergast's comments. A couple of th1n9s stand out. One Is
that this proposal is not corning from the housing corpor.tlon. It is
c<hTlfng fl'om the etty Council as a o::oncept. "hat He council ,was facerl
with at 753 Alma was the request to expend .boul HOO,OOQ of city
resources, housing reserve fUnds, In order to re~ch a point wher~ they
could make a deCision on 753 Alma, which ""ould then lead ttlCllI to ci ther
buy the property or cooclud' that they did not hove. proj'ct .od oat
purchase the property. One counci]"",ber publicly obse".d, ~r.d froo
their expressions .nd olh.r co"".nts, I think It hit • lot of
counc11members, that, ·You mean, this Is what applicants have to 90
through to get. decision from the city?" Vice Hayor Siol tian said, on
the record, th.t it has been v",y educatlon.l for all of us as to ~·h.t tho
private applicant n.s to go through in a Planned (o~nlty lone process in
order to get us to make • d.clslon on something. lh.t certainly led to
the council saying th.t they were not to.fortable spending th.t ... ch of
the public r.sources to r.ach a point of Ju,t ~aklng a decision. I'n't
there another process? That, then, led tne cotincll, after discussion back
.nd forth with staff, to adopt tho motion they did. Th. motion is not one
that directs staff to sort of consider so~~thlng ind take ;t back to the
Planning (rHrrnissi<ln .... 'hen you have tirr,e. The mct10n 'ijOlS t~at staff be
directed to develop. It.as a very forceful Mtlon to develop this
process. the Planning Commission needs to revfew it, but develop the
procesS', The question at the council level really w~s, can you get It
back to us within 60 days or 75 day,? lhey .anted 60 days, and staff said
it might be re.l tough in 60 days, bul in about 75 days, w. will try and
get it back to you. $0 there was some strong cour..c.1l desIre to consider
this. I stress that because at the bottom line, the corrmission nEEds to
provide some recommendall0n to the council t~ni9ht. If you tnin~ it is a
horrible process and should not be consldert'!d .at .a1l. then reconnend
denial and send 1t back to the covncil. It should not gel bottled up
03/09/94
-2/-
.·0 ." ,
hera, beca"," the council desires to get thl. thing back to I,he. In rothe,'
rapid fashion, It clearly relates back to IS3 Alma and their de.lre for a
proce •• that they can live with from. fln.ncial standpoint, and yet fe.l
like they Can make a decision on that property. It is also, fran the
.taff standpoint, clear~~' a process that Is applicable to athe,' projects.
They corne through on a regular basi" Some of them never cO~" to
anything, and some of them do, 753 Alma Is not the only example,
Mr, Borock said that thl s Is • very specific case 'and we are making
general ·law. Monday night, there was a meetlng between the proposed
developer of the Palo Alto Hr.tt site and the Glenbrook and other South
falo Alto neighbors. This Is "at confidential information at all. Those
groups have been st"uggling for months over sorne critical policy Issues.
One of those Is.ues I s whether the City of Palo Alto would open Glenbrook
Drive to the back of the Palo Alto HYatt site. Several tIme., the
developer ha. pleaded, Isn't there any way I can get .orne City Council
direction (In tnat issue? OW-t' response was, we are-sorry but we <10 not
have. process to get you before the City Council, He I, out .pendlng
money on architects and dealing with the neighbors, etc. That is Just one
e~amp]e. J think we will see others over the course of time where th~re
are critical policy I •• ues. If people could get a reading on the. e.rly,
It would help simplify the proce •• for everybody.
One 1 ast cOfI'I7lent, in terms of Trich's observations from the CPAC: process,
is that I think what Is co"lng out of the CPAC governance co,mlttee has a
lot of very positive .. pect. to it. I feel that there are some very
c"eative id ... in terms of how the proce.s might well be substantially
modified. We are a yur~and·a·half or more away from plan adoption.
There ;s a need, now, for this type of process. We may find with~n a
year-.nd-a-h.lf or a little longer that, based on what com,. out of the
Comprehens~~e Plan process, we may want to scrap this and ha~e s~~athing
completely different, but there 1. an interim period. '.nd 153 Al~. is not
the only property that could benefit from this type of proce.s.
COmmissioner Oja~: J have several Questions for Ken. Since we are
talking about 153 Alma, and tho figure of $400,000 has been thrown out,
that i. money that would be spent beea".e of what, again?
Mr, Schreiber: It Is money that would be .pent to prepare and proce •• a
Planned Community zone appl ication, with the appropriate engineering,
ar<:hitectural, soils wDrk, etc., and the 1!n~;ronmental re~iew asso('.i.dted
with It.
COmmissioner Ojaklaa: Where is the cost savings to that process if.
Initially, they go through this process .• nd stili have to go through the
PC zone p)'ocess?
Mr. Schre1b~: You may want to ask Marlene Prendergast about thiS, too.
As we enyjsi~n the way the process may work, the initial effort on the
part of the housing corporation would be to prepare a development cfrncept
for that property. Some work would clearly have to be done on some
prel irninary engineering and some prel im1nary architectural work, so that
we know what we are talking about. That can be done for significantly
less than 540G,OOO. We are looking at a cost of som .. 'here In the range of
$60,000 to $70,000 for that preliminary work. At that point in time,
there would be enough of a sense of what the project ;s all abo"t that the
commission could comm~nt on it and the council could comment on it. Also l
.: i _ t,t '
-.-\
03/09/94
,28,
.', ,
" .',
;, .'
I ,.
......•.. , .. . .
,
1
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
::{
I
' .. '"
-' . '
'. ' .. ~',:.:>';"-.-.. .. """,-~~~o-.'f.1-:'".t.-,~t~~:~~\.~~'~;"
o o
the council could make a reasilnable dects10n that, for wllat'i!ver reasons,
it wasn't worth pursuing, thus he would not ha,e to spend th. $400,000, or
it was worth pursuing, and we could buy the property. If that is the
conclusion, that the city wants to buy 753 Alma and then the project comes
back through the formal _Planned Cormmntty zone pro<:ess, certainly some
slgnlf!cant amount of the work don. under th.t initial 160,000 or 170,000
would be.pplicable in the work that is n.eded by the .ppl icant to prepare
the appl ication. So H wou1d not be wasted money. Thel"e would be a
llttl. bit of duplication, but pl'obably tfle majority of the $70,000 would
ha,e been spent on usable material for the PC application.
~n!r Ola!dan: So we are sitting here at a meeting, nont>indirlg, WE!
s{lrt of nod our heads and say, This is an Interesting idea. Then, someone
like Marlene goes bac~ and sits in on a housing corporation meeting and
says, Well. they think this is a pretty Interesting Idea, so she goes
ahead with the pl·ocess. On her par-t, s~c feel s a comrort zone off of that
vag lie cOflYl1ent that I just mllde, becau'se 1 am not trying to say anything
thllt is binding. Th~ housing corporation goes-ahead and puts In an
application, which inltlally only co.t them $60,000 or 170,000, but now
they are going to spend the additional amount, because I do not see that
r~ney not being spent in the process. Am I wrong about that?
Mr~brg1bel': That monay may not be spant, if, in this case (which is a
rather ~pecial case), the CHy Council concludes, after )'eview;ng the
material that ~as been developed costing $60 j OOO or S70,OO(), and after
haarlng from the public, that the likelihood of their approving the
project is fairly slight, thus they don't want to buy the property. We
have an option.
C9fM}issioner Ojakhn: I um:lerstand that. There is going to have to be,
In thls particular situation, a strong comment or suggestion back that
maybe gOing ahead with this project would not ba the right thing to do.
But if Uat isn't part of the cOrrtllents that are made, then I would assurtle
th.t somebody would go ahead wlth their project.
Mr. Schreiber: In the case of 753 Alma, you will have a followup action,
which is a City Council action, under the option, as to whether to buy the
property or not. So the council will, on a regular agenda as a motion
item, need to make that decision. let me lise the Palo Alto Hyatt site as
an example. Clearly, one of th~ issues there is) could the rear of the
site be accessed by Glenl>rool< Ddve, with the traffic from some portion of
that site exiting through the Greenacres ne.Jghbort,ood? let's say we had
this proce.s, and the applicant felt that th.t wa$ re.lly the be.t way to
go. Th.y would file this conceptual de~elopment ,cherne with the back half
of the property exiting thal way, and when it gets to the City Council,
there are 25 letters and 35 angry speaKers on that item. all denouncing
the concept as a violation of the Glenbrook neighborhood, ~hich is
probably about what would happen, judging from the meetings that have
already occurred. There would be no formal action f but there would be an
opportunity for any number of City Council members, and previous to that,
planning commissioners, to say, you know, J have trouble imagining how I
would ever vote to open Glenbrook Drive to that mllch traffic. It may not
be impossible to do, but I am heal'ing these concel'ns, That could be the
signal that the applicarrt could take and say, Okayf I am gOing to pursue
this and battle my way and get a deCision, or he could saYf with all that
Gppos.ition, maybe I should change my development plan.
03/09/94
-29-
....
o
Commissioner QI~kitQ: Just so J understand this process, when we have
thh prescreenlng r,vi.w PI'OC'SS, th.re will be public input?
~.r.t.1l!ru:: lie htve not fOI..,.lly talked about that, but there
c~rt.inly would have to b. some opportunity for public input. The
ordinance talks about noticing the sam. people who would be noticed by
wb,tever action Might COi'le out of this, 300 fect or whatever else, So
certainly tho '''"''PUon Is that there Is an opportunity for public
Input, It lIould need to be. elar! fied In t.rms of procodure, \'ou are
right, s~ studY seSSions do not have that input.
t,t De use another ex.~l. --The H.mllton. There, again, there were
bHlc policy ISsu.s In terms of floor area .. atlo and bulk and mass. With
a Planned Coonunlty lone, If we had had the preliminary, if w. could ha,e
done the first step, that might ha\'e worked ther~, but again. there, was no
PI~CedUro, no way that ~e could t.ll the applicant that they could get any
type of ro.dlng in the pubHc process. Even with a Planned COIlJll'mtty
lone, they are still going to have to file .n application .nd go through
It In S~ uay or another. This would be another altfrnative for tnat
type of 'ppllcant to co •• through.
&2mLu_i2!l~.r.g.bkull: The point I am trying to make here is, so far w:,.t
r aq heat'lng, there is a lot of 1nterctlange between the tHy and the
.pplicant $0 th.t the applicant can understand where thej stand. I hove
not heard a Whole lot .bout Hh,re a potential appellant might also have a
chance to expr~s$ himself in this process, so that somebody would be able
to take th.t Into consideration. Vou mentioned an Interesting example
th'ro .. the HYatt .. and the whole thing involving the ro.d work and the
nefghbort,ood behind It. Ther., somebody like the Hyatt might be able to
come In and use tMs. pt"Oi:ess to get soma sort of read on the city. Where
do the people in that ne19hborhood get their chance to have some input and '''0 get SO!ile I'oad from UlE city on whet'e that might stand?
~~chrelb<r: Clearly, the neighborhood Input would come through the
notice Ind the study session proce~s. There is n~ way that anyone has
envisioned In this process for the neighborhood to Initiate an action to
try and get th. council to discus, an Issu., That can be don,. Vou don't
n~.d thIs. All you neod is somebody on the council to put on their agenda
the Issue a neighborhood wants to toave staff address or the council
,d<jress, It Is not In the context of • specific development.
'~I.slon.r QI,k!in: Hy concern Is that If we get through this initial
scre.nlng proce .. , somebody has <pent t~, $60,000 or 110,000, we take it
to the next step, and tnen all of a sudd~n, we have s~methin9 like
CommiSSioner Glazier was describing ., where we ar~ now into the clear
confrontational mode because we are into the f~ll blown process. That was
not ta~en into con$fderat~on in the prescreenlng process. ) am not sure
h~ the applicant comes out saving , then, because they have been glven
some strong indications by comments made to go ahead and move forward,
yet, when they did that and pulled out the rest of the money that they had
in th,ir bi llfold, now they are really caught betwixt and between. Maybe
I am reading this wrong.
Ms, CIS., /lo, I don't think you are, What I am going to say m.y be
ansl.'ering yoll' and also be cOiTl1l~nt;n9 a little on Trish's corments. do
L
03/09/94
-30·
, -.' -.-< ~', -.
-: .. ,
I
I
I
I
I
o
not .really see this proc:ess as being I!wtu.aJly exclusive from Olkr p'"(lcess
of going out .n~ doing yo,,' h""""'rk with the people who .re going to b.
living with your ~roje<t, If It g.l. 'pprov,d. This is just an extra
procus for s~one who wants to take advantage or It. I gues.s it assu,'1les
that they have enough fOr.sight to .Iso go .nd ~,ke their p.ac. with the
n.lghborholY.!, etc, If that .dually c ... s forward .t s.'" point as •
form. I process, .J se, th.t .s sttll b.lng In • dl fferent area of Title Ie,
f"nkly, th.n this specl.1 process. I s.e this .s • sort of special d •• 1
if someon' v.nts to t.k •• dv,nt.g. of it, So I would assume th.t a
develop.r would not take .dv,"l.g. of It If t.e didn't think It "ould
boo.flt hi.,
~: 1 ~Ight bo .bl. to sh.r. briefly vlth you s~ of the wisdom
th.t the ARB g.rn.r.d regarding th.lr prell~ln'ry review proc.ss on this
one, 111ey st.rl.d out their proc." wltho"t • noticing r'Qulr."",.t 01'
public Involvt .. nt In the pr.llaln,ry r,vlew. Wh.t they found out, after
several appllc.tlons, w.s that they ne.ded the benefIt of neighbors'
perspective ov.n to do th.t Inltl.l scr •• nlng. In fact; they gQt
th~se1ves 1n trouble on several ocC"uions because they sirr:ply did not
have toe sa~ fnfonP.~tlon base ~s people in that ,o~unity, a~d they gave
dlr.cUon lhat put th~ In conflict with the ne!9hborhood. So they
changed their policy after the first Y~lr to include outreach and public
input in the prell~in.ry AR8 proc.ss.
~i!!.ll.u:J.Qlle..r_~: Could 'W~ hne an applicathm process where an
lr.djyldual F:}ade an application tQ detemine t~at t,'eir proposal was
consistent with t~e Co;'tprehenslve Plan, 'Solrething along those lines? I
ask the question Oet3USe J l~ ver~ un(o~fcrtable about the response that
Ken gave eirlier that the council _~uld be sttt1ng up here saying. -In
light of .11 th .. e hostile neighbol's. I would h.ve • hard time approving
this proJect.' I think th.t wh.t I would lite to ,.e Is s~one coroln~
ro",.rd "d saying, an 5RO In thl, 1<><.110. Is consistent with the
Comprehens1\l(l Pl an, and the policymak.er1 ",ould say. )'es, we would
enthusiastically embrace th.t type of project In this location. Il Is
consistent with the Co.prell.nsl., PIa.. Could we h.v, .n .ppllc.tion that
went In th.t dlrtctl.", rather th.n being project-orle.ted?
Ms, Case: Ther •• r. lwb things .bout that. One, just bec.use something
Is consistent wIth the Co.pr.henslve Pl •• does not necess.rlly m.an It Is
going to be approv,d. ~. h,ve s.en that. 50 1 .m not sure th.t g.ts
anyone .nylhlng. Two,. consistency finding Is .n .ctlon, and th.t Is not
what Is contell>plated by this. Wh.t Is conl'lI>phted by this, I think, Is
more like the prell_lnary ARB or wh.t used to be the Inltl.1 PI.nnlng
Commission reYfe~ of a PC. That W.$. ·~e send you away with our corrnents,
.nd It Is v~re or less "hether.e thlnk'thls is a g.ner.lly good ide., but
not l1~cessarfly whetner we 1 ike your dr.a,,,,Ings.·
k2!illLissioner Sch.1..M: Would that type of procedure W{lrK) if WI."" had an
application? I am stIlI r •• lly troubl.d by this ide. of s.ttlng up a
procedure that is just. wink and. nod on • project.
~g: I shOUld .1 so say th.t .Hhough the timing of thi shad
$0",ethI09 to do _lIh 153 AI •• Street, Individual cOline 11 members have been
disc.ussing having a process like this. for over a year. They are dGing
that because they have had i'equesh fr<ll'!l the de'llelopment 'coIl'iIlvnity, SCI
S{lrneMe out th~re s{!em~ t{l thlnk that ltlis would be a worthwhile process
""": .-
i\
03/09/94
-31·
\
In some ~.ses. J should also st.te th.t this Is don. In other <ommunltles
under various types of procosses where you can get an inltl.l look·see.
If It is done right and what happens to the proc.ss Is not what happened
In the initial Pl.nnlng Commission PC meeting, somoon. should b. able to
coiie ,way wlth a general Ide. of..whether 0" not they were wasting their
time. Whether or not they were able to co~.e aw.y with much roor, than
th.t, J do not really kno.. But the Intent of the ordinance, the way it
Is written, Is that the developer still has a chance, In .plt. of
seemingly overwhelming oppOSition to the Ide., to go forward with it 'nd
to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. or to change the whole conctpt 0'"
to take the risk th,t between the Initial thinking th,t 'We think It
sounds like a good Idea" and the actu.l public hearing when It c~' up,
the whole wind, of a City will have changed and It turns out to be
defeated. So It c.rtalnly I •• risk, but the Idea is th,t no 0"' will
have spent too mOJch money .t that pol nt.
CoWI"lo".r Scnlnk: I'd like to probe ju.t a little ~It oor •. If you
had 't based en the '~mprehenstve Plan. and somebody ~adc an application
th.t they w.nt.d a finding th.t 50 h~~es, for .x,ople, on the Hyatt site
with access to the str-eet 'Was consistent bllth t~e COfl}lrehenslve Phn, and
then the City Council cam, b.ck and $Oid th.t five hooes "Hlng onto that
street was (.onsfsterrl, wo.uldn 1 t that get. us to the sa~e pl ace?
~~: Just making a consistency finding is more of an action than t~e
action has said they want to take at thi s point. In hct. t~u exaleple
might be too easy, but in so~ cases, maJ:.1ng a finding night l'equ1re a
much more detailed environmental review beforehand. At this pOint, it is
pretty clear that what we are looking for, at least~ what ~e have b~€n
told by the council, i. that they want something that doe, not require an
environmental ,·eyle •• head of time.
krurrniss10ner Carrasco: I have a question. When the City Council
dlscu,sed this Issue, they h.d felt th.t the he.ring ,hould be only beior.
the City Council. ) don't think they were Including the Planning
Co"",lssion in th.ir motion. r thought we should tal~ • little .bout "hy
it would be a good idea to Include the Planning Com>lsslo. In their
recommendations. As J have seen the City CounCil, they deal with. wide
variety of issues, in addition to zoning and land use Issues. I feel that
it Is under the purview of the PI.nning Commission to look .t land u.'
issues and z~nin9 issues In a much 'more detailed manner than tn~ City
Council doe,. Ju,t as we enjoy public Input, and refine .nd think out
Issues better with public Input, J think it would be advisable for the
City Council similarly to take th, Planning CommIssion's .dYice, or at
least to understand where we stand on lanrl use and loning issues. So J
would like to ha'" that in the record sa that they understOOd tMt ".
would like to be included in this process. Obviously, they do through the
ordinance, but tf'lat is s~me of the reason~ng why 1 ""ould appreCiate that
going to council, as well.
Ch.irperson Schmidt: J would lIke to st.te that I think It is reasonable
to have a process like this in order to have SOMe early response fr~m the
council and the public. As) read through the council'S mot1pn, as I read
through the ordinance before us, actually there are seyer. 1 references to
public input. I think that could be expanded .nd clarified, bec.use it
would be useful to have some public input. In the councH's p'.;Ot1on l it
SaYS, -A development mechanism for council and public to make nonbinding
03/09/94
-32-
· ,
i·:
o
C(llTITtents on development I»'oposals. at an early stage. III I think it is very
useful, again, to get those comments early w~en $60,000 or $70,000 has
b<en spent, rather than the 1400,QOO, even though that additional money
will be spent if the project is taken further,
I feel that something similar to the ARB process of a preliminary revi.w
would be a r~asonable thing to do, J would hope that whatever the
application is called, 'prellminal'y application" perhaps, does not set any
time period In motion that would reqult'. the developer to follow through
and have a coruplete application or follol1 through to go through the
complete process. Again, I think the ide. of this Is just to encourage a
potentially controversial project, or just encourage Input from other
parties, rather than just letting a developer go off and pI an something,
spend a lot of money. and come forth, only to get refused. In the past,
developers have been abl. to do things more on their own without a lot of
public input, Palo Alto Hkes to have public input; other cO'111unities do
not, ~s much) so J think it is quite reason~ble to set up a process like
this.
The futUre input from CPAC might be very helpful, but I think it would be
reasonable to go ahead an put something In place at the pres~nt time,
realizing that It could be changed In the future or modifi<d io
incorporate whatever comes out of that .. As the ordinance now states it,
"The prescreening st~dy sessions may be conducted in any m~nner th~t may
be deemed appropriate by the City Council." So if there is facilit,tion
by otner volunteers from the city or other groups, I would think that
could be incorporated at a future date wi thout changing what is here.
Another suggestion I would make is that r do not 11k. the name "screening"
or Nprescreening." To me, that puts some judgment on It. r ~ould think
we would want to call it something 11k. 'Oevelopment Projec.t Preliminary
Re¥iew~ or "Dev~lopment Project Conceptual Review."
r have a little concern about a couple of things. One is yes, we are
adding some more processes, as Marlene said, but I will take the leap of
faith th.t this will be som.thing worthwhile to try so that hopefully, the
rest of t~e process would be simpler and ~as1er and have less conflict in
it. There is another concern also mentioned Earlier that often at an
early stage, there isn't a11 the datall that people want to s~a) and tney
keep asking for more. I feel that w. have to try th;~ out and look at
things at a concaptual level , and not try and worry about the exact color
to be used or the exact style of window or type of roof til., etc., but
just look at It on a conceptual lev.l, I would be happy to support this,
with some of the slight changes that I have discussed and the ch,ng" in
wording lhat the city has proposed for a couple of sections,
CglMljssigner Schink: I 1 ike this (ollcept a lot. I am just troubled with
the mechanics of it. I am troubled with the idea that we are putting
forth a procedul"'e that talks about nonbinding and making conwents without
nailing things down. Other th'n that, 1 like the idea of bringing forward
a plan in its conceptual stage.
let me speak to the one negativ., which I think is a very big negative.
Trici. pOinted it out well. This "ill dilute the importance of
neighborhood input, because developers will want to get to the
decislQnmakers and get their opinion earlier than working the
03/09/94
-33-
'::,," "~:
."0,,<:.\{;;~~ii :
\ .
". <
i
\
I
I
neighborhood. I don't think there Is any question that it will dilute the
very specific nelghbol'hOO~ Inf~uence, but it will allow a project. to
proceed forward on the bigger 1SSUOS. ihat Is an offsetting b.neflt which
make. It worthwhile. r think the other great benefit is that ". will se.
a lot more creative proj.r.ts. It will open up the process to a wider
array of de,.lop.rs. In the deyelopment community, this town has b,en
conceded to just a few folks, and If you make the process just a little
more op.n, other people may want to jump In with cr.atlve ideas, So r
will be happy to support the process, I would just hope that somewhere
here, we could nail It down a little more clearly that this was a poT icy
Interpr.tatloo or that the application was something along a policy
Int.rpr.tatlon and that the council would actually take a vote and say
that they approve of this polley. lhat Is the only problem r am having.
~I~sloner Cassel: Ken, r baSically want to support what you have been
saying. There is ~n'y one other thing J want to emphasize, and that is,
If .n applicant can come In and make these propos.ls, th.n with the
noticing of th.t, r think it does need to giye the public the opportunity
to Co.T~ in and make CCM¥nents.
ComrnissJoner Carrasco: I am a little curious that Jon said h~ felt the
nelghbol'hood "auld have less influence. 1 thought this process would
allow gr.ater Influence by the neighborhood. J would like to explain
why.. When you ar~ expending a huge amount of money, your ideas start
getting cry.toll iz.d and tighter .nd d""n more carefully. Once you
invest that kind of money, you don't want to change a whole lot, be~ause
the Implications of th.t change .re enormous .nd cost a lol of money.
ih1s~lnd of a process, provided It allows neighborhood Input [and r think
Section 18.97.040(c) allows for that kind of public Input and public
participation, which it says In the second line of (c)] would allow at an
early stage some of the re.lly valuable opinions that neighbors have and
which shape projects at an early stage .nd In a more positive way. When
the developer gets good Input from neighbors In the early stage, they take
that valuable input and use it in a creative way. This process, I feel,
allows you to do mol', of that th.n less. Once a project gets
crystallized, as we noticed through the Architectural Reyiew Board
process, Jon, once you have spent the $100,000 or 5200,000 on a project,
you are yery reluctant to change things. When you have spent SIO,OOO or
S15,000 on the ARB process, developers are much more willing to change, so
I think this Is a good process, since It allows neighborhood Input. r
support It.
~<loner GlaZier: I support much of wh.t Jon has already said, in the
sense-tnat any act or process that allows people to get more infol~at1on
Is good. It will likely result In some.people who h've not been
developing actively In Palo Alto to perhaps consider It, and 1 think that
Is good, r am a little skeptical on what v,lue we will find in it,
particularly for some of the folks who .re already here. One area that
am a little concerned .bout, but time will tell, is the Idea of public
participation. r recognize and accept th.t public participation is
important in making a final decision, b~t I am a little c~ncerned that
when devel~pment issues like tne Hyatt come before us, lots of people get
up and talk for a long time and very emotionally. If we do that at the
prescreening hearing, then we do that at the prellmlnary review, and it
gets multiplied by two because it goes before the council as well, and it
just extends the process out really dr.matlcally. r am not sure th.t the
"I,
03/09/94 ,34,
..
'. \.
i', .. , .
,',
,-"_,,,,,_"~'",~~"~\:$-y,;;~,,,,,,;., .~, -,:I".uco.:.\-. ,
o o
v.lu. th.t thl. proc ••• brings to the tabl. justifies adding, In all
cases, lhat eXlr. proc.ss. I am certainly willing to support this as It
h. W. "Ill see ho" it works, and perhaps OYe,' time, we will make
~Id·cours. (orrEelions. It Is probably a good idea.
~}jQ~~~~: I will be the devil's advocat. In this process,
bec.usel am having probl •• s supporting it. The rea,on Is a little along
the lines of .h.t Comlssloner Glazl.r was j'ISt saying, and maybe
Coonlsslon.r Schlnk tal~ed a llttl. about It earll.r. Th.t is, I am
trying to st.p back fr~ this and think of It as a process. What w •• r.
doing here 1s 1 we are ~dd1ng an9tner layer to the government process. We
are ~klng It another step In the w~ole beginning to .nd stag.s. In dOing
that, I ill'l no.t s(Jre 1f we are not 9()ing to send (Jut mixed messages
s~tlmes br false messages so~ttmes. To ~el maybe what we are dOing
wNng h ,to saYl'we hhe a probleM., let's add another layer of meetings
and procedures to It. H.yb. wh,t we ought to be doing is saying, perhaps
there Is s_thlng wrong (If It Involves the PC p,'ocess speclf1cally) with
the PC prQC~1S in that we have 90tten away fr~~ what that conceptual
~pPrQ~al part of t~e pr~cess should be. J don't know if, in the proc€ss
of dOing that} W~ ~~v~ als~ gotten oW!y from how we should cost that out
to th. p"bll< so th.t they do"'t end up In , dilemma that they cannot get
UH':l$eh'es ou.t of. That h what , h~a;r people sayin9 tonfght. 'rihen i
lGo~ It tMs, J s~y to DYSC) f, J have ttn'l different ent1ties or
Individuals th,t I should be concerned olth. One Is the developer·
applicant a.-:6 the other one is someone who perhaps is going to appeal. On
the dev.lop.r·.ppllcant sid •. I would like to be sending them a me,sag'
that says, -Go ahl!ad in the process. Your ooney will be 'Well spent,-But
tn doing that, I also don't want to send them a message that says, VMaybe
part w'Y through doing th.t, oh-oh, thl. Is not quite th, way 1 thought It
WOUIQ t~.· Or, -. didn't realize what this was 90~n9 to end up looking
like,-Ihe~eforel I have a developer-applicant who is even angrter now l and more upset ~Ith the process, than he was before he got involved in it
inlt1ally.
~1 the appel1~nl" side, we could b. cr •• tlng a situation wh.re people
step back a.')d .uy. "file are be1r.g hOMwirlked," or "Look 'Wha.t they are doing
now· or ~See how the process is not working for us· or "This is a special
Intere.t procedure ag.ln.· So I "" haVing a re.l problem saying that thi,
Is th. right solullon for both of those entitl.,. I.m not sur. what the
right ,olutlools, but maybe It is loo~lng at the process that we have now
and saying what is wrong with It, and how can we do s.methlng better with
It. Now, wh.t .e are doing, If r understand thiS, Is that we are going to
have an~th~r,meelin91 we are gOing to hav~ to be careful about how we nod
our he.ds .. we .r. gOing to have to nod them In th, right way that says,
yes, r want you to do It, but I did not .tell you to do It quit. that way,
If that Is the way 1 feel when I get part .ay into the process. That is a
sticky situation, J feel I for all parties conterl'1ed, So I am having real
troubles with this. So I am not terribly in support of this process, tI"
way It is written right no •.
~: ~i~~l: I will move t •• t we support thl,
prelirninny .. what would you like to name itl Kathy?
~~_~..irQenon Sfhmldt: Can we c(lll It ·Oevelopment Pl'oject Preliminary
Fi:e .... iew .. ?
. ~, ' ... \
-; ..
03/09/94
·35-
l
j,.~ .
, I
(,'
Coomhshner Casal: .. pre) tmlnary review as drafted, wi t(J the
am.nd"nts wrltte~, .s proposed to us, whlth would Include Sections
18.97.030. Is there .n option In 18.91.040 th.t you ~.nt us to make? It
says, 'Sol.ly by ti" Phnnlng Comlsslon or by the Phnnlng C""",I .. lon
Initially and then by the City Councilor sol.ly by the City Council.' 00
you want to leave th.t open to the person .pplylng for th.t? Is th.t what
you .... nt?
Ms. CU.: No, the w.y this IS written, those are the ",nycholc" that
the council has to make of who might conduct this prell~ln.ry ,.,Iew,
Coromlsslon.r Cass.l: Then my 5Otl.n will say, 'by the Planning Co~lsslon
InHlally and then by the City [o"'tl1.' .
Ms. Case: So you w.nt to ell"ln.l. so=< of the pusslbilitles?
~11il: Unless you want to le.v. It tot.lly ope. to the
applicant who Is applying for this.
~e: No, the City Council would D.ke the decision.
tWi'!1!:iss1oner CMsel: But it Is up to us. if h'e )unt to Dake a
recomendation.
Hs. Case: If you want to make a rccof:'to.endat1<1rl that so:>"e of tnese fltany
options not be cons1del'ed as possibt11 ties, that is fine. But the reason
I suggested ttlis chang£!' is beciluse there wel-e s~e words in the ordinance
b.fore you that ".de It uncle" ~illt words .... re IOOdHylng "hat. So It ... s
rewritten to make 1t ~re clear, hopefully,
~~sslQner C.'~l: Then I will st.t. the rr~tlon to lnclude 'by the
Planning Conmlss!on Initially and then by the City Council' and .e. how
th.t flies.
Ch.lroer,on Schmid!: Old you ",nt to modlfy that l.st portion, Qr le.,e
It as recommended by staff?
Ms, C.so: She wants to elialo.t. the posslblll:y of ellllOr the PlannIng
COrMllsslon or the City Council revIewing It without tho oth.,· one, right?
(oomissloner C".e1: Right.
lib ... £U~: Vou still w.nt to.go .long with the posslbl1lty of tho jOint
meetings and extra comrnlsslon~. etc.?
Commissioner ~~: Yes.
Cha;roarsgn Sch~fdt: So it would say, ~The noticed public study session
will be conducted by the Planning Comols.icn Initially and then by the
City CounCil, or .s a joint meeting of the City Countil .nd Pl.nnlng
C<lnwnission."
S[C~: By Ch.lrman Schmidt.
Hr, Schrejber: If I c.n sugg.st one oth.r modification, I think It w.s
Mr. 8orock who pointed out some rath.r convoluted wording on Page 3,
03(09(94
·36·
..
~') ..
I:
Section 18.97.030(a)(3) ne.r the top of th, page. 'Any other developrner,t
project, or permit or entitlement application,' if we changed the rest of
that in the following way, I thln~ I t is more understandable. If w.
change "inv~lvtng· to ~tncluding" so that it reads Itncludin9 a major
alteration or expansion of !!l existlng (stri~e 'or') hi,torical use
(strike the's') so that it reads, 'Any other development project or
penmit Or entitlement application, including a majcr alteration or
e~pansion of an ex:fsttng histprical use, which implicates majoi' land use
or other policy or planning r.oncerns,"
Chajrperson Schmidt: If the maker of the motion would add th.s. thIngs,
would like to add In Section 18.97.030 that was changed by the staff, In
reference to "at any time after th~ city has received a develop~nt
project application,' I would like to chang" that to sOM,thlng like "
preliminary de"lopment project applIcation' or 'a prellmlnal'j
application,' Something that will put It In a preliminary category.
would leav. it "p to tho attorney to word that properly.
Ms. Case: Yes, if your motion, if it s~cceeds, would be to ask U5 to
draft something that mak.es tMs like something sfrniJat' to th(> prelir:;inar,)'
ARB review, and to address the permit streaml lning act, we would do that.
I cannot tell you right now where it would go or what it WGuid say
ex.ctly, but that is what It would do.
lli.!r.qgr...s.!Ln Schmidt: OkayJ and that wording 'r.'ould be-in tnat parUcuhr
section?
~.l!: I cannot say, but It would prol>.bly be thore.
COmmissioner Cassel: But the intent is there.
Ms. Case: Yes, and we promise we would follow that.
thiirQgLson Schml~: And it might also list things that might be In that
preliminary type of application, like a conceptual site plan, schematic
flonr plan, schematic elevation! t~at sort of thing.
Ms. t~sg: Yes, unless there is something that is obviously j~st for the
ARB; and It would not really make any sense for the broader review by tho
Planning Commission or City Council. If you could give us that
discretion, as well, to m.ke It fIt this body, we would do th.t,
Ch.lrperson Schm.iJ!1: r would certainly acc.pt that wording, and so does
the maker of the motion. I would also like to add something to the effect
that in the n~xt section, also on the page where staff made some
corrections on )8,97,~40, wording about the noticed public st~dy session
with opportunity for public input.
l'!.L.-Schreiber: That is tn there. That is a good concern. Section
18.97.040(c) Identifies that 'Notice of the study session and the
opportunity for public participation shall b. provided in the S."~ m.nn.r
as may be required by law fot, action on the underlying development project
application." That essenti.lly me.ns it will be. public hearing and
people will get to speak,
Chairperson Sdmidt: hie have a motion b,Y Corrmissioner Cassel and setonded
"-
03/09/94
-37·
'\
"\
by ~,elf, with a co,ple of suggestion, by staff, to make a preliminary
proces, 'imilar to that used by the Architectural Review Board. Ap" there
additional comments?
Cqmnhsipngr carrasco: l hav~ a question for the maker. I am is little
confused as to which word, have been added and what has gone out in Sue
easel s wording changes. On the th t rd l1ne of Sue I s "lcmo I is 1 t the intent
to take off "or solely by the City Council" at this pOint, or is that
,ubstltuted? C.n you expl.in that conc'pt, becau,e I would like to keep
th.t in. There .re <ort,ln project, th.t the Pllnning Comlsslon might
not want to see or might not h.ve ."ch to do with. So I would like to
gl.e the City Council that option.
Comm!s,ioner Cassel: That i, interesting. Since this is generally a
planning process, J was concerned to put It In there, because I thought
you want.d it there. Do you think It Is better to h.ve.it bro.der?
£Qrrm1 $SiGne!, Carrasco: Yes I J do, as 10n9 as the counell understands the
input and the value of the Planning Comml,sion, it I, good to Include the
Pl,nnlng Commission, But there ate projects (and I don't know what they
might be at this pOint) but there might be a project that we sr,ould not be
Involved with. I would rather be out there filling my time with other
pp·oject,.
&h4ir~QDL~' I woul~ be happy to leave it the w,y ,taff has
sugge,ted It --solely by Planning Commission, .olely by City Council, any
of those. Are there some that would be appr<lpriate for tile "on]y~?
~r, Schre1ber: ! am n~t s~re I can pull an example out of t~e memory bank
right now, but if you have a public/private partnership where the i •• ue
really gets down to financing and the city's financial Invo1vement, it is
not a land use issue. It is sOilleth1ng that is conSistent with the zoning
and tne Comprehensive Plan, e~c€pt t~at SOMebody wants to do something 1n
partnership with the city for monetary teason, or what"er_ That i. the
type of thing that would be solely a matter of City financial policy and
budget.
CO mm iss1oner Cassel: Hy concern is that we gEL involved in the land use
planning issues th.t are involved here ..
Hr, Schreiber: I believe that is al.o one of the reasons why the last
.entence of that section says, "Unless directed otherwl •• by the City
CounCil, the Pl.nning Commi"ion ,h.ll conduct a .tudy session on .11
pre,ereening m.tters and forward it, comments to the City Council.' So
the ba.ic process is Planning Commission, followed by City Council. If it
Is gOing to be any diff,p'ent th.n th.t, the council h., to modify it. My
sen.e is that historically, they have been very protective of the Planning
Commission'S prerogatives, and th!re would have to be a very clear reason
why a propo,al did not need to go through that length of the proce,,_
Also, the reference to other boards and commissiQns ;s because again,
there may be some pub 11 c/pP'i vate partnershi p type of ; "ues i nvo 1 v i ng the
Human Relat10ns Corr~ission, the Public Art (ommission, and they would have
an appropriate role.
~1ssioner Cassel: If everyone on the'commisslon wants to leave this as
It is in the staff memo, I .m comfortable with that. (Ther. i.
03/09/94
·38·
.. ,.
const"su,} Tllen let'. l.ave It the way staff has reeomend.d it,
~r'2n Schmidt: J will agr •• as ,.cond.r of the motion,
HOTION eASSES: Chairperson Schmidt: Is there any further discussion on
this ~tion?The motion be for. us Is to take the staff recomm.ndation to
send this ~n to the City Counc1)j we are renaming it "Oeve'op~nt Project
Preliminary Ravl,.'; we ar. c/l.nglng a couple of sections per staff
recommendation to Change, Including Section 18.97.030(a)(3) to say 'Any
other develo~nt project or permit or .ntltl .... t application, Including
a ... jor alteration or "panslon of an e,!stlng hlsto\'lcal use, which
i.pllc.l .. ~.jor land use or oth.r policy or planning concerns,' TIIO n"~t
<hang. is to Section lS.97.030(b) as per recommendation by staff, and
.ither In th~t section or .herever appropriate, the ,taff will add
appropriate commonts about the proc.,s being similar to the Architectural
Review Board preliminary rev1tw. Also, change Section 18.97.040 as per
shff rec.oomnd'at1oo, making clarification about who would conduct the
notice~ public study sessloll. All those in favor, say Aye? All opposed?
Thlt passes on a v~te of E-I, with Commissioner Ojakian oPPGsing the
trot.on and Com.issfol1er B'fecham ilDsent.
1<.r.,..J;£tu:tlill: This will go forward to the City Council as fast as it
c~n be processed. but a specific council agenda has not been identif1ed ..
, ,
\ ..
,I