HomeMy WebLinkAbout0424.095,
.";:
-' , .' -.
TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Summary Report
HONORABLE CITY COliNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Pluliing and
CommnRity E.viro.me.t
AGENDA DATE: September 26,1995 CMR:424:95
SUBJECT: Pbaaing Division Wo .... Prognlm, Fiscal Year 1995-96
RF.OTTfST
The pwpose of !his repo<1 is to request Coo.ncil revlew and endorsement of statrs
prioritizalioo of the resources allocated in the 1995-96 Planning Division budget. The staff
prepared Wodc Program is a fist and description ofaf! tasks, orOlDance and oIherwise, that
have been assigned or reeommended by the Cily Manager, City Council, Boards,
Commissions, public or stalL The Wad< Program c""rains • description of eacb task and an
estimate of time and non-salary wst 10 complete it. A Summary Table of all items
recommencIed 10 be initialed or compIeIed in 1995-% is included In the front. AD Appendix
which describes the hours available !fom staff on an annual bas's is also included.
This product is b-warded with !be undernand'"lDg that situations will arise during the year
!hal will cause reprioritizafion and adjustmenl
RECOMME.WATIONS
StaJfrecommends that !be Council revlew and endorse the Work Program. Item 22, Public
Art ~ sIlould be deleted in accordance with the recommendation of the Public Art
Commission. (Refer 10 the Recommendations section of In-Depth Staff Report, attached).
Othct ihan !be highest priority work, items bave been ranked in priority in the attached staff
repon. As situations arise which require adjustmen~ this list of priorities will guide staff in
makiog decisions 011 the relative priority of assignments and especially item(s) th~ if
necessary, can be delayed.
For the lOur items !hal can be completed only with. bodget amendment (ie, 115, Transfer
of Development Rights Ord"mance; #19, ff1Sloric Resources Board OrOtnance; 1121, Sign
Ord"mance; and $34. Coord"maled Area Plan), Council will need 10 direct staff 10 retom such
CMR.:424:9S Page I of II
14
):-
:
amendment(s) 10 the Cooncil if the tasks are 10 be initialed or completed this year. Without
contract services, 1M OO£:-budgeled items w'JI retum for pric<itiz.ation in til., J 996-97 and
97-98 Draft Work Program I<l be revlev.·ed as part oftbe 1996-97-98 City budget process.
POlley IMPLICATIONS
This Work Program is • tool for prioritizing and cooofmating the implementation of City
policies and programs consistent with the adopted 1995-96 City budget. Future work
programs will be submitted in conjunction .. itl! the armual budget thus providing a greater
opportunity for CounciJ adjustment of resources and priorioo.
EXECUTIVE SljMMARY
The Planning Divisioo Wc<k Program is • list and description of an tasks, which have been
assigned, or are requested 10 be assigned, 10 the Pla.,rung Division. Assignments include
ordinance amendmenls, special studies c< <>!her tasks. The "IV ork Program includes only
tasks assigned to the Advanced Pla.'Uling Section of tl!e Division. Planner.; in 1he
Development Review Section are unavailable for th<Ose assignments, because lMir ti.."., is
CO<!S1lItIed in the daily processing of entitlement permits (e.g, variances, use permits, home
lmjlrovement ex<:qltions, Archite<:turaI Rrview Boord approvals, site and design approvals,
eI<:.). The main exception \0 !hi. rule is tl!at major or romplex entitlement applications, e.g,
Sand Hill Comdor applications, are being processed by Advanced Planning staff Likewise,
<:er'.ain peISOOnel in Development Review are assisting in 11>. Division's pubfi<: information
and information ")"Stems development. (e.g, GIS, desk lOp publishing), which are Iong-tenn
investments 10 enbance the productivity and effectiveness of I>o!h Sections. llle attached
0rgani2lIIi0nal Chart iIlllStrates the staff positions by section for the Division.
The purpose of the Work Program is \0: I) allocate Planning Division staff boors for 1he
fiscal year occord"mg 10 the priorities of the City Manager and City Ccuncil; 2) describe
Board. Commissioo and public requests for legislative arnerulments and special st<Jdjcs; and
3) cooofmate interdepartmental work 2SSignmen:s.
The document is organized into Mission Driven Budget Functional Areas and from now 00
win be scbedu1ed for review by Council in coordination with the Budget review. In !he
future. the Work Program v.ill circulate earlier in the year and be prepared for. two-year
period, in coordination with the budget. It will be evaluated semi-aruJuafiy in • progress
report.
The Work Program is not intended 10 be rigid, particularly as we begin prioritizing and
projecting over a tw<>-year period. Much oftl!at fOreca:,1ing "ill be speculative and subje<:l
10 cbange in circumstances. llle Work Program is intended to allow for flexibility in
reprioritizing and adjusting \0 changing public demands and \0 improve communication
about the ramifications of new assignments on existing assignments so that all parties
Page 2 of 11
. '
T
impacte<! by Planning. includ"mg t!,., publi<: and volunteer Boards and C«nmissions, are
fully aware 0{ bow resources ore being spent Two potential new assignments that are no(
incorponlted into the Wark Program are the impact of Measure R if approved by the voters,
which wouid 1rlgger a variety 0{ sI4ff assignments, most notllbl~ a rezoning of the California
Avenue Business D'.strict, and City approval 0{ the Palo Alto Medical Found_tloo Urban
Lane redevelopment project, whlch could lead 10 P AMP initiation 0{ a planning process for
reuse <lf1heir existing land.
The Work Program has been c"""late<! for review by the Public Art Commission,
Ar<:bitectural Rrnew Boanl, Historic Resoorces B=d, and the Planning Commission. Their
comments and reconunendations are summarized in the atta<:hed Iong-form staff report.
fiSCAL IMPACf
The cost ofvarioos Work Program items is included in the individual item descriptions.
Should staff be am:cled to pursue any of the items indi<:ate<l in the lighl grey cells as
"Possible for 1995!96" > a budget amendment or other source 0{ funding wm be needed.
ENVIRONMENTAL AssyssMENT
The Work Program is not • "project" under the definition 0{ the California Environmental
Quality Act
PREP ARID BY: Nancy Maddox Lytle
DEPARTMENT HEAD RE."lEW: iMg,d./fd!.---'~
KENNETH R-SCHREl.BER
Director 0{ Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~ ~
I FI.EMING
Clty _ger
CMR.:.424 :95
, : ~--.
-. "--. '
!'ago 3 of II
;
SUBJECT:
, "'1"'. -: •
~' o~ --<
··"00 •• ,
00,.
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
---------------
PInning Division Work Program, 1995-116
BE~ENDAIK)NS
SJajI: The purpose of this report is to request Council review and endorsement of staff's
prioritization of!he resources allocate<! in !he 1995-96 Planning Division Wock Program,
The Worlr. Program is • Jist and description of all tasks, ordinance and otherwise, that have
been assigne<l or reromrnende<l by the City Manager, City eou.'1cil, Boards, C<>rnmissKms,
pub!ie or staff. The Work Program contains a deseription of ea<h task and an estimate of
time and oon-salary <XlSI1o complete it A Summ .. y Table of.n items recommended 10 be
initiated or completed in 1995-96 is included in !he front. . An Appendix which describes !he
hours available from staff 00 on &Ulua! basis is also included,
This product is fOrwarded with Ille understan<fmg Illat situations "iU arise during the year
that will cause reprioritization and aO.fUS!m<:nt
Pub[oc Au Cqrnmj5!!jon Jl'AO: The Commission rf'iewe<!!he Work Program on Angust
30,1995. They recommeoded that Item 22 be dele!ed, and Illat instead Ille PAC have.
role in Ille development and review of Ille k>lkwing items: 3, 4, 6, 7. 11, 13, 14.24.25.
33. 35, 36 and 31. They would also Ilke 10 work with staff 10 estimate Ille amount of
volunreer time Illey are Ilkely 10 spend on each item if Illey participate in it Staff finds
that \heir rrcanme1ldatloo. \0 be involved in a more integral way in the development and
review of trumerous assignments deserves consideration and further OISCIlSsiro. It sbouId
be the subject of a future meeting between staff and PAC. and • future report baclr. 10
Council, should Council wish 10 pursue Illeir recommeodation further.
lfl!S!lvjc HeW!!rces Board: The lflSlOric Resoo= Board reviewed Ille Work Program on
September B. 1995 in • special meeting. They recommended that Item 19, the HRB
Ordinance Update. be prioritized for 19951'96. This item would require a budget
amendment if it is initiate<! Illis year. The HRB agree<! with staff that the Ordinance
Update should proceed Item I, Update of the HRB InventorylClassifICaOon for Historic
SIructures, as .. en a:; odIer HRB priorities. During the course of !he Ordinance update,
!bey discusse<l !he possibility IllaE some incremental worlr. coo~J be done \0 update the
inventor}' as properties are reviewe<! on the HJi.B's regular agenda. This work would
be done by the members of the HRB and • Summer Inle", 10 the Planning OMsion.. It
woold DOt replace, but woold supplement the Item 1 lask. Individual members of Ille
Board did no( necessarily agree w'ith Ille staff deS<riptioo of Item 19, in terms of the
CMR.:424:95
. _~ ~.:o~ ... ,: ~ ,
",; .
P>gc' of 11
•
·~--""
<:OIltent of tbe task, and members of the Board plan 10 address the Council individually at
the Sepiember 26, 1995 IDe"ting.
Arcbitecll! ... ! Review Board: The ArchitoclUral Review Board reviewOO tile Wock Program
on September 21, 1995. They =nded Iilat Item 21, the Sign Ordma,-.ce, be included
as a priority in this year's Worl< Program. This iiem would require a budget ameodment
if it is initiated this year.
pJannjnr Cmp,mjssion: The Pbnning Commission reviewed the Work Program on
September 13, 1995. They recommended Iilat the Work Program be endorsed, as
forwarded by tbe Staff, with the foDowing changes: I} moee time should be set aside in the
Division fur general planning, rather than all time being allocated 10 specific work
assignments; 2} Item 34, "Coordinated Area Plan' and Item 35, 'Palo A1tolStanford
InIennodallnterfa<:e Area (Dream Team )" should be movOO 10 a higher priority, and 3)
Item 16 "GC05s Floor A..-.a DefInitions·, should be assigned for 1995196, witb • change'
10 the proje<;t description. Instead of revising the defInition of gross fJoor area, the item
should consider expand"mg the Design E.'Ibancenlent Exception process 10 include prov;sion
for incidentlll increases 10 gross fJoor area for the purpose oC encouraging thick walls in
build"rng architecture.
BACKGROUND
Staff. developmeOl of the Work Program, which has evolvOO in the past 18 mooths is in
respoIise 10 an oogoing siruation 0( I) having the npectatlons for the amount of work: 10
be completed exceed the resoun;.,s available, and 2) having DO clear mechanism for
establishing the relative priority of various work tasks. There is great competitio!l for
Planning staff resources due in part 10 tbe Comprehensive Plan update commitments and
in part 10 the age of the CiIy's major regulatory ordinances and their need for revisions.
Development of the Work Program included a major effort 00 the part of Planning
Division staff 10 refine methods used 10 estimate the amount of time and resources ~oo
10 complete assignments. Creation of the Work Program also coincided with and was
closely coordinated with the development of the M"lSsion Driven Budget.
Deftojtion of the Planpfp& DjyisjOD Work Prouam
The Planning Division Work Program is a list and description 0( all tasks, ocdinance and
otherwise, which have been assigned or recommended by the C1I)I Council, Cily Manager,
Boards, Commissions, public or staff. The Work Program contains. description of each
task and an estimate 0( !he time and non-salary cost 10 complete it. A Summary Table of
Pog, 6 of II
-~~-.~---"'--, .... --~~.
•
I •
.',
i, .
... -" , .'> '.',-' .... , .. , . . ' ,
--I". " •. '
-;'-..
" ;",,' ,
all items is inclllded in !he front. An appendix which describes the hours available from
staff on an annual basis assumi.'lg full staffing, is also included
The Work Program includes ocly lash assigned \Q !he Advanced Planning Section of Il>e
Division. Planners in the Development Review Section are llMvailable for these
assigmnetllS. because their lime is COIISUmed in !he daily processing of entitJemeol permits
(e.g., varlances .. use pennlts. home improvement eKce~, ARB approvals, site and
designs, ele,). The main exceptions 10 this are !bat major and rompJex enlitlement
applications. e.s" Sand Hill C<xridof entitlements, are being processed by Advanced
Planning staff. Likewise, certain per.onnel in Development Review are assisting in
developing !he Division's Information Systems, e.g. GIS, desk lOp publishing, Vo'hicb are
Joog-lerm invesunents 10 enhance !he productPil!y and effectiveness of both Advanced
Planning and Development Rev'.ew. The attached Organizatiooa\ Cban illustrates !he staff
positions by section,
The purpose of the Work Program is 10: 1) allocate Planning Division staff boon for !he
fiscal year acrorolllg 10 the pIioritics of !he City Manager and City Council; 2) describe
Board, Commission, and public requests for legislative amendments, special Stud'lfS and
O!her Division assistance; and 3) coordinate interclcpartmental work assignments.
The document is organized into MISSion Driven Budge! fUIlC!iooal Areas, In the fir.ure, Ihe
Wocl< Program win be scheduled for review by Council earlier in the year as pari of the
C!Iy" budget process and be prepared for • two year period. in coordination with Il>e budget.
It will be evaluate4 semi-annually in • progress report.
When considering trade-offs in Wo.'k Program it.ems, it is importanllO understand certain
management constraints:
I. Houn are Dot nec .... riIy iDtercllangeable. Certaln planners have talents and training
in areas that O!hers do DOl. for example, the Senioc Planner fur Housing is a speciafISl in
Housing Program items and bet job is focused in that area. The same is Irue for the Planner
who handles tbe GlS and Desk Top Publishing Systems developmenL Furthermore, the
positions of Technician, Associate, Planner, and Senior Planner are 001 interchangeable in
thcir training, experience and abilities.
2_ Honrs are not DecesSSrily cBmoJaUvt:. For example, it is not possible to remove fOur
50 hour assignments from 1M Work Program and add them IOgelhcr 10 make up enough
hours 10 a«ompUsh a 200 boor task, unless an of those assigrunents come from ooe Planner.
CMlt:424 :95 Pago7of!l
•
. -'.;.....-:. .,,'
'f.·' "
·--:
.-~ ..
in other words, il is netessary to be cognizanl of who is assigned 10 various jobs in
coosidering eliminating and recombining 10 allow for another higber priorit"j assignment
3. It is Importut to rewn coatiageney time. Our best example of this nee<! is the recent
resignation of. Senior Planner, whose departure will impacl the ability 10 fully perl'orm in
aU nreas oflh<; Work Program wbere she was a.<;signed. While the Division is curren!:!y in
• recruitment proce;;s and looking at ways 10 increase time for other employees to fill the
gap, there is no doubt that this departure ",11 impact our objectives this year. Evea with
contingency time, emergence 0( a new, large assignment woold Hkely lead 10 •
reprioritization o(tasks. An example 0(. new large project that could occur in 1995-96 is
passage O(Measure R, which would necessitate I number 0( planning work tasks, the biggest
.Cwhich woold;orobabty be rezoning the Califurni. Avenue Business District. Another
example woold be nthe City approves the Palo Alto MeClCaI Foundation's !kban Lane
redevelopment project, and the Foundation then decides 10 initiate the planning process for
reuse 0( their existing land-
POLICY IMPIJCATIONS
The Work Program is • Iooi for prioritizing and coordinating the implementation 0( City
policies and programs.
DISClJSSION
The Work Program assists in prioritizing assignments and scheduling rcsoun:es for
improved managemenl and eff.ciency. It is • communication i0oi for aU participants in the
Planning Organization (i.e., Cky Coon..""iI, City Staff, Boards, Commissions and <'Iher
members of Ih<; public). II is designed 10 complement, and be coordinated "'ith. the
Mission Driven Budget. It aDows aD participants in the organization 10 better undersmnd:
I) the tasks that baYe been assigned or requested by the City Manager and Oxmcil for that
fiscal year; 2) the assignments requested by O!hers; and 3) the amount 0( staff that is
estimated 10 accompljsh them. It provides. framework for setting priorities and making
trade-<>ff decisions during the year ,,'ben ne ..... unexpected task> arise. It allows for full
accOIInlabillly 0( time and tasks, and will hopefully be 0( positive motivational assistance
by allowing all members 0( the Planning Organization 10 coordinate their efforts, regularly
tlke stock: 0( their accompIlsbments, and examine their >hortfalls constructively. Finally,
!be Wod: Program allows for tracking deferred items into subsequent years or for
elimlnating work assignments completely if they baYe fallen from priority.
PrimiJies Rectmlweruied (or 1tJ9St96
Staff recommends that aU it.ems displayed in the white cells in the Summary be included
for the 1995i96 Work Program. .
CMR.:424:9S Page I of 11
c, ~';;-., \ ,
,-,,"
", ,>-. '~'-
m,Tr#t 1'rjgiiQ: These are items thaI are oi!her legally mandatory. City Council priorities
lOr 95196. high priorities lOr Departments other than Plarning but who need our support.
(l( eDlitlemenl applications subject 10 Iegal~. These items are 1101 listed ill ,ankM
0N!er because it isfelt they art aU inClSpeRSOl;!. or non-pos!pOllllbl •.
Jtem Number
S
6
1
8
II
J2
13
14
20
24
21,28,29.30.31
33
36
38
40
43
41
lI=..I.i1k
Los Altos Treatment Plant StL>dy
Doll'IllOwn Parking Strucrure
C!P Project Review and Coordination
Coordination .... ith Real Estate
StanfordISand Hill Conidor Projects
Former Maxlmart Site Commerci.a.! Use Extension
ViclCf Aviation
Palo Alto Medi<:al Foundation
Tree 'Ordinance
N ewsrack Ordinance
Comprehensive Plan Phase I! and ill
Downlown Urban Design Improvements
M"ldlOWll Area Plan
Consolidated Plan Annual PecRxmance Review
Housing lOr Persons wiih Development Disabilities
nS-7S3 Alma Slreet SRO
BMR Contribution frocn 651 Hamilton
~ Priqrjl;t: These are i!ems which are customer service or-permit streamIjning
~nb.llN'!!lM)!S. Mission Driven Budget impact measures, desirable for maintaining !he
Cily's Hoosing p<ogtam. 0< are legally prudent and responslble. These iteins art listed
in rankLd «der. but may have equal validity 10 the items around !hem but for diJ!erenJ
rea""'''. his from this list, SlaTting at thL bottom. lha151ajfwiIl defer lIoun as competing
objectives arise.
Item Number
42
44
45
2
39
48
49
50
Item Tjtle
Revision 0( Housing Reserve Guidelines and OrOUJaDCe
FY 1996 HOME Gran! Application
FY 1996 Mortgage Credit CertifIcate Allocation
CEQA Guidelines Update
BMR Program Evaluation and Keyser Mamoo Study
Implementation
Systems Technology· Publishing Graphics
GIS
Pennit Tracking Condition Monitoring System
, -,'
Pa&e' or 11
'. '-~
',-.'
4
l
9
10
35
37
26
ell' Design Consultan.t
Customer Service HandbooI<s
Possjbk (or 1995!1996
Sul>-Regional !nterageocy Review ~ Coordination
Regiooal, State, Federallnteragency Review and Coordination
Palo AItoJStanford In!ermodal Interface Area (Dream Team)
Downtown Urban Design Guide Publishing
HazMiI Storage Facilily Ordinance Revisions and Guidelines
Staff acl<nowledges and appredates the need 10 initiate the items listed below. displayed
in the light /trey cells in the Work Program Summary, with some immediacy. SbouId
Council decide 10 undertake any of these items this year, they would require a budget
amendrne1ll fur FISCal Year 95196 for contract planner assistance. Staff management lime
is available to oversee the contract personnel for an these items, 001 the four assignments
would completely COIl>UlIle contingency time from the Work Program and ch2lleoge oor
managemenl capabilities to an ememe. Collliogeocy lime is time left \!ll3ccouoted for in
order to deal with unexpected o<xurreoces O£ urgent assignments, and it is recommended
that some percent 0( cootiogency he reserved every year. 17reu items art listed iJt raJ7Ud
order. although they may hove equal vafuiiry 10 items arowrd them but for differelll
reascru.
Item Numller
l4
19
21
lS
lIem Title
Coordinated Area Plan
Historic Resources Board Ordinance
Sign Ordinance
Transfer 0( Development Rights Ordinance
Staff recommends Wt all items displayed in the Summary in • light grey cen be
considered in next year" Work Program, excep! Item 22 -Public Art Ordinance. The
Public Art Commission is 00 longer recommending pursuit 0( this concept. Staff,
therefore, recommends deleting it.
I!i.III BeclllRl!!ende:t
Staff recommends WI Item 16, Review Definitions 0( Gross Flooc Areas, shown in the
Summary in • dark grey cell, he deleted from this and any future Work Program. Item
22, ahove, should also be deleted.
h8e 10 of II
"
.' ":
"~~ :-.j,.:': "
!
.'
.,
.... , ,TERN .... TIYES
The a1rernativc 10 an adopted Work Progrml include contiroing 10 wor' wi!bout ODC.
Staff recommends Illallhis method of managomeru is Ill)( satisfaclOr)' to< Council, Boards,
Commissions, staff members, and public members "'bo often canDO( Ilnderstand why !be
Division is no( more responsive 10 their particular need to< service. Many parties do no(
understand Ibe staff Orne required 10 complete an ordinance amendment O£ <>!her projects.
Thi& is a Orne of extreme competition for Planning resources, due in part 10 the
Comprehensive PIan Update and in pan 10 !be facllllat mooy of our regula:o.-y ord~
are 20 years old and in need of rootempor..,)' overhaul.
USCAL IMPACT
The oosts of various Worlr Program items are included in the individual item descriptions.
Should staff be directed 10 pursue any of !be items indk.ted in !be light grey ceIls as
·Possible to< 1995196"" budget amendmeruor Olher source of funding will be needed.
ENYJR,ONMENT .... L .... SSFSSMFm
The Work Program is no( a project under !be definitions of !he California Envlroomental
Quality Act.
STEPS FOllOWING .... PPROV .... "
Once adopted, staff will use !he Work Program as !heir guide for !be remainder of !be
year. Progress will be reported in sill months in an informatiooal memorandum. If !be
Council assigns new tasks, staff will use Council's direction on priorities 10 aQjUSI !he
Wark Program 10 allow to< !be new assignment, (){ return 10 Council for questions of
prioriIy trade-off. A new two-year Work Program will be submitted in c:oojunction with
next year's budget.
ATfACHMENTS
Orgarlzational Chart to< the Planning Diyision
Planning Division's Draft Work Program
cc: Arcbitectural Review Board
lr!S!Oric Resources Board
Planning Commission
Public Art Commission
CMIl:424 :95
".' .. -.~-
-,
Page II ofll
'.;
PlannJng ptyfwIon Qrg nizdg , n CMr\ -.. .......
~ \.,/'
~
~ ~ ~
" ~ v·~ ~ ~, ~ . .,r ~ ~ ~
I
~
I
f
1
~
~
".
i<
-', '-, ~ ,-. <: :--":-:~-. "-.,:;.:.,;., -[ "
~ 1)~ '3fJM4 p~ 95/96
Table ofCon!ents
Work Program Summary Table ................................. 1
Pilblic Involvement. Education, and Assistance
I UpdMe HJUllnvent'lry,ua..<sifiGatloos ............................... 9
Z CEQA Guidelines Update ....•..........•. . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . • .• II
S Customer Handboolts ............................................ n
Liaison, Coordination, and Technical Advice
4 ClP Design Conso.lllml ........................................ '" IS
5 Lo< Altos Treatment Plant Study and Annexation ...................... 17
6 Downtown PaOOng St1'UCtIIre • . . • •• . ••...••...••..••..•..•.•••.••• ! ~
7 ClP Project llevlew an6 C«mfmation ............................... 21
K Coordination with Real Estate ..................................... 2)
9 Sub-Regioru>Ilnteragency Review &: Coordination ..•...•..•........•• 2S
10 Regional, State" and Fe<ktal Interagency Review lit Coordination ..•...... 2.
Development Review
II StanfordlSand Hill Projects ....................................... 29
12 fo<Dl<'r Maximart Site Commercial Use Extension •.....•............•. 31
IS V""", Aviation ................................................. 33
14 Palo Alto Medical Foundation ..................................... 35
Advance Planning
15 Transfer of Development Rights in !be Downtown Area ..•.....•........ 37
16 Review Definitloos of Gross FJoor Area ............................. 39
17 Midgation/Condition Mon.1oring Ordinance .......................... ~ I
I K Zoning ~ Clean-up ....................................... 43
19 HRB Ordinance ................................................. 45
Z() T~~ ................................................. 47
Z1 Sign Ordinance ................................................. 49
Z2 Public Art Ordinance ............................................ S 1
i
23 Noise Oral1lallCe • : .............................................. 53
14 Ne,"",""k Ordinance •............................................ 55 es Professorville Design Guidelines ................................... 57
U H .. Mat Storage Facility Ordinance ................................. 59
e? Comprehensive Plan P".we II ...................................... 61
2f Compreh<nsive Plan Phase III • Edit and Pubfish ...................... 63
t9 Comprebensi,. Plan Phase Ill-Draft ElR ............................ 65
30 Comprehen.·.ive Plan Phase m -Housing ............................ 67
SI Comprehensive Plan Phase [)I • Draft Plan ........................... ~9
S2 Comprehensive Plan Phase IV ..................................... 71
55 Downtown Urban Design lmprovements (CIP) .......................• 11
S4 Coordinated Area Plan ........................................... 75
55 Palo A1tolStanford !ntelIJlOdallnterface Area (Dream Team) ...........•. 77
56 Midtown Area Plan •...........•..•...............•...•.......•.• 79
57 Downto ... " Utbsn Design Guide Publishing •......................... II
Sf Consolidated Plan Annual Perform""". Review ...............•...•... 83
Affordable Housing 4< Commllnily Development Block Graat Program.
59 8MR Program EvaJuation/"'ampiementaTioc. of Keyser :Martsoll :Recommendations .. 85
40 Housing for Persons witll Developmco,a] Disabilities ...............•... 11
til Single Family Shared Housing ..................................... 19
tie Revisioo of Housing Reserve GuidefmeslCommer<:ial in-Lie. Fee Ord'llUiDCe 91
45 725-153 Alma Street SRO .•...................................... 93
44 IT 1996 HOME Gr.ulI AWlicatioo. ................................. 95
4S FY 1996 Mortgaae Credit Certificate Allocation ....................... 97
46 BMR ~ency Fund ........................................... 99
4? BMRConttibutionfrom 6S1 Hamilton ............................. 101
Information Management
4f Systems Te<:hnology/PublisbinglGraphics •.. ' ....................... 103
49 GIS ......................................................... 105
50 Permit Tracking Coodition Monitoring System (Phase II •.............. 107
51 CLG Gr.ulI AWUcation ......................................... 109
J'lfsIs"'(i(.lU
Available Time in Division (breaktloWll) ..................... 111
Available Time, Planning Director (breakoowD) ............ 11)
. ,
< .,'
i ,· ...... 'c... "
-,,-.
. ,
.... -i::' iii r Ad --....... '-~~,_~:.--~ __ ~ __
\
Work Program Summary
i
# It.m Object
Cod,
I'lIblic Involvemeut, Education and Assisf".ce
Liaison, Coordinatiou .nd Technical Advk.
()~'612 130
02612130
026121)0
02612130
026l2i40
02612150
Development Review
0261Jl )0
0261J170
Starr lIoan Re-com-Staff
(CoODtnd .1'$) .,endatiou. Member
6~
6()0
250
100
40
860
20
95/96 Jim II:.
contract
95/96 Jim ct:
95196 Jim
95196 Jim &.
95196
95/96 Sa.'"3lo
95/96 Nan<)'
95/96
95/96 Nancy
.. 'Not ""'tm:,, C!,IlmIlI:lu.4!d
.... Projto mkJlh~4
I
'." -
,. f ,,-.
;
[ ..
;. , .
..
.,>
J-,.~"", l' .-
1 AdvaD~e Planning
80
(J2612550 450
0:'612550 400
(J2612550 150
-
Rti.'OI'lll-
II1tndaHOIl
95,,96
95,'96
95196
95,196
95/96
95196
\,
.'
St.1fJ
Member
lim&.
contract
'Sane)
NanC)'
Gloria &;
Jim &.
• NcI ... 'dl'l1 ~ bU\!,p:et
.. Pr<:u-ec tc he: pl'.asc:4
3
, • ,
"
•
. -..
\
, \
\"
.-~-
\ ,
\ •
, , "
i·
";0 1
\
1
I
I
I
i
-.
StJlfT .OUtS Retom-Stair
(Coptract trs) meadatio. Member
02612"550 1150 95196
so
02612560 40 95196 \ru-ginia
02612560 50 95196 VlJ'glnia
'2612570 SO 95.'96 Cathy
Affordable Honsing alld Community In".lopmenl8Jock
L
" '," -~
>«
0:6113.0
0261!360
026JS360
C26t1J60
02611360
C[Jl'Is-,dc, ~~in
in %/97
53J
'20
140
J60
60
40
9ji<)6 lim&.
&: Catby
%/91'-
9$i96 Carby
95/96
95/96 Catby
95196 Cathy
" Noc "''"!lhm .:wTtnl bud.,'T(:!
"" Proj~d II;) k pt,~d
S
>,~
~->-,,(
<
;.:
t-,
-
\ <\
\'
.
... J
-.
:..,: •. :
Obj ... Stair 1I(1a.n ]I. ... .,. surr
Cod. madalio. Mtmbu
02~]1360 IlV 95196 Cotb)
IDformooon Man"gement
026]9400 470 95196 Gloria .t
PM
02619400 6M 95196
02619400 270
&'geted items rewmmended JOe FY 95196 (mgroc and staff hours) I
Uncomineed contingency lOr IY 95196
Total In avlilable I'or IT 95/96 work proi"8m (mgmt &I ""If In .. ) 8,643 *
*for explanatioo ofhours available for Wod: Program see Appendi.x
---
PROJECT DESCR!PTION
The HlStoric lnven!ory is 0"'" of the most extensively used docum<nts in the City regaramg
historic preservation. h was completed in 1979 and Ita! not undergone I comprehensive update
sine< that time, Many of I!K: buildings on the Inventory have undergooe additions 0<
mo<fdk.tions and the descriptions need 10 be amended to reflect the changes.
Supporting infonnation bas also changed over the year;, e<p"'iany ",ith regard til surr<>uo<ling
enYironment, condition of the bmlding, and potential threats to the site. This results in.
perception by HRB members that many bUIldings on the inver,tory are classified as less
significant than they actually are.
AdditiooaIly. the HRB is not satisfied' that the classification 5)'stem usc:d is consistent ~1th
national Standards w.-Historic Preservation and have diSC-<b--sed cbanging the oramane<:
definition of categories 1. 2 and 3 (seerehted Won program item titled nHi~'"tQric Preservation
Ordinance Update").
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
To maintain usefulness of the Inventory. It is necessary kl keep it current. This is lmpor'tant \0
further the City', objectives regarding historic preser,,"tion, but it is also on important Costo",,",
service objective. Currently. property owners oft.en find the HRB taking issue "ith the
eJassIDcation of!hei< bwldings and tI>e result is poor customer service, The fu-st phase of tI>e
Inventory updale would be " update those structures already On tI>e Inventory'. The second
p1uose ,"ould be to ldentify additiooal SIr,.;'""" that might qualify u.~der any new definItions of
categories.
HOURlY8EOUIREMENTS
P!=ing Oiv.sion •....... , 75
Contract .............. 1,000
Historic Resources Board . YFS
Manager', Office ........ YES
PubUc Weds De,\'l .•...• YFS
Att""""Y's Office ..•..•. YES
AdminiJ.trative Se"i<:es •. YES
The 1,000 hours of I coosultanl'. time would he spent conducting I siIe visit to each of the 500
properties currently on the inventory. assessing the struct'..lI'e on the site and assessing the
sorrouI>ding area. The infonnation ",Dec1ed in the field ... <>u\d then be compared to 1he
infocmation on file ",th the Cd}. Planning and Builamg files ... ouId be researched ~ planning
9
"".
entitloment and building pennits. II is .. ,6cipated <l\3! each site would require appro><imatery two
boors 10 visit, assess and researCh.
The 175 hol1l'S of oIlJf ti.Jm would be spenl ,,,,,",,,,inS the consultanl', data and managing the
consultanl =!rioct (5S boors), prepar;J1@ • staff report explaining the updale process and the
crirma _10 evaluate sites and $UITOUlldlng """" (40 boors), IS boors of Planning stafftirue 10
coordinate review cooduc1ed primarily the City Attorn'.}"5 Of'fia, Real Estate Di>1sion and
Public WO<b, 10 bows ofpubUc and staffcontact meetings 10 discuss invenlO<)' and IS boursof
revisions 10 the draft report after initial staffreview. 40 bours are allowed for HRB and City
Council hearings as weD as any special meetings needed with hlSUlric group<, proper!) o"'nen or
the communjty organizations.
Significant hours of ."fun ..... HRB lim< would be spenl reviev.ing theconsultan(s work and
draft recommendations for <hanging the existing categorization of specific buildings.
595,000 consuItan! conlIact -oot within currenl budget
STAFF RECOMMENPATION
_Recommended for ~.
~C<Jnsider as2in In %197
_Possible for 95196 w/budget amendment
~OI rewrnmcnded
Wnile Staff finds thls 10 be • high priority ",ork program item, Staff does DO! recommend that
thls item be undertalea until the categories in the oromance are updated and the defulltions
refined. Staff also """,mmends that • consultan! with experti~ in hi5!oric preservation be hired
10 complete the field work and researck for each of the structures.
N<>.: I
Date of Assignment Noc yet ass;go""
Multi-year: No
Expected Cornpletlo. Dale: NI A
Origin of lssue: Stilf aDd Historic ResoD rtes Board
Planning Sta.'f Lead: Li .. Grote
10
.. -.-
I"
•
,-
--
\.. ... ,\ . ~ -. II ('l()\(iuhkII11l.>_ II.uKIt"'(H~k\(lt, \.Uhl"n .. ;.· ... l\;"i) "~'.
tt. h.!,-ir:, (l,\I..',11 .. r,t J dU ... ,tlhHI ,I'l(t \·,.'l"'UIlI,.<"~ • . •
PROJECT DESCRlpnON
This assignment involves updating the City of Palo Aho CEQA Guidelin.-s-The current
publication was produc«d in 1984 and is out of da!<.
PROJECT JUSTlElCAnON
The Cily Attorney', Office.as long identified Ihls tasT< as one ..micb Legal and Planning staff
should undertake jointly. and it has been identified as a key plan item in this year's Planning
Division MISsion Driven Budget The number of EIR's cndertaken by the City has increased
Th. use of contract planning firms 10 complete ErR's IOc all City departments has risen as welt
The need IOc updated and easy to use local CEQA guideIL.,.. becomes more and more important
to assure legal adequacy of the City', CEQA process, to allow bener interface with consultant
firms. and to assure that the most recent State requirements are folded into our proc«dures. The
need 10 republish \he document througl! desk-top pubn.rung S<l tfu!t l! can be readily updated in
!be future is also high.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division . _ ...... _ 40 Anorney's Offi<e •..... _ YES
ManJlger's Of!i« .. _ . _ .. _ YES
The City Attorney anticipates needing contral..; sen6ces kJ complete this assignment,. Vto'ithin
current budget(?).
STAFF RECOMMENOATIQN
LRecommended IOc 95196
_Consider again in 96191
No.: 1
Date of Assignment: J ••• 1995
Multi-year: N.
Expe<:I<d Comp1etion Date: July 1996
O<igin 0( Iss\lO: Staff origlDat.d
Planning Staff Lead: N .Dey Lytle
_Pos.,,1Jle JOe 95/96 w!budget amendment
_NO! re<:ommendcd
11
. --.... ' .. ; .
-<, ~,::~:::
".' .'.;-
. ;:" ~-.'~' -'.--
,r
II (Lhhll1l,'L II.LIlJh,I{1j;, '
', .. \\ .
Ill' ..... 1 '-It '<"I1t\,.:"::,.)1. I dllL.tLtm LtIld ~\"'''I ... I.JJll'':
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Customer handb<xJks explain Planning DivLqoo processes L,% requirements in easUJ! understood
language and iIIm.'tnltioos. The handbook is • document thai customers can keep and refer to
wheD DO( in tbe office. The handbooks thal Planning currently uses have proved \'<I)' useful for
staff and customers alike. Existing bandbooks are update<i \0 include ordinance cbanges and DCW
handbools arc: created 10 explain processes Dot yet in handbook fOrm.; e g .... Conditional Use
Pennit, Su!xfi<,isions, and Site and Design.
The Division ru.s • plogram \0 ton'ert all entitlement handbooks \0 de,\;.1op publishing fo< ease
of update and graphic illustrations fur cust('lmer convenience. Several an: yet lO be reformatted.
PROJECT JUSTIfICATION
The new Mission Driven Budget ('MDB) requires that two handbooks be created or updated each
year. This work program item must be underteleD to meet the MDB objective. '
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Div'.sion ., .• " .. 340
Attomey', Office • , • , , • , • YES
~er's Office ....... YES
$200.00 for off-set printing oftbe COver $850.00 for 500 copies of documents
52,100.00 lola! for printing -Mthin curren. budget
STAFf RECOMMENDATION
LRec<>mmended for 95196
_Qlnsidc'r again "' 96197
No~l
Date of Assignment: September 1995
Multi-year: Yeo. T ... ".dbooks per year
Expected Coolpletion Dale: De«mber 1996
Origin of Issue: StaIJ aDd COUDciI
~05sible for 95/96 wlbudget arner.dment
__ NoI =ommended
PlanningStafflead: Us. Grote (ISO)" Glom HamMe (160)
•
.,,,,:
. -' -".-
':: .'F '"-.4" ., , ,
. -'\' ~----'~
II ( II' Dc"~1\ ( <"",,11.11\\· ~ • ,
t (1nll' I ~'" ,
J, ,".,1') (~\,\.<.,., ,,/ . .Jli ll~h[lll_;tl \thJLL' •
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The CIP Design consultant assists city staff from all Departments in incorporating aesthetic and
design ekments into public improvements. Specific work tasks include project assistance,
facilitation 0{ coord"Ul8oon foe inctusioo. 0( a..rt in ,'anous pt"Ojects, elP project evaluation fOe:
design i;sues and code evaluation fur implementation of broader design objective>.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The CIP Design Consultant bas produced improved design fur City projects, incorpo;atcd art and
aesthetics in projects and in some cases has reduced project <:osts..
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division _. _ ... _ . J 00
Contract __ .............. 500
UtJ1iti<> Dept _ ......... _ ns
Manager's Office _ , . __ . __ YES
Pubtic Works D..". ..... _ YES
Anomey's Office _ ... _. _ YES
Communi!)' Services _ .. _ YES
Administrdtive Services ... YES
$40,000 COQSTJ1taDt contr.K.1 • within cuneot budget
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
LRecommended fur 95196
_Coosider again in 96191
No..: 4
Date of Assignment: October 1994
Multi-year: Y ..
Expected Completion Date: On-going
_Possible fur 95196 wlbodget amendmenl
_Not recol'runended
Origin of lssue: Council" P1a.uD.illlr, ComtaiuiCla. A..t<:l!.itetturn llevic'w Boar", hbIk ~Celillmis"lo.
PI.mung Staff lead: Tun Gilliland
15
~ .
-.
".<. .. ' "~
PROJECT DESCRlpnON
Pubtic V{ocks~,. study 10 analyze !be use of!be former Los Alto< Treatment Mont at the
end of San Antonio Road for refuse co!lection, • "ehicle yard, and a construction staging yan!.
The study "in evaluate potential annexation of the lands 10 the Cit)' of Palo Alw through •
LAFCQ process. and aqllisition of tbe remainL.,g SO'I. o .... netShip from tbe city of Los Altos.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The site needs \0 be ""a!uated for several alternative city functions.
HOURLY REQUIREMEf't1S..
Planning Division ......... 6V
Cootrac! ................ UD
Manag",'s Offic<: ..•..... YL<;
l'ubtic Wods Del" ...•.. YES
Attomey"s Office .•..... YES
Administrative Services " YES
$12,240 for co!l5Ultant contnICt planJlff paid for by Pubr", W<ds • within current budget
STAFF RECOMMENPATION
.JLR.=mmende4 for 95196
_Consider again in %191
No.:S
Date of Assignment:
Multi-year: Yos
Expeded C<>mpletion Date: 1991
Origin of Issue: CO.Dei!
Planning swr lead: TUD Gilliland
_Possible for 951% w!budget amendment
_Not rect1mmended
'-
, .
11
. .:..,
'. '.,.
" ... -
'. -:
'-', .
" ~.' . " . .. '!-~-
~:'.<;. -. :.: '
•
I )\t\\ nl\t\\ 1\ Patkin~ StnH.ll1,e .
'\ ... " !ll_lI"r'Irl:lJ<:llI ... ·.ld)·· , '
: ',1.,'1'11 (\'\l(dj'l,llon.U'd f,,:<..l1ni ...... ! \thll.-L·
PROJECT PESCRIPTION
In Marclt ! 994. the City Council appro,'cd • comprehensive parking plan roc c!<>wnWv.." Palo
.AJto. On< 0{ the ckments of the Parking Plan is consideration O{. new parKing structure. The
JlIltpOSC of the prIljec\ is 10 investigate the overa!! feasilJility of the developmenl of. parldng
stn.'CtUre 00 one or n:-ore sites and subrrut a recomII1C!ldation to tne City COUIK:i1. The study \/IoiTI
include co~'tu1\t designs, cost estimates,. en"ironmentaI issues., economic impilC'ls., and
consideration oCmixed~use.concepts, Tran.~ Di. ... ision t.as the kad on the project 9oi.th
Planning Division Staff serving on the Project Sl1ldy Comntittee.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The curren! parKing deficiency, as indkatod in the annual Do"nIOWD Monitoring Program
report, is estimatod '" be 1.500 spaces. A significant """,ber of c!<>"''DIOWIl patrons and
employees intrude witl1 parIclng into the • .r)Oining oeighborhoods. The Chamber of Commer«
and Downtown Mari.eting Co1llI1littee and property O"WIlers have .'oicea serious <:oncems
regarding the parldng deficit. The study would determine the feasibility of cor.structing I
parIclng structure <>< sInJ<!Ures downtown '" provide needed additional parking.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ......... 40
Pubii<: Weds ........... YES
Transportation Division ... YES
No additional oosts
STAfF RECOMMENDATION
LRccommended f<x 95196
_Consider again i. 96197
Nc>.: ~
Date of Assignment M'T<~ 199~
Multi-year. Y ..
Manager's Offi<:e •.•...• YES
Attorney's Offi<:e •..•... YES
AdmInistrative Seni=; .. YES .
_Possible f<x 95i96 wlbtJdget amendment
_Not recommended
19
..... ,. , .
--..... ~-..,...--......... ~--... -. ---------'----,--c--
<:.
'it , .
Expect.:d Ct>ml'letiOl> Dare: y .... J .1Ud». Aprl11996
Origin of l~: Coueil
!'tanninS Stafflt:ad: lirll Gillila ....
PROJECT DESCRJPTION
Involves cocrdination among departments and agencies., assisting with ~nvironmental review and
permitting, and proce.smg of plaIUllnj! permi1s, wl>en required. There v< 22 project' thai ve
included in the proposed 1995-2000 CiP and an: expected '" he =pleted tbroogh thei<
entitlements in 1995-96. The estimated time commitment b planning staff review and
assistance for e&:h project assumes 20 hours of staff time 00 ..... erage. The time estimated
represents staff ccmmitmenl on these ",rious projects during FY 95-96 ooly_
LIST OF PROJECTS
Publi<: Worl<s
• Alma Street Bike Bridge
• Arastradero DanVCreek
• Page:MiIliFootJojH intenection
• Adobe Creek bridge
Transportation
• Embarca-kro Bike Path & bridge
• Traffic Circle Design
• Pedesman/Bike grade separation
&:.. Cal A "e underpass
• ~1OD landscape • Fl C-3IT1ioolMaybeD Improvements
• .Arastra: House DemofnioD
• Harbc< Marsb Restora-"on
• University Ave. pump station
• Barron Park storm drain
• Golf Couz:se Improvements
• Rinconacla PooIlmprovements
• Backfio~ Preventers
• ADA &00" and rounUtins
• Embarcadero pump station
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
• Traffic Sign.:! ControDers
Utilities
• AssUJ'11e I projects
Facilities
• ADA exterior signage
• Cbildreo·s Theater Storage Shed
RWQCP
• 72" storm drain replacement
Planning staff involvement in CIP and other Cily-spo!lSOred projects is ,equired. Many of these
projects require environmental .review~ design review 0{ planning permits, as wen as
inl<T<lepartmcntal coorcfwation.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division _ ...... 600'
Administrative Services _ .. YES
Utilities Dept _ .........• YES
Publi<: Wads Depl ...... _. YES
Attorney's Office ....•... _ YES
Manager's ()ffic., • _ . . . . . .. YES
21
.-~-.-..
(
"":' . •
NQ additional <OSls
STAFF RfOOMMENDATIQN
LRe<~ 1br95/%
_Consider again in 96191
N<>.: 1
;,"'" :..-~:-'>. ':
_Possible for 95/% ... ,'budget amendment
_N<>c "",,,,ru1).,,,<I,,<I
Date tl Assignment: Various CII' adoption dat ..
Multi-year: Va
Expe<1ed Ccmpletioa Date: Oa-gQillg
Origin of 1.-; C •• ad!
Pl.annlng Department lead; KeD St, ... iber
Planniqg swr lead: TIlD Gilliland (260) I< Vqinla W.rlstit (~)
,--.
. -"',
, " .--. -.:~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This tun..'tion inoludes ""iewing plans and proposals referred by the Real Estate Division,
participating in tenr...ant selection, coordinating DeCessary entitlemenls" envirorurental and design moew. Each project averages 35 hours of Planning Di ,·ision staff time.
LIST OF PROJECTS
• W'l1liams House • Duncan Pl.ace wen Sttc sak
.. Unive."'Sity A VeIlue Depot • Tower wen
• Senior Center Temp signs • U,r-mterlodge tennis courts &: park
• Sea Seeut Building
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
These arc on.going ftmctions that require Planning input in order 1.0 completel), assess the impact
0( certain projects and proposals, obtain appropriate ",nnants and uses and ,omplor.; pbysical
modifications.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Plaming Divisioo. .....•.. .40
Admlnistralive Servic<:s •. _ YES
No additiooal costs
STAFFRECQMMENPADON
LRecommended fOe !/St96
_C<>D.,ideI "lsain in %197
N0"'
Date 0( Assignment ADD 0&1
Multi-year. Ves
Expecte<l Completion Dale: Oa--goiag
Manage>"s Office ....... YES
Attome--.ls Office .•..... YES
_Possible fer 95196 ",.'budget amendment
~ot recommended
.-....... ""---_ ... -
.-~. ,',"-\ ~ ,
23
Origin oflssuc' C ... "oiI A CYy M ..... ser
Pianmna St.alflead: r ... GIlll1""d (",pt) 4< '~JrCini. Warholt (2SO)
24
.. ;-
-' .
'-'.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This funcoon includes re~.ng plans from other agencies and pro\lidi ng ~ooper3tive as.')i":,."tance
10 neighboring citie<, incruding Menlo Pari<. EasI PaJo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and
Mountain VICW. This function also includes. wlique referraJ relatioosbip k< actr.ity on
Stanford lands in wlineorporllted Santa Clara C<Junty
PROJECT JUSTIElCATlON
Projects for neighboring cities and Stanford should flo reviewed for consis1ency .. ith Palo Alto
goals and objectives. Plans that Stanford intends Ie process this year include:
• Housing Project near go!! course • ASA Science &: Engioeering Quad
• Manzanita Housing Project • Campus Transit Mall
Also, we would expect 10 """'iv. another 6 mi.5cenancous Santa Claro Arehitectural &: Site
Approval referrals 0( other jurisdiction', referral items (Staff time "erages 10 ho"" per eock
referaI item reviewe4).
HQilRLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division •.. _ ... 100' Manager', Office _ .. _ .. _ YES
'Does DOt include the fune 0( the Dlre,;tor oCPlannIng and COffiIDllility En,irOnmenl
No additional cests
STAfF RECOMMENPATION
LRecommended for 95196
_Consider again in 96197
No.' ,
Date 0( Assigmnent:
Multi-year. Yos
_Jc<S\'bk for 95/96 wibudg,~ amendment
_Not recommended
25
-. -. ~.
'-1 ~.
Expected CompletioD Date: 0,,-10111.
Origin ollssue: CDU.ciI, StaDIon! U.ive"'ily, Lout A,rocies and NeigllboriDl CIti ..
Planning Departmenll<ad: X •• Sclt,v"", PIanniD@ StlIff lead: Sa ... 11 O •• ey
26
-....
I · I~L~'i,,''',t1 SLUe ,mel I edenil Int~ragcm;, Re\ it:\\ Clnd
( ~\~)rdln,Hwn. . ~
("1'1" l'iUd":; .'
lll,..,,)I: ((\(Ifl:!.-ld:,pn ~nJ Il'cl"ll~,d \c.hlL'l'
PROJECT PESCRIPTION
This function includes revie .. iog plans, legi,lation, gmderioes, and rules from regi<Joal, state and
federat agencies.. EN the coming year~ t.'J)e primary roTe is anticipated 10 be in tile area of
reviewing state legislation regarding cba:lges 10 cmironmentallaw5 and ~lOus1ng ekmcot:reform,
and to changes in federal programs such as HOME and CDBG.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Legislative and reEUlalory changes can tw,.'c: a profound effect on the worldoad of locaI
governments and can provide for" funcfLng assistance.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Divisiotl •..••.. .40' Manag"", Office ....... YES
"Doe> no( include !he time oftbe Direc10r of Planning and CommWlity Environment
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
LRecommended 10< 95196
_Consider again in %197
No.: .t
Dat< of Assignment: OJl-goiDl
Multi·year: Yos
Expected Completion Dale: On-goiDg
-"o,sible 10< 95196 wlbudget amendment
__ NO( recommended
Origin of Issue: Fe<l.no~ Star. aDd Regional decioiou·mak ....
l'1anning Departmenllead: K •• Scluiebcr
Planning Division lead: NaD<]! Lytle
-",,-, ...... :--...~ -~ .~. ,
. '
21
..: -
•
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Star.ford has subIrJtred appEc.tions fOr varicus entitlements in the Sand Hill conidoc;
development of.partment housing on the vacant sIte Imo"" as Stanford West; development of
senior housing comp\<x althe .lte oflhe old Cbildren', Hospital; expansion of \be Stanford
Shopping Center; and improvements 10 and extension of Sand HiU Road and Quanj' Road 10 EI
Camino Real. These are-complicated and interrelated' projects whic:h ..... ·m require e-x1ensive
environmental and public review.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Planning Division is kgal!:y obligated 40 process all applications "-'If oc1ieJopment
entitlements, and \0 do so wrthin the parammrs of the Permit StreaIl".Iicing Act. Vlhlle tnese
projects are tecbnlcally development appli<ations wbick would nvnnalIy be assignod 10 Ille
Development Mooltori.og section (and thus not appear 00 the Division WDIi P"'!,'T"..m). they are
inducled here bocau."" they invol'le some legislative action and they repment an opportunity fOr
coorcfma\ed planning of the Sand Hill CO<ridoc area, and adequ>te staff time is not .vailable
wilhin the Development Monitoring Section. The outcome of decisions made re83l"ding \be:;<:
appIicaIions will be influellCed by !he cwrent Q>mprebensive Plan update process and .. in
blte\>ise influeDCe \be policie.s of!he final document
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ....... 860'*
Contract _ ............... 540
Building Div;s;on ....... _ l'ES
Transpo!1aIion Divisioo ... l'ES
Attorney'. Offi<e .......• l'ES
Manager'. Office ... _ .... YES
Pub& Wodes Dept ..... _ .. l'ES
Pofic. Dept ............ _. l'ES
C{lmmuruty Services ...... YES
Fire Dept _ ............. _ n:s
Utl1ities Dept _ ..... _ .. ... l'ES
Administrative Services. . .. YES
The staffbour> estimated COVet ooly \be period through June 1995 and include the fonawing:
App&atioo lteviev. and Processing: 560 hours
Envirorunental hnpact.Report oversight: 420 buua""'s
PubUc participation and decision making: 420 bour<
'Does not include the time of the DirecIor of Planning and Community Envirorunent
29
" ,
C -:', ~
'.
N<> additional 00<1-This is • 100"/0 cOS! recovery project
STAFF RECOMMENPATION
LRecommended fix 9S196
_Ccnsider again in 9&'91
No., 11
_Possible fix 9S196 wlbudget amendment
__ Not rC(;ommcllded
Date of Assignment: .... pp1ic:aIioD date July 1992
Multi-year: Y ..
Expected Completi<m Date: Eorly fall I"'
Origin of Issue: Stanrord
Planning Oo:partment kad: K •• Se1>rieber
Planning Staff lead: Uri Tcpley
II ' url11~I. \\.""","\ S,l.: l \H~l;II"rcia'l'"'' I. ~l~tl"l()n .
(on':')ulll~ .' .
\d\,i'lI..,:J PLl['l1dt~ .llld J L'\ l'iol'rlll'flI J(\.'\ IL\\. _
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 1995, the City Council, at the request ofth. property owner, inititaled • Ie.x! amendment 10 the
Zoning Ordina.nce k'! &Dow the extension of a tommerical a.rnortiza:ion 10 residential use b
COmmeI<;ia1 uses, including F ry'o Electronics, at )60 Portage. Along ",i!h the amortizatioo
extension action initiated by Council, the applicant filed fo< • rezoning of the adj ac<nt former SP
rigltI-<,f-wa~ property from sing!e-farnlly \0 muItiple-farnllJ to allow fo< expanded parking
facilities 10 set\'e the commercial uses. These zoning map and text amendments have received a
:recommendation for approval from !he Planning c..ommission, and tne public bea.rlr.g has been
conducted by C.OUOCi1. The item \1w1iS continued 10 determi.'1C whether two m..~bers ofthc City
Cou..."1Cil were permitted 10 participate in the decistons due 10 potential conflict-of-inl:erest
questions. The item is scheduled fo< Council rev'.ew on September II, 1995. If adopted, the
zoning map and ordinance will change, resulting :in an implementation requiremeru lOr the
Planning DivisK>n.
PRQJECTJUSnF~AnQN
This item was initialed by the City Counc-H and ",1lJ be <ompleted orn:e <!ley bave taken action,
anticipa!ed in Fall of j 995, "'ithln =t budget.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........ 20·
Contract ...•..•.......• YES
BUllcfmg Division. _ ...... YES
Transportation Divisioo ... YES
Publi<: Wods Dept ......• YES
Attorney's Offi<e ....... _ YES
Manager" s Office •.... +. YES
Poli~ Dejll •....•.....• YES
C.omrrnuuty Services + ••• YES
Fir. D<pt ..........•.. YES
Utilitie, Dept ........•. YES
·Does not include the time of (be Director of Planning and Coounlh-Uty Environment
S30~OOO in contract senices have been expended from manager" S cOlltingeOC)' fund 1994/95.
Any additional contract costs are expected 10 come from manager's contingency fund 1995,1%.
-"' .. "-. .. ' .....
. '--....:
..
31
".:.
I
I
I
I
. . ~~ .'. -.-.
< .
PROJECT DESCRlpnON
V"1C1Or A viarion is an FAA _ppmVttl, small alrcraft repair business located ot Ihe Palo Alto
Airport. ViCtor Aviation proposes k) construct new facilities fOr their use. The applicant has
currently filed b D.vtl"l'meot Project Preliminary review (pre-screening) and "ill receive
comments nom the Planning Cmnmisslon and City Council priot lO possib!e submission Qf a.
furmalapplkation. The opplicatio. could require modifkation oflhe Ba)'Jands Master Plan,
Comprehensive Plan and l't'ill require a conditional usc pemUt.
PRQ,JECT JUSTlFJCATlON
This is an apprtcatloD req~ from the property oVwner. As an entitlement application., the
Planning Division is obligated to process tbe application. 1t is inc'uded in tl:Je P1anning Division
Work Program because master plan amendments and projects on pub~c land are Ihe
,.,;poosibility oftbe Advanced Planning Section.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division _ ........ 29
Contracl ... _ ............ 129
BUllding Division ....... _ YES
T ranspor1ation Division _ .. YES
At1omey'. Office _ .•.... _ YES
Manager', Office _ ...... _ YES
Pubr.c Works Dept ........ YES
Polke Dept ............ __ YES
Community Services ..... _ YES
Fin: Dept ....... __ . . . . .• YES
U"liries Dept ............ YES
Administrati-",e Serv1ceS +. _ YES
This. is a 10001. cost teCOver:y project -00 additional costs.
STAFF RECOMMENPATION
LR<commended b 9St96
_Consi-1er egsi n in 96191
No:J3
Dale of App[tcanon, May,l99S
Multi·year: Yes
EKpec\Od Completion Dalo: Un"".,"'.
__ Possible for 9St96 wibudget amendment
__ Not recommended
--.... --, .. <:!'-.-.. , .. '~-~;----:.-. -~,
" .
, '
33
•
I;lripn <>II"",,", \'kia. Avllllou
l'Iallnln& Staffle<ld: T ... GUJjJu6
," c ~ ,
';"-, "
'.
II I"Ii') ,\lto \'kd'c,,1 IOllIlJ •• ll"ll " ,
( I1Il\P)' 111'_ •
lk\~'t'iHt' ... 'llt R\.'\h,'\\ ~ •
, ,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Palo Alto Me<fr<:a1 fOUI!dation bas filed awlie,ti.", 10 relocate their facility to the Urban Lane
area. Their appftcation was completed on ~(an;h t> 1995. An ARB prdimihar) fe\oiew occurred
on April. 20, 19Y5 and identified several site planning Iilld architectural issu"" The appncant bas
redesigned the project to inclU<k a large underglOllJld parking component and improved oo-site
circulation" better integrated '9with the SlltToWlding area..
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
This is aD appEcation request from the property owner. As an entitlement a.pplication,. 1hc
Planning Division is obngated to pr<xess the appEcation.. It is included in the Planning Divisioo
Work Program because it also imol" .. alegisla6ve .meadmen! to the Public Facilities (Pf)
District, 10 be initiated by Council at the request oflhe Palo Alto Medical Foundation.,
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ,_,,'" AO' PuN,c WOW Dept .. , __ . .. YES
Manager'. Office . , . _ ... _ YES Police Dept ....... ,.,. _,. YES
Building Di>ision ..... , .. YES Community Services ,.,. _. YES
TIaIISpOI'tAtion Division ••• YES fire Dept ............... YES
Altome-y', Office _ ...... _ YES Utilities Dept ............ YES
"Does DOl include the time of the Dir<ctor of Planning and Community Environ.'neTl!
This is • 1 Wia cost FeC(I'\Iery projC!lCt -no additional costs..
STAfF RECOMMENPATION
LRe<;ommeoded for 95/96
_Consider again in 96197
No" 14
Dale of Application; May,I99S
Multi-year, Yet
E"I""'ted Completlon Da.e: WlIIler 1996
__ PossibJe ~)r 951% w/budget amendmenl
_Not recl)Ir...mended
35
•
OrliPa of Issue: Polo Alto Medical r o ... d.1Ioa
Plannin8 Dh'ision lead: K .. SdlritI><r
I't.wlins Staff lead: NuCJI L)tIe ..
• 'Note: This project is JIlIUIOged b)' !be Dire<Ioc of Planning and CommuniI)' En,irorutM'nI using
wotracI assi",.".,.. o..!y llimited Oi\'isioo supp<>It rok has been ~ lIlus far or is
lDIkipated in lI>e futun:
36
~-,.
-,~,
~--,... '.~",
.' i
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
During the review of ~". Downtown regulation cbangelOr double bonuses, the Council directed
staff 10 prepate • Transfer of De-.'<klpment Rights Ordinance lOr properties in the downtown
area. Upon reviewing !he o!d1nance, additooal considerations arose and the assignment bas
nJ>aIldcd 10 fully acrount lOr seismic rehabilitation.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
It is consistent with the Comprehensive PI"" 10 expand the scope of!he lDR Ordinance beyond
that originally drafted by staff in order 10 encourage greater partici patioc ia the City's seismic
re!!abilit3lion program and the rehabilitation ofhistoric builamgs in the Do",ntown area
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division •..•... " 30 Building Division ....... YES
Contract •....•..... , ••.. 240 At:t!>rne"f'. Office ....... IT.s
Manager's Office •......• YES
Contract plannet will cost an odditional $22, SOO.OO -DOl within current budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
_Recommended for 95196
_Consider3j!ainin96197
No.: 15
Date of Assignment Sprmg 1995
Multi-year. Yos
E><pected C<lml'lotlon Date: 1996
Origin of Issue: Council
.JLI'ossibie for 95/96 w/budgot amendment
_...No< recommended
Planning Staff lead: TUR Gillilaud (30) '" CQulne! (240)
•
,-:.-0:,-'
.
•
,-.
•
,
I
f
,'. --
" .' ~ '" '> ">'<:':.' "
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Study the effects of revising the defi.,ition of Gross Floor Area so that it is measured 10 the i'1Side
of walls rather than the outside, for nonresidential structures.
PROJECT JUSJjFICATlON
The Planning ComnUssion is concerned thai: [he current definition of floor area discow-agcs
archltecturally desirable katures which rome with thick bwlding walls, aod iru.~.ad encourages
thin walls without the relief and interest of oldet bwlcfmg.. Staff concern would be regarding L~e
amount of square footage this new definition would re'Beve throughout the c·:mununity for
additions within existing code., -since the measurement to the outside of walls can add hundreds..
or for larger proJects, even thousands of square ~ 10 each individual project. Staff would also
be concerned about the manner in which the proposed definitiOD does not address the mass of the
structure. which is one of the pu!p<>'CS of the FAR site development ~
HOURLY REQUIREMENJS
Planning Division _ ...... _ 100
Manag .... , Office _ ....... YES
No additional costs
STAfF RECOMMENPATION
_Rocommended for 95/96
_Considet again in 96.'97
No~ 16
Date of Assignment: Summer 1994
Multi-year: No
Expected CompletoD Date, NA
Origin of Issue; Plannlng Commission
Planning Staff lead; NlUley L)1ie
Attomey"s Office _ ~ .... ~ YES
_Possible for 95,'96 w/budget amendment
.LNot recommended
39
'-,,<:----~ "'-::-~---, ---~-
~ ... '~.', ...•.
'--..
•
! •
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Develop a mitigation arul conditio. monitoring ordinance that would specif) how the City v.itl
handle enforcement of trlitigat.km and conditions adopted by Council for pmject approvals,
including establishment of. fee program \0 cffset L'Ie coots of enforcemetlt.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
State law (Public Resource. Code Section 21081.6) requ'res all Slate and local ag<nCies to
estabfish moni1oring Of reporting programs Yl<1len(ver approval of a prvject relies upon a
mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report (EIR). Accoromgly. our
adopted CEQA guidelines and procedures must be updated as neccs..<.aI)< 10 indude these
reporting r.quirements.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning DivisWn •......• 175
Building DivisWn ........ YES
COSTS
No additional costs
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~ommended fur 95/96
LConsider again In 96197
Attorney', Offi<:e ....... YES
Manager~5 OffKe _ ..... _ YES
_Possible for 95/96 w~udget ameadment
_Not recommended
Staff has long aspired 10 complete this assigornent. NO! Dilly is it legany required fur the City 10
adept • Mitigation Moortoring Ordinance, bc~ staff believes that costs for legal comprIance can
be recovered by the City. This measure would go • great distance toward building public trust in
the City as citizens obsen" the fulfillment of commitments made by C<>uncilln public hearings.
However .. due to insufficient: resources and completing pri..."Yities, staff continues 10 recommend
tbat avallable staff reso=cs be devoted \0 the completion of the Comprehens""' Plao and o<ber
higher priority wortl'rogtam items. Fonowing adoption of the plan, staffwould recommeud this
item as I wort program priority.
41
~.-"-,-~,
",
:;.-"
. .
,"
No.: 17
Date ol . .t..uignment; Darin, Hug/l .. Heiss Review 1994
Multi-rear. 1'1.
Expe..1«! Completioo Dale: liA
Origin of Issue: StoIJ ODd Stale Lto ..
. PI&Mina SIzff lead: Usa Grote
'-..
:" ..... . --~.""
::~1~·i~. ~+ -;,-:.-","
. ,
PROJECT DESCRlP.IlQN
Annual updaterdeonup of the Zoning orm!Wl<e is desirable to .ddre<s issues of L1<onsistency
and othe< problems identified by staff; the Pl=ning Commissioc, the City Council or the pubti<:.
Fo!Iowing adoption of any changes, staff foDow up will be required Co< staff training. and
revisioo of pubti<: luLndouts.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
State ]a'\ll" requires zoniTlg 10 he consistent ""ith the adopted Comprehensive P1an. The Zoning
Or~ cannot l>e considered. static tool O£ it wi1ll>ecomc ol>sole!< in • sllon time. It should
be updated on an annual' ba..~ in order to respond lo changing law, complaints and concerns from
the publi<. Commission and Council and 10 the cbanging planning eo vironrnenr. Due 10 pressing
workload issues, staff has let the annWli update slip fo< the past tIL_ years. Given the other
_program items of higher priority, slHffrecommends continuing 10 postpone this update
project until ccmpletion of the CO£npreh<nsive PIon. foThlwing cO£npletion of the
Comprehensive Plan, Planning and Attorney's staff wi1ll>e recommending a wOO; program and
bwlget foe • eomp!ele o,erbaul of!he Zoning Ordinance, DOl only 10 meet legal requirements of
CO<Dprebcnsive Plan cnmpott1>ility. OL~ also 10 evaluate those areas ",hieh have not bee"
f\mctiOniDg wen over the past several y ..... The "clean-up" items a«umulated wilIl>e .. Tapped
into 1hi. thorough update.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ...... 100+ Attorney's Oftke .... _. YES
Contract .............. _ YFl> Manager's Oftke .... " )"ES
COSTS
No adWtional costs for normal ckao-up. however I complete 20nEng ordinance a.l'llendment
following the C.omprehcnsive Plan will require contract services, now unestirnated, and
substantially more than 100 hour.; of staff time.
STAfF RECOMMENDATION
_Recommended for 95/96
tLConsider again in 96191
__ Pos:;ible foe 95196 w/bodgct amendment
_No( recommended
43
I
!
I
<
N.>" 11
v...te of ~ o.co"'a oM • tho","gk vpdat •• b:oold "" 8"d.rtakn 1I'h ••
C ..... pn/IeDIIv. l'Iu Update is •• mpr.tecl
Mlllti-yeor: No
£xpcct.ed Comp1eti"" Dat.,: NlA Qrlsm ofl...,.: SUO:
Planning Slaft'1ead: N0""Y Lytle
,
· ...
II 'Re\ ",cd I r",u,,~ RL>(llll (.:s Il'·'.lt'd.<)rdmancc ,
'C\' .
\d\,'f'\.l'l'ln; 1; J, •
. -
PROJECT peSCRIPTION
The Historic iterow<:es Board has identified !he IOlIowing areas 10 be included in !he update:
a) Authority o(!he Board. Currently the Board is. recommending body. Ahhougb HRB
review is mandatory. compliance Vl1tl1 Board actiollS is voluntary_ There is I beriefthal the
Board's effectiveness could be improved if compliance with HRB decisions is required If
this cban;;e is ...... "ted, the HRB'. Iel.monship wilh!he AIchi!£ctUIal Review Board (ARB)
could cbange. Com:sponding ""tiOllS of lbe ARB Ordinance (Chap"" 16.48 of lhe
I' A.\fC) would also need 10 be amended. Additional dty staff reSQUICes would be required
10 support another decision -making function..
b) Category definitions. lbeze aze cuzreody IOU! categories ofhis!oric srructuIes specifIed in
'the orCl!WlCe: 1,2), &. 4... These categories fa.'1gc ~n significance from l~ which are
exceptional buildings 10 3 or (" whicb are contn1v.Jting buildings. 'While the
Comprehensive Plan recognizes the value of the structures that are either ardutecturally or
cultuzally significan~ lhe catogories in Ille ordinaoce place impo<1an<:c 00 only those with
architectura1 merit. The HRB is no( coeviDced that the categories provide useful
distinctions wilen evaluating the impact of propos..-d modifications on bi.<tori< structures.
This port olthe HRB OrCmance ~mendmenJ would look at differenl ways of categorizing
bullcfmgs and the poosibility 0( not using categories at all.
c) Moratorium on demoEtion of signifJCant hi!>1oric structures in areas other than downto~'D..
There is currently a 60 day automatic moratorium on the demolition of signif,cant historic
building! outside olthe do",nto,"" area. TIl< HRB can =ommend 10 the City Council
1hat the m<><atooum l>e eJUendeci lOr up '" one Y'" 10 provide the applicant additional tilne
10 develop alternatives II> demolishing the building. The Board would evaluate the benefits
of implementing an automanc six month moratorium v..ith an option lOr the Board 10
recommend an additional six months if needed for the appficant to continue exploring
additional' alternatives", demolition.
d) There is neither coo:sbieDC)' nor reference bern.een our Hlstoric Ordinance and the
N.tiona! Standards. This effort would examine the "alue of incO<pOrating standards into
the oromance.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The HisI<lric Preservation Ordinance (Chap"" 16.49 oftbe Palo Alto Municipal Code) was
45
... -~
:
.l J-'
---.).
:..' ",
.,<. _Or'
.na<Ied in 1914. It h&s not undefg_. compreben<lvc uJ'date .incclhat time. The wI< hisL.n
presen~ play. in Palo Aho has evotved over !be las: 20 ye.,. and tile Ordinance needs 10 be
updated 10 ,eflect eurrellI cotn!!Utmen11o 1: :storic preservatioa.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ...•..... 60
C(;IIIIlIct •..••.........•. 500
Manager", ()ffk., ........ YES
Attorney', Office .....•. YES
Historic Resources Board YES
SOO bona coolIllct assistance would roquiro $47,500.00 not within budget
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~ecommeoded ~ 95196
_Cormder again in 9fJ97
LPossible ~ 951'96 v.1budgot amendment
_No! recommended
Staff =ommends 1hat this item be ondertake. as soon as possiN •. Many oIller future HRB
actions depend upoo the ordinance being up-to-&!te and n:flecti ve of tile Cit)··J commitmenllo
histOO< pn:servation.
No" 19
Dale of Assignment: Not yel ... igDed
Multi-year; No
Expected Completion Date: NA
Origin oflssuc: Hislorio Resour<n Board
Planning Staff lead: u.. Grote
46
-.• -. -
. -.-
:---:..:-:~ "~~::: . .c";' ~ " .. u . .:...,:.: -.-' .
PI !re'': ()r,hn,lIlcc' I( it> ,\11<"11,') ',I e,,\ll ..
\~\\. .
. \ ... ~. Ik'~' PLll',TlIIl'::; • _ .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Tree Task force has made recommenJatioos 10 the City Council L~at indude a
recommendation fOr a fru OrclinaIK:e. Staff is involved in: an interdepartmenW effort to
develop recommendations fi>r the Policy and Servkfi Committee ~'>at include options fi>r an
ordinance and the imp1ica!i<ms of "llI'ious optkms. Should Council select to proceed v.ith
direction k) S"..affto prepare an oo:dina.,I1Ce, P"..annIng would be" involved in supporting theeffixt..
PROJECT JUSTIFICATlQN
Palo Abo currentl)-does not have I tree ptOte\:tion oromance. Private trees that are proposed for
removal in C<:!njunction with ARB apprlCal.ions are often prevented from being r.c:moved Of their
destructioo is mitigated through !be ARB review and ordinance ,"",dards. However. trees
removed in .d",nee of !be ARB proc .. s 0< on single famj]y properties are no< regulated.
furtbermore,. there are 00 specific size or species definitions that define when !be removal of.
lree is of community importance, DOl are there standards which describe when removaI should O!"
should !lOt be al!o~ Sboold Council decide that regulation is !he proper CO""", .. .all' can
prepare an ordinance tu advance Coun...--ij·s objec:th'es.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Divisioo _ .•... ". 40 Public Wods Dept •.. , ,. YFS
Manager's ()ftia , . , , .... YES Attorney's Of!i<e ....... YES
Utilities Dept ........... YES C.ommunity SeJ'\'ices .... YES
If adopted. implementation of an ordinance "'ill require 1.0 FIE OD an ongoing basis,. as well as
!be office, lwdW1Ue and software requirements 10 support that position. Staff is required 10
process permjts, comptatn~ and violations related to the new ordinance. This is a significant
budgetary coosideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.JLR<commended fi>r :15196
_Consider again in 96197
__ Possible fi>r 95196 w/budget amendment
_Not recommended
41
•
•
No,:lO
Oak of Assignment Not Y <I A"iped
Multi-rear. NA
Expected CompJe60n Date, NA
Qr;giD of Issue: T .... T .... Fo ...
PlaMins Staff Ieod: N •• .,. Lyde
4&
,,'
':--.--' -' --':------.;:.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project would update the curren! sign ordinanc< (Chapter 1620 of !he Palo Alto Municipal
Code) and accompanying guideline, so tI1at they reflect tlle thinking and design standards ofll><
AIcbi!ectlmll Rroicw Board (ARB), current industry standards and techniques. as well as input
from the t.-JSiness community regarding signs. The project would include fomUng •
subcommittee consisting of two ARB members and severa!. members «the community ~ith
representatives from the business sector~ sign manu(acrurers. and general residents. Issues would
be b.-ougbl forth from eacb of \hese seclOt'S 10 identify wbeoe Ihe ex5sling regulations are ",,,,);jog
and where !bey fall short of expectations 0< desires. Sign applications widu!! Ihe 1a.4 five years
will be researched \0 identify how proposals Mve been <hanged 10 be more consistent with Ihe
architecture of I butltfmg Or the surrounding area Sign programs 9.o"ld ordinances from other
cities will be evaluated to identify the advantages. and cfisad\'antages of having different types of
requii"1:ments.
The products oftbis effort would include: I} an updated sign ordinant<; 2) a handbook, with
illustrations. tI1at explains Ihe sign ort!inan<:. and pro,ides examples of the Iypes of signs thal tan
be wed on different styles ofbmldings in diff.er<:nt lota6<>ns; and 3) Updated settioos of
guidelines such as Ihe FJ Can1ino Real Guidelines, "'bleh address signage for specifi< areas of
Ihe Cily.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The ARB and staff have long considered sfgnage 10 be a critical clement in the successful design
of. bUllomg and have long UDden.100d that Ihe existing sign ordinnote is ou,dated and does no<
achieve the desired result if maxL-num sizes arc: permitted. The Board has developed preferences
and infonnal gnidermes towards signage, whlch are "'" always distemablc whee reading the sign
ort!inan<:< and other .<isting guidelines. Identifying, illustrating and coolfying the prefereoces
will assi.-t appIkants, designers, staff and Ibe Botu-d "lien designing aod ""iewins sign
appr.catlons, and improve customer servia. The Cily Attorney Ila5 also noted that \be sign
ordinance is outdated ar:ul oeeds evaluation in leems of recent legal dec tslons.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division _ ....... _ 60 AIchitectural Review Bd . YES
Contrnct . , ......... _ .... 500 Attorney's Office ....... YES
Manager's Office _ .... _ .. YES
49
.....
•
;
/:
(
.: ... -.'
Controc1 planner 'C $41,000.00
Cost of deslt-wp-publishing im~ printing a bandb001r. .. ill1>e included in next year's budget The
estiroa:e is 51,000.00 for SOO copies to print the dQcWD<1lI plus the staff tWoe for d.. .. k-top
pubr15h ill at BO boors, defered to '96r91.
STAff RECOMMENDATION
_R=mmended for 95196
_Consider asain in 96197
N~.: 21
Dale 0( Assignment: No! Jel ... ipt<l
Multi-year, N.
Expected C.omp!etioo Dale: D«<moo 1996
LPossible for 95196 wlbudget amendment
_ .... ~ot recommended
Origin oflssue: Archil.dural Review Boon!, .taff, ba.in ... community
Plsnning Staff 1ea4: u.. GroCe &I Gloria Bumbk -96197
--
,',
. -.. . ' .
tl l'l~bltC ·\rr OrdITMlllC' . • ..
( IlILI It I '11"1:.' •
. \~.h ,j('Ll'd PIIJlllIIJ~ .
PROJECT DESCBlPIION
S~ !he late I 980's, the Public Art CommissioD bas, "jth the assistance of:bcir sta..'!; the City
Attorney', Office and the Planning Div;sion, explored the idea of funding public art through
private and p\lbIlc development fees (percent for art) or through r-eq'..Iiring provisioo of art in-fieu
of fees. They have reviewed the oofmances of other dties, prepa. .. d draft ordinane< matcial for
Policy and Services Committee conskkratiun,. bUf have nO( cOIl'Iple"ed a nexus study or received
Coun<il c1ircctioD OD the cootent of. I'JbBc Art Ordinance.
PROJECT JUSTIfiCATION
The Do9.'I1town Aml!Ilities Committee Report and Do';l,""DIOv.u Urban Design Guide both
supported art in pubflc place, as I poli<:y objective. Th. curren! Comprebensive Plan does not
contain cflI'eCt policy language supporting I pubflc art requirement, but the draft Comprehensive
Plan Poli<:y document under review b)' the Cooncil does eODtain such language. The City has
suppo<1ed the acquisition of pub"c art and a p<ogram for \he rct<ntion of. public art co!le<:tinn
tbrongh the C1P, and through the appointment of the Pubfic Art Commission. App!icatioos for
Planned Ccmmunity Zone Chang .. llave bees appro,·cd.,jth public art as • component of the
pubE. benefit derived from IIle project. The rubE. Arts CommIssion ber",,'., that the current
budget and commitment is insufficient for Palo Alto and that significant steps toward acquisition
and expansion of the City" art roDection could only be made through the r~uirement that art be
included in developmeut projects. either public or private, They point 10 neIghboring cili .. as
examples of jurisdictions which have made ad\'ancements in this arc-a in recent years through
their orCl.lWlCC' requirements.
HQURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Divisioo ........ 300
Community Services . , ..• YES
Attorney', Office ••...... YES
No additional coSis
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
An;hilectu.'1II Review Bd • YES
Public Arts Commission . YES
Manager's Office ...•... YES
~I
~ ..
•• . .....
'.
_Recommended for 9S196
LCoosiller "!lain in %'91
Nc.!ll
Dote c( Assignment: 1m
Multi-year: Y ..
Expe<1<d Completi<><! Doto: U.kB.,.,.
Ooigin of Issue: hblle Art Com",hsion
P!aming StBlf k:od: Nucy Lytle
52
_._P"",ihle for 9>'96 ",,'budge! """,admen!
-,"'l:()( recommended
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Review and ""is(, abc city Noise Ordinance (pAMC Chapter 9.1) including .valuating
expanding the types of notse !Io')IJrCCS addressed. ano ... i:r1g less or more restrk.."'tive noise levers
wllere appropriate and makins ill easier 10 understand and enforce. The process ",oold be an
interdepartmental effort incl<iGmg tlIe Planning. Pub!i<: Wotb, Bwldmg tnspection (Zoning
Compliance), and Po5ce Departments, and City Attorney's Off",. and require the support of.
ooise consultant with expeni-o;e in development ofNo"ise Onfmances and noise measurement
methods and mitieation measures. Key tasks include: I) .. ith public input. ;dentilY sho'1comL"lgs
of the existing noise ordinance, noise sources not currently addressed. and mea.suremeDt and
enforcemcm issuesIprob!ems.,. 2) ;twith consultant assistance identify the pros and cons of different
means of controlling noise/measuring noise, .3) identify aIlernati ve ordinance approa-::hes and
recommendation ro.: development of noise ordlnance f<K public re'o<'lew and Council endorsement.
and 4) preparing a dralt ordinance and ecviromnentaJ assessment fer puNic re,,;ew and City
Ccuncil adoption.
PROJECT JUSTlFlCATION
OoC'.lI!Jents prepan:d as part of the Comprehensive Plan update identify the need 10 revise abc
City's Noise Ordin.i'lC<:. Suc~ action was suppo<1ed by the City Council during their initial
review of the Comprehensive Plan Update Policies and Programs Draft IV. Natural Envirorunent
Section Goal NE -I is 10 "Reduce and prevent noise poilution." Actions to be takea 10 racruevc
this goal include Program NE·S.B7 'Update !be Noise Onfmance". A T«hnical Background
Repoct on Noise prepared by noise consultants lIlinpllrth and Rodkin evaluated the existing
noise.ordinance and identified several shoncomi.'1gs: duratiou of noise me&.wements \('l esta.btish
background ambient OOlse levels ~'aS too short. some noise sources are not addressed and
allowable noise levels ","'ere overly restricthre. The noise ordinance eurrent!y allows noise k've1s
to be • certain amounI above ambient (backgronnd noise). Ambient noise levels are currently
estab!isbed by six minute mea:;uremcnts. Background Noise levers may ''31)" significantly from
six mInute period to six minute period. It was suggested that it be re'Vwntten to set spedfic noise
rmIits anc."lied by zoning (t.,_ single family) or ambient noise kvels based on a n<>ise
measurement survey, reasooab\e ooise limits be established for each type of area (strictcr for
1<Sidential areas), and .Iooger, i j minute period be used for measuring potential noise offenders.
The Police Department represeDlatives respoosible for enforcing the ordinance also recommend
th3t the ordinance be revised 10 make if: easier 10 understand 3I1d enforce.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
53
'.
!
I'lanniDg Di~ ,., ..... 300
Buildin$ Dop! .... , ...... YES
1'011<:< ~ .......... ., YES
ltTAFf RI;CQMMENOAT!ON
No..: Jj
Oat. <>( Assigruneat; N.: ret ... iped
Mul!!.-",.., No
E.pe.."I<d C<>mpleti<>n Oat.: NA
PuN;. Work! Dept .....• YES
.'nom,,>,'. Off", •....... YES
M"""S""$ Office ..... ,. YES
_l'os~1>f. fut: 951% w,'\>udgO\ ~
_Not =oounendcl
Origin off"""" Compreh ....... P/a.o Advioory Commltt ..
Planning Staff kad: San. o.en<),
54
--
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City Attorney" Ofi:'<e has been assigned 10 prepare & report for Cit) Council regarding th.
regulatioo of Iltwsack. ... and 10 work with • subcommittee, appotnted by the City Manager, of
~pel and Downto'WIl interests on the content recommeodations lOr .a ft.-rure ordinance. The
ordinance prepared by !he attorney', ,,'ill need 10 be coordinated v.i!h Ill. plans being prepared
lOr lhc Do",ntoWIl Improvement PIrul OP. Planning will SlJpport thc Attorney', in lhcir
as.'iignment and coordinate the eIP with any draft Oz\fmance.
PROJECT JUSTIFICA liON
S~ the ~ntrol of """'STaCk proliferation is • higb priority of the Cba,nber of Commerce and
CiIy Staff; it is important thaI the newSI"a<'k component of !he Do"nto"'" Iml"""'ement Plan be
implemented as • high and first priority among an of the improvements designed in the plan. In
order 10 do !hat, DOl only do !be ""''SrlICks need 10 be designed, but !he kgal and practical
mechanisms lOr controlling and managing !hem must be in place. The Dov.ntown ClP is • first
priority impkmentation program in !he Dov.n.own urnan Design Guide, and both documents
reference new newsrac::is as a needed improvemeot The ordinance is a requirement for any City
initiative 10 limit Of CODtro: ~'STaCts.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning DiviOOn ...... _ .. 40 Attorney", Office ... _ ..• YES
Manager's Office _ ....... n:s PubEc Work, " ........ YES
POllce Dept ............ ~ YES
No oddinonal =
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
..LRecommended lOr 95/96
_Consider again in 96197
_Possible fOr 95/96 'VIrlbudget amendment
_Not recommended
No~ 24
Date of AssigDment JUDe, 1995
5S
-·----.. "'-~---c---_____ "
. ,
....
Multi-year: No
Expec\<:d CompletiOc Dale: July 1m
Origin 0( Issue: City C.uDclI
PlamUng Slaff lead: NODe)' Lytle
56
·.,,"
'. --, .. ," -
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This item would result in design guidcrmes lOt-the Piofessonille Historic Distri<;r. ",hich would
provide lex! and illustrations explaining the various styles of boose. in the district and bow
"",bitectur.oll~ compatible additions can be designed.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The houses in Professorville have special historical signi!kance 10 the City of Palo Alto.
Homeo~'DeiS are not alYoays aware of the historical ,,<alue of their house and do not necessarJy
undelb"tand bow to design an addition t..~t '9Ii ould be sensitive to the original cha.racta of the
structure. The Histori<: Resources Board (HRB) ofle. gives detailed advice 10 property owners in
the district about bow 10 de<;ign an addition. All applicant would be much better served if this
information is made available 10 hirnJher prior 1.0 beginnirlg an addition or remodel. The
applicanl ... ill save time and mon<y if fewer cbang .. '" proposed designs need 10 be made.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Divisfun •...•... 180
Contract _ ..•..........• _ 400
Attorney's OffICe _ ..... ' YES
Manage,'s Office ...... _ YES
538,000 would be required in consultant coatr"dCI sen;';es.
$851)00 lOt-SOO copies of. bandboclr. siImlar 10 those cum:ntIy used by the Planniag Division
lOt-HIE's, ARB and !iRE explanation. There would be an additional 80 bours of sl.aff time
needed in the subsequent year'. wad< program, to desk-top-publish the d<JCumeal
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
_Recommended lOt-95i96
LConsider agaia in 96/97
__ Possible lOt-95196 w!budget ameadment
_Not recommended
No.: lS
Date 0( Assignment: Not yo! ossigDed
Multi-year: N.
Expected Complolicb Date, NA
57
0rlBin ollssue: HRB
I'!an!ling Slitffk:ad: LIo& Grol, & Gk>m U.",bl. (%191)
II I Lt/,IIde',,, \lal,',,:,b S\()r,'~l' I dcihl, ()rdlll:tl\(c' .
( 111:1 I 11'1 I I; ".
\l \ ,'I, ..... I'Ll'lrIlt':;
PROJECT DeSCRIPTION
In July o{l995, Ihe City Council.ppmv.;! • staff recommendAtion to adopt an ora,nance roc
Hazardous Materials Facility Siting. in «de. 10 comply with Ihe Santa Clara County Hozardous
Waste Manageaoent Plan and Ihe State Law. In adopting Ihe siting criteria imposed by the
County, City staffre<"ommended and Counc>l dirw.ed that a follow-up a<signmenl be made
wb icll would have staff further evaluate Ihe specific crileri a roc the City of Palo A.~o, and make
any additional modifications to the-regulations which mJght better suit Palo Aho's ucique
cin:umstances. This. wed item is to co-millet(, that follow-up assignment.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Vv"bereas the County approved Hazardous Waste Siting criteria are general provisions applicable
~ they !:ave yet 10 be anaIy2<:d by staff roc \bei< specific applicabilily to Palo AIm.
Whereas 1be Stale provided us 180 days to comply .. itll1be requirement to adopt the C"unty
-criteria or our own. we did nOt in adopting the County criteria .retinqulsh the ability to furtl-.er
examine 1hem and consider modifications that are more tailored to Palo Mo·s specific
cireumstanees. Wrth \be C<JIDprebensive Plan Phase ill efiOrt (i.e, development of the Draft
Plan). further analysis roc the Safety Element will be conducted in collabc<ation with \be Police
and fire Departments. AdditionaDY,!be fire Departmcnl is DOW updating !be Emergency
I'reperedness Plan. It ",ill be an opportune time roc staff 10 exanline the County siting criteria in
more detail and to bring fOrward any analysis or re<"<Jmmended modifications to \be community
roc eonsideration.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division _ .... _ ... 80 PoflCe Dept .. _ ....... __ YFS
fire Dept . __ .......... _ n:s Attorney'. Office __ ... " \TS
Tr.msportatloc. Division _ .. ns Manager's Offiee ......• YES
None at this time
STAfF RECOMMENPATION
LR<commended roc 95196 __ Possible roc 95/96 wlbudget amendment
59
,'.,' .
""-" :-
N<>~16
Date of AsslgMleCt: JIIly. J m
MuI1i·year. N"
-~ CooIpkIlon Date: lilly 1m
Orlgl_ of Issue: COlUlea
Planning Sts!f lead: Sam Ch ... oy
. .:"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This functioo involves completion of the Phase n portioo of the Cornprehensi v< Plan
prepa:atiou. \'J.,;1oUS woo. ru,ms inclulled preparation of base maps, pn:paration and set up lOr
meetings, &«:hnkaI support 10 CPAC and commi«ccs, sununary report preparation, Distribution
of Draft Program and Policy documents and cooofmatioo of staff re<:ommendations. Remai"jng
tasks inclcde completion of public re>1ew of Pl4nning Commission and City Counc~ of !and use
maps and completion of review of goals, poUcies and programs lry the City Council
PROJECT JUSTIF/cATIO~
Cities and Counties in CaUfomia are required 10 prepare and adopt a General Plan ( .. ruch we can
our ·Comprehensive Plan"). The CaUfomia Government Code specifJCally defines the pwpose
and c:<>n!CUt of general plans. Primarily, Stat< law requires !hat • genera! plan be integrated,
internally consistent document with analysis and dsta supporting the proposed objectives,
policies, standards and actions 10 the plan, and that iI be """"ted regularly.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........ SO' Attorn<y's Office .•....• n;s
Manager', Office ••.....• YES
'Does no! include the time of the Director of Planning and CommllllifY E..ironment
No additional costs
STAFF RECOMMENPATION
LRe<:ommended lOr 951%
_Consider agoin in 96/97
NQ~27
Dale of Assignment: Oct. 1992
Multi.year: Yes
Expected Completion Date: WiDter 1995-!16
_Poosible lOr 95196 ",,'budget amendmcnt
_Not recommended
~, "" '.
61
..
. -,-,.
,
./
::::; ,
Origin oflssue: COlIlICiI
Planning OtpertmeDllead: IC •• s"l>rIol>er 4 PIarutillg Di...isioo lead: 1'1.0., Lytle
62
. ,'"
. ".' ..
.-
'. -
II l'''i11\'lCh~I1'1\~ I'LIn I'h,,,~ III -! diLmd I'ub""h
l \11 l"lUt'}'::
\-;::' .H~lI.. PLlll!! L' .
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Phase ill of the Comprehensive Plan inciude. C<Jmpilation, editing. and pubtishing of the lIIl!li
Comprehensive Plan. It will !1!50 involve preparation ro. the .fi.MI pubfi<ation, which will occur
alIer Phase IV (l.e., pubGc "";lew and adop<icn) is camp\e<",.
This wori irem includes staff time fOr.
J) generating:
LOVe! I ()() graphics designed 10 augmer.t the text,
b. 20 (II "x 17") !bema&: maps 10 be included in the docurrn:o~
c. the J"'l!e Land Use Map.
d. packaging aspa:ts such as chapter dividers. binder graphics, etc,
2) se!ecting and interfacing Mth the prioter regarding:
L method of reproduction (e.J, offset printing or doculec~).
h. medium and Ianguoge ro. delivery of Gl S g.nerated maps (e.g .• PostScript).
3) managing the contract for the consultants v.ilo will:
.. edit the document into friendly English .. ilik mai otaining legally required cootoo!,
b-. develop cross references and remove redundancies.
c. develop lOotnoting, appendicie .. glossary, and index,
Ii assist in developing formal and style standards,
e. assist in se1ecting the printer, and
[ assist in 1n!erfacing with the printer.
4) C<JrApiling the final do.."\UIleIll in • digital format that
a. facilitates dofivery to the printer,
b. fJ.:ilitates storage,
c. facilitates b...-k-up.
d. facilitates updating.
e. facilita1es archiving, and
f fJ.:ililBtes subsequent re-printing.
AI!bougb development of in-bouse deslt-top-publi;hing capabilities is. subset ofwork item '48,
Systems Tecbuology, this work item also includes some sufftime for the development of in
house capabilities dun are parJcular to and critical to the Compreht.~vc Plan (e.!...., translation
0( GIS 8=ted graphics and storage requirements due 10 the size of the documen1 and the need
lOr it 10 exist in more than one software Jaog'.lage~
It should be noted thaI th, potential lOr translating the document 10 the internet will be
maintained, but is no on-line pubrrshing bas bee. budgeted lOr, in this work item.
-'.'
,
63
~' .
", : '-.
,',
PROJECT JuSTIFICATION
The Comprohensive Plan must be readable, usable, kgally adequate and easily updated. Staff is
developing in-house de*",!> pub~shing C3pabUities si,nuItaneGUO witb!'bas< ll. The final plan
and a Wmat whic" allows for annual, professional·JoolJng upd.tes is I goal stated by the
Council wiles they dITec'.ed staff 10 undertake the assignment
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ...•.... 4SO
Attorney', Office •....... YES
Manager's Office , .....• YES
Administrative Service. .• YF.8
$24,000.00 in 1994-95 budget and commirted for ronsultanl5ef'oic<. .. -plus additional $SQ,OOO.OO
Iilr printing in CUJml! budg"'_
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.JLRecommended Iilr 95196
_Consider again in 96197
No" 2&
Dale of Assigrunent: Oct. 1991
Mu!ti'year: Vea
Expected O:>mpletion Date: Summer 1996
Origin oflssuc: Cooeil
__ Possible Iilr 95/96 w/budge! amendm=!
_Not recommended
P!anning Staff lead: Gloria Ramble (300) &; PIla Dascombe (ISO)
64
-"""'. ' .:~.::-.: . ..; -
.", ."
-,-
PI, (-Clmt;[""CIl~II" Plall Ph:'" II! -Oraft [IR _
,~\\ ... '1 ( \~1l',:~)\\\l'~ ,
,\ .. : \ .)fl>. .... P Ln IlIH.:! . . ~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Administer consultant cootracl foc preparation of Draft and final Environmental Impact Reports
and Mitigation Monitoring Program 10 identi!)-, analyze, and mitigate potential physi<:a1 effects
of implementation 0( Comprehe...'1S:ive Plan Environmental Impact Report; and assure prepara.tion
<>f a legaJJy defensible c!ocum<:nt.
Tas.l<s: A) RefineiModify 'Existing Condruons' database for use In modening analysis B)
p~ Project Description and dev,1op Project AItemati ves \0 be evaluated in the EJIt, C) lrold
two PubrIC Scoping Meetings for input into environmental is,,,,,, to be addressed in ErR, D)
Fin.f!,., Scope o(Work for EJR, and complete any necessary contF.ct amendments, E) Rniew
Admicistntin Draft ElR and direct consultants 00 necessary modifications, F) PubrlSh Draft
EIR, 0) Issue Nooce ofC'<Jmpletioo and distribute Draft ElR for pubr,c review, H) lrold Public
Hearings 00 Draft EJIt, I) Direct consultants on prepardtion of Final ErR fFEJR) and Mitigation
y.ooitoring Program, 1) Publish and DistnDute FElR, K) lrold PubEc Hearings 00 fElR and
Mitigatico Monitoring Program, L) Prepare Findings for Action on C'omprebensivc Plan and
Certificatioo of F ina! EJR, and M) File Notice <>f Detennination.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Preparation of an ElR is requiIed by C'EQA. This master ElR .. ill serve as a basis for CEQA
c:omptiance iOr many development applications over the coming years.. It is .. customer service
objective as weil as a priority item identified in the Permit Streamlining Task Forc, moctings by
business representatives,
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division "_,,,.400·
Mansg.,'s Office _,' _ , _ ' , \'ES
Bnilding Division .. , , , , ' , YES
Transportation Division : , , YES
Attorney's Office , , , , , _ , , YES
Administrative Suvi<:es ' , ' YES
Publi<: Worl<s Depl , , __ , ' " \'ES
Police Dept .... + • • • • • • • •• YES
Community Services ,_"., YES
Fire Dept ...... _ ........ YES
Vtiliti-"S Dept ............ YES
'Does 001 include the time of the Director <>f Planning and C'ommonity EnvironmenL
-.. ,*-~->.-
-:;-..,
65
'._. ",.-+
,',
,'.1
Howly breakdown:
g() Proje<:t DescripIioo and [nili oJ
S/udyMOPMOC
60 Seeping meetings
30 Amend contIacl and SCO!'"
80 k>ie ... !comment on drafts
40 Staff reports!findings
..--'"
. <
)-.
-,
60 Pub'", fkaring.
04 Printing coordination
25 Ads and notices, distributioo of ~uments
:!O Mastt1 ElR kUcw-up
400 Total EIR Administration
(480 Oat.base Development)
S9S.l50 committed io< Environmental Consultant Seni<es -within current budget
Olxcludes costs fo< Traffic Consultant Senices. also within current budget)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~_Reoommcndcd fo< 951%
_Consider again in 96197
No..: 19
Oat. of Assignment: Oct. 19\11
Multi-year: YES
Expected Completion Oate: Sammer 1996
Origin of Issue: Council
Planning Department bd: X .. Scluicber
Planning Staff bd: San. a..Dey
66
_Possible for 95/% wlbudget amerulm<nt
~o( recommended
',. ·
'" ;! • :.:, 1 > . ~ .. .
.:.' .c,.,
II { tll1llj,chd"j,,· PI.Hl I'h.hc· III 0 j {O[[""g Fkrn~nt· .
('illl'll1l1J 1::-: .
\d\:)"",-P:,:1)1111 _ •
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Administer consu/tant c:u1lll"aCt ror preporation oftl!re< documents ,,'hich togcther ",ill become
the housing related materia! lOr the comprcbelb";V. Plan. The three documents are we T",,!mica!
Documen~ whieh shall be considered !lie Housing Elem.~ a summa:y document lOr ~lusion
in the C.omprebensNe Plan and an executive summa:ry for general distnouUon. The COD!>-ultant
.. ill be primarily responsible IiJ< pr<'parati<>n of the Technical document and "ill assist staff in
J>reP"'Otion of the summary document IiJ< ~Iusion in !lie Comprebens1v. Plan. Strlf will
prepare the executive summ81)'.
PROJECT JUSTifiCATION
The Housing element is • required part of the Comprebensive Plan and is further required by
state law to be updated approAimately every five years.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS_
Planning Division ....... ISO' Attorney's ............. YES
Contract ................ ISO Manager"s Office . " ..... YES
'Does oot include the time of the OireclOr of Planning and Community Eav1ronmenL
522.000 committed fot consultant contract -"'ithin current booget
STAff RECOMMENOATION
LRecommended lOr 9S1%
___ ~der.g~nin~7
No~30
Date of Assignment Oct. 1992
Multi-year: Yu
Expecled Completi<>n [)a",: Sommer 1996
Origin of Issue: CouDciI
__ Possible lOr 95196 "".'budget amendment
_Not r-ecommended
Planning Department lead: Kea Schrieber &; Planning Staff lead: Jim Gilliland
. _-.... ......... 3;:iJ .
61
t·
.. ---," .
I
!
i
... "-" .-."-
... ~ -'
. .-
. ~""' ..
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Prepara!ion of the Draft Plan includes writing oflhe following elements aft", completion of
COUDC~ review ('{the draft goals, polk;'. and programs and after identification and resolution of
:internal consistencies during the -summing up" by Council in Phase IL
Introduction, Land Use and Community Design Element, Transportation Element, Honsing
Element (refer to separate item), Natural Environment Element, Community Services and
Facilities (to include Safety and Governance) and Business and Economics Element, plus an
Implementation Sectkla
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Completion of Phase iII is necessary for the completion of the revised Comprehensive Plan as
scheduled.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division __ .... 1150'
Building Div'.sioo .... _ ... YES
Transportation Di¥"&Sioa . YES ••
Administrative Services . _ YES
Police Dept .. _ ......... _ YES
Utilities Dept ••.......•• YES
Public Wods Dept .•... _ YES
Attorney's Offi«: _ ..... _ YES
Community Service. . ..• YES
fire Dept _ ....... _ .... YES
Manager's Office ....... YES
'Does DOl include the time of the ~.rector of Planning end CO<tlmunity Environment
··Transportation Ekment
SI46l4S is remaining in the CUl1'eIll budget fu< consultant assistance in preparing the Draft Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENOATlON
LR<commended fu< 95196
_Consider again in 96197
_Possible fu< 95196 .. /budget amendment
_}!o( re<:o.mmended
69
, . . ~, . ;:--\"
..
.' .. ' t
. .. ~;-..
N<>.: 3J
Date of Assigrunent: Ott. 1992
Multi-year. JIlo
Expected C<>mpletion Date: Summer 1996
0riPt oflssue: C01lild
PIannlng Depo._1ea& X .. Scluitbcr
Planning Division lcod: Na""Y Lyllc (300)
Planning stafflezd: Sam Chu"Y {35Il)," "-wginio Worlleit (45G)
10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This phase oflhe C<><nprehenslve Plan is comprised of the public «'view oflhe Draft documenl
and Draft ErR. The re\>ew "ill indude public hearings by CP AC. Boards and C<>mmis;,ioru;,
Planning C.ommission and City' C<>uncil, time foe preparatioo of staff reports, re<otutions,
respo!l5e5 kl public and Planning Commi.<Sion and City Council questions, fulfilling information
needs, debriefing and revision from tbe bearings. AnoL'>er 700 hours of staff time "",-11 go into
revising ;be Draft Plan and EIR fOl' final a&lption in Ihe subsequent yo=.
PROJECT JUSTlFICATlQbI
The public hearing process for both tbe Draft Compr<hensive Plan and the Draft ElR are
required by State Law~ Outreach 10 the c:ommunity is encouraged in the state: Gmdetines and has
bee. fully fulfiHed in Phases I, II, and U of this effi>rt. TL-ne spent on the puMe review is _«I based 00 Ihe Council'. "">ew during Pbase n, but can be lengthened or coodens<d at
Council'. pleasuno,
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planoing Division ....... S8ll*
SuildLng Division ........ YES
Transportation Division •.. YES
Admicislntive Servi«s .. YES
PoIjce Dept ............. YES
Utilities Dept ••...... , .• YES
Publie Works Dept .. , ... YES
Attorney'. Office ...•... YES
Community Services . _ . _ YES
Fire Dept ............. YES
F~ Dept .......... U.s
Manager', Off",e .... _ .. \'ES
"Does nor include th& time oftbe Director of Planning and Community f..Il\ironmen~
STAFFBECQMMENOATlDN
_Recommended for 95196
i.Consider again in 96197
_Possible foe 95196 "obudget amendment
_Not recommended
.. ~
.-" ..
11
,-" /" .'
'-i,,I:'; -
.-.;",
i -: ,-." .. . ,
No,: 31
[)ok or ..... .;~ OctobEr 19\11
MWIi-,:ar: V ..
EJ<pocled Completioc Dale: W ... !or 19\17
. Origin or Issue: C;01UKiI
PIOtnWl! Department lead: Koa Sdl1i.ber
Planning Divisiou \ead: NU<)' L)1\e
P'.anninS stalE Sud 0 • ...,.. ~ia WuIoeit, .Dd JiJD Gillilad
n
....
; ',,: --.. "-
, -, -
PROJECT DESCRIPnON
Devetopmen! of. Master Plan and coDStruction documents III implement improvements in tile
public right of way;" the Downlo",,, as identified io the Urban Design Guide.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The im,~ number of visitors '" the DownIO"",, and tlle aging and dated street furniture,
paving. signage. etc. bas caused improvements 10 DoVl'Dlo~'D. to be identified by meroehants and
property O'WDeJ'S as needing urgent attention..
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division __ .... , 300'
Building Division _ ....... YES
Transportalioo Division .. , YES
Utilitieli Dept " .... " ... YES
Police Dept " ......... " YES
Hour!y breakdown:
PubBc Works Dept , ..... YES
Attorney-s Of'fu:e _ .. __ ., YES
Manag« -s Office _ ... __ . YES
Arunnu~ve~xes .. YES
• Preparation of RFP, securing consulWlJ and contract preparation -60 00""
• On-gomg conlr3Ct management -24Q h~
'Does not include the time of the Di.-.c1D£ofPIallning and Community E.-.ironment.
$100,000 Consultantcontract-wih'linClPbudget
STAEERECQMMENPATION
LRecoIlm,ended fot-95/96
_Consider again in 9619 7
No.,Jl
Oak of Assignment: July 199$
__ Possible fot-95196 .,-,'budget amendment
_No! recommended
Multi-year: V .. (lIIIplemeDtatio. will go o. for.p 10 5 yeon)
-,
0·'-.
.expected Completion Date: l.aQory 1996 ror Masler Pia.
Origin ofl .... "." Coaad
PIanniog Department lead: K.a Scluiober
Pbuming 5mlf lead: VlrgiDia W.r~eit
14
'; .;. . '''.
PROJECT PESCRIPTION
After COO'.pJetion of the Comprehensive Plan, or simultaw-..ous ",ith Phase III and Phase IV of the
Plan, staff «)'.tId conduct. Coordinate Area Plan fur the California Ventu.-a area, lOcussed on
the area bounded by Page MiD. El Camino Real, the rolroad right-of-way, and the V.ntun!
Neighborhood. This plan ... ould include development of land uses., 2<lrung, environmental
mitigations, developIlk"llt standards, and design guidelines fur the area The process would
incllJlle worlUng group and conununity meetings and wou-'1 he led by boll> publi<: participation
and design facilitators. AIJlegislative amendments whi,h would result from the process would
he independent so L'Jat they could be ineluded into the fin;J Comprerehensive Plan, or could
amend either the old or new plan, depending on the status of that ef'furL
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The City Counc>i ,.,m consider initiating a Coordinated Area Plao fur tbe area identified above in
c:onjuctioo with their conslderation of exf(:[]ding the .arnocUzation schedule for commercial use of
the _ Ma<imart property.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning DMsicn •...... 300'
Contract _ ... _ .....• _ .... 100
Suilcfmg Division .......• YES
TmnsporIalion Division ..• YES
Manag ... ·' Office ........ YES
Police Dept .. _ ...••....• YES
Publi<: Works Dept •••..• YES
UIllities Dept .........• YES
.... non>e)··s Office ....... YES
Community Services .... YES
Fire Dept .......•...•. YES
Administrative Services .. YES
'00e1"", include the time of the Direclo< of Flanning and Community Env;'--onmenl
CQaI
$66,500 Consultant contract, !lOt within bud.el S25<J, 000 additional fur (ac>llitation. design
professional and environmental compliance plus document pubtishlng -Dot lJwithin current
budgel These costs could weD be offset. largely or partially. through private SecIo< partidpation.
STAff RECOMMENDATION
7$
..
•. I
~ded fOe 95/96
_Coosider again in 96197
No~J4
o.t.. or Assignment: Not yet ... ;go'"
. Multi-year: NA
Expected Completion o.t..: NA
LPossible fOe 95196 w/budget amendment
_No< recommended
Origin oClssIle: Ca .... ci1 .. emo (Huber, Me G.,.a ... ond """ .. ler}during Fry', Amortizaoon
...... icIero60.
P'.anrung Department lead: Kn Scloiel>er
I'14nning Division lead: Nancy Lytle (100) '" Jil!! Gillilo.d (200)
76
. ;.
II ".Ill) \itU·"tdTltord ink'l"Ill()d,!Iintcit'lCCAr<.:.:.t (I~rc:am I ~~Iiil
( 0'1";..t1l11,:-._
\ll\_:.h:1. ('Lll~,.,i~' I ~(,·fI,p(l.ll,nlOr~ 1':,101 '.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Gty bas sponsored thus far \lnS\lC=fu! legislation 10 obtain Pe1rofium Verucle Escrow
Account funding lOr the design dev<lQpment costs c,( schematic design plans lOr this l""ential
proj e."'t. No PVEA funds were approved as part ol Ill. state budget however, there will Oe an
effort in Sacramento to find some money for some projects ~ timing unknown.
Stanford, the Joint Powers Board (JPBjand the City or< pursuing. joint _ment for use,
mailltenance and management ol the Do""to"" intermodal transit depot. The JPB is developing
plans for makL.'1g the: station more accesslb-!e \0 an userS. The Palo Ahe Medlcal foundation is
proposing to relocate thei< facility 10 the Urban Ln>< area with • potential connection Ihrough 10
• future Urban Lan. leading 10 Unlversity Circle. Stanford University and P A.W have reached
some tentative joint agreements reganfmg shuttle service between their two facllities, utilizing
the Downtown transit depot. Stanford bas propo<ed a Margarite shuttle turn-around" cn the south
side ol University Circle. The Historic Resources Board has t\9rninated the Tr.msit depot for the
National Historic Register. Planning will continue 10 coordinate ",;!h T ransponation, Public
Works, Real Estate, HRB and StaP.f<ml University to support aD ollhose mcrementol efforts 1<>
improve the interface and futegratioo between the [)oVw'Dtown T ransil Depot, DoVw'Dto ... -n PaJo
Alto, Stanford, Town and Counlly, the Medica! Center and vicinities, incluamg the fut'.m:
potential olSignificant pb)"ica! improvement, :ruch as !bose envisioned in the ~Dmun T earn"
design plan.
PROJECT JUSTIEICADON
Council. has di.rec-.ed staff to pursue Petroleum Vehkle Es.-row A""oun! fi.L'lding and 10
coord3nat.: with other agencies regarding impro ... ·ements 50 the arc-a.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Di:vision .•....... 50
Trnnsportation Di:vision ... YES
Manager', Offi« ........ YES
No additiollal costs
AdministTat1 'e Services .. YES
AttorT'")I" Offi« •.....• YES
Pubnc 1Iiods Dept .....• YES
;~'(' : -.
' .. ;,:
,.,-
7J
SINE RECOMMENDATION
~1<lr9S196
_. Consida again in %I'l7
N".: 35
Date oCAssignment; April, 1995
Multi-year: y ..
Elq>ected Ccmpletioa Date: CoatID.inl
OrlgiD of Issue: Council
PIanniJlg Staff lead: Nanty L)1Ie
71
_Possible I<lr 9SI96 w/budgcl "",ell<l=nl
~otr~orrunended
· ' --~ ~~;~~~~~-,:'_','~~~~c;~;;:';c_:{<~~fr~
PROJECT OESCBlPDQN
1'Io\i<le assistance!O!he EecoOOuc Reroun:e Manager ""m regard 10 ih< planning and public
p.rucil"'6oD issues in the Midtown Nan process.
p'ROJECI JUSTifICATION
Midtown has bees identi6ed in the Comp,.hensive !'tin process as an area lOr stUdy and current
vllCaJlcie<; and int= in wlevelopmenl make planning lOr this area a priori'Y-The Council has
aU'lhoriz.ed "planning study lOr the .rea.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
l'Iaooing c.ivisioo .. _ ..•.•. 411
JJblities Dept '" _ .. _ .... YES
BUIlding DivWon .......• YES
T~ Di>ision _ .. YES
MaDager'sOffi« __ '. ___ . YES
Police Dept _ ... _ ........ YES
No additional COOlS
STAfF RECOMMENDATION
LRo,C>IllJIIOlIdcd lOr 951%
_Consider again in %197
No.: 36
~ rl Assignment: Jo.ol995
Multi-year. No
~ Completion Date: Odober 1995
Origin ollssuo: COUDrii
Planning Staff lead: Virpltia Warbeit
Public Works Dopt _ ..• _. YES
Human R"",urc.. .' _ . _. YES
AlIDrn<y's Office __ ... __ YES
Communi\) Services • __ . YES
FireDept .... _ ... __ .. , YES
Administrative Services •• YES
_Possible lOr 9SI% .. /budget amendment
__ No( recommended
79
__ ..,""!' __ ... ....,._..,. .. _"""-------c---.
", -
( \" ,: "l: '!.--'-
" ~ .....
-~;
'-----:'--"-:"'\ <:.. '. ,.
•
I Ih.,,; !k"gn \Jwdc'P"hli,liing . .
\"ll\,IIH.l P!'n:tlln~ .
PROJECT Of SCRIPTION
Finan", 1he Draft \)()wnlown Urban D<sign Guide. Staff,.roll hire • consultanllO finalize and
edit the guidelines. Staff v.ill provide direction 10 the COll>Utanl and admlnistet ille CQotract.
Staff bas proposed including fineflZing the draft as an add-<>n 10 the contract for Dov.nto\>ll
Improvennents under the C1P (lie'" 32). This may be the most cost effective and expeditiou; way
10 comple1e the Urban Design Guide.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The Urban Design Guide is • bighly rued ",d highly vlsible do<:urnent which serve. as a helpful
guide 10 the general pubfic, propet1y o"ners, merchants and develojJers participating in
Downtown activities. It is also oar mM1: :requested publication nom other juri.-..dil.'tions.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division _. _ ...... SO Manager', Office _ .. _ ... YES
Attorney', Offi« .... __ . _ YES Police Dept . _ .. _ . _ ..... YES
$ 25 QQQ for consuhant contract, within current budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
LRecommended for 95196
_Coosider again in %197
l'Io~ 37
Date of Assignment: April IS, 1994
Multi-year: N.
~ o,mpletion Dale: J •• nary 1m
__ Possible for 95196 ... 'lbudget amendment
_Not recommended
Origin of Issue: COUIlci1, Archito:clunl Review Burd and Urb •• n..iga Committe.
I'laIlnfug Staff lead: V..-giDla Warlleit
.J
..
II
. -
j
J.
•
. ( ,,,!,,,jldcltcd Plclll \nl1l1dl f"'ll"~nhUlc, Report .
t" HIJlllnl~' • .'
\l:\<.,l['l'.... I)j l'l:11J~ ,.' •
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preparation and submittal \0 HUD of!he CHAS .&.nnual Perfurmance Report which for flus year
is Only about City', affordable bou..~ activities and number of units created or assisted. In
future years, this "'port "ill include the COOO performance report. The Consolidated Plan
replaces lb. form,rIy required Comprebensi>e Houslng Affordability Strategy (CHAS).
PROJECT JUSTlFICAIJQN
l'be Annual Perlonnanc<: Report on housing a<:tivities is required noder the HUD reg",.tions for
the CHAS and Consolidated Plan in O!der for !he City 10 ,""eive CDoo and IlOME funds and
for nonprofit'. \0 receive .ua.-t federal !loosing assistance socb as Section 202, 811, L1PHRA.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ......... SO
No additional costs
. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
LRecommended for 951%
_Coosideragalnin%l91
No.: 38
Date of Assignment: Continuing
Multi'year. Y ..
Manager', Office ....... YES
-----.I'0'lSI01, for 951% v;lbudget amendment
_Not recommended
E>pected Completion Date: September 30, 1995
Origin ofls5ue: Council Ind BUD
Planning Staff read: Callly Siegel
13
1I 11\1ll. l't,,~,tc\tl\! \,d",\ttlll\ lt1\pkt1\~lIt,ttl("l qrKc\'~r.. .
.\ 1 J t -..\, 'n R ,-'\. n]11Ilh.'1 htH Ion S
\.' ,
,,'~' ,~\\" •• I' li.\'\'\'1\lnl\\j)'''~\'\'1'''1'B1.,,,-k('',\I,·I·'''~I;Jnh
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This program w:U require a two-year effort,. inclutfing the lQDov.ing;
A} Revise BMR requirements and in-fieu fee per re<ommendatioos of Keyser-Marstoo report
and prepare • BMR ordinance for c"uncil adoption. B) Evaluate cost of administIatioc of
BMR program (City staff &: P AHC) and develop new sources 0{ revenues for ad.'llinistratiolL C)
Revise BMR Rental Guidelines to develop I ... crlable program with some buIlt in admlnistrative
revenues. D) Identify and take measure to deal with defaults and preveoJ lo<s of units from
program. E) Agre< on revise deed restrictions and obtain Council approval.
Appro><imately 670 bouts of staff time as weD as 250 hours of contract assisW!ce .. ill
additionaly need to be committed in 1996-97 to complete these: tasks.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The CiIy". Below Madel Rate program has been in operation for OVCT 20 year;. !J'wing Ihat lime
a complete review and evaluation of the program hac; not been daoc. The recent Nexus Study on
<he progmn and iool.ted problems with some BMR units, as well as coocems abcut the cost of
administering the program. have pushed forward the necessity lQI' • complete review of the
program.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
P!anning Division _ ....... 533
Admlnistrative Services ... YES
No additional Cllsts in 9:5196.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
LRecommended for 9:5196
_c"nsider again ill 96197
Attorney', Office ....•...... IT.S
Manager's OffICe _ .......... YES
__ Possible for 95196 wlbudget amendmenl
__ NO( recommended
.'
15
No,:~9
o..t.. of Au'gtJme1II: Not!ot amp..!
MuIti·ytor: V ..
~ Completion Dat., AIgmll9'J6
OrigiD oflssut; 1'IuIlill& tIalf
Plaonins Staff lead: .1-,,,, GiIIllaad (150) " C .. doy Siegol (11t3)
".-.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Assist nooprofit (Mid-Peninsul. ""using Coalition) to obtain site, fUO<fmg and entitlemenllo
coostruct 24 lll1its of independent living aparuneQIS fnr persons with developmental disabilities
from Pa!<> Aho anO !be Nonh Coonl)l area.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Housing far persons Vrith Dr;.welopmental Disabilities is no( C'e'ddily aVaJ.labIe in the Palo Alto
area.. The nearest reS,dences are in Betm(mt and Sa.'1 Jose. This facility "I1Iill provide a mucll.
needed so=e ofhousing in !be mid-peninsula area. This type of housing is listed as a priority in
!be Consolidated Plan and in !be &using Element oftb. Comprehensive Plan.
HQURlY REQUIREMENTS
Pla,mlng Division _ ......• 120
Administrative Servic<s _ .. YES
No additiona! costs
STAFF RECOMMENPATION
~ommended for 951%
_Consider agaln in 96197
No.: 4CI
Date of Assignment: 0... 1993
Multi-year: Yes
Expa.'ted Completion Date: JUD. 1991
Origin oflssue: Couecil
Planning Stafflead: Catlly Slogo'
Manager's Oflke ........ YES
_Possible fnr 95196 .. /budget amendment
_Not rE1:ommend.......J
11
,,' ','
.-'",
. ~. '
';'-".
, '
" ' " .... ;.-; .
-' --.. ::. .,-
,'-
... '~-. -', "
PROJECT DESCBJPTION
Assist nonprolit(s) 10 IIC<{Uire one 0< two single family or duplex lots lOr the purpose of
constructing new housing 10 be used lOr "'.ared living by low income households.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Sbared housing provides the opportunity lOr low D.;;ome persons 10 share .xpense, 10 o),rain
better housing, This IyJ>< ofhousing is listed., a pcioriI)i in the Consolidated Plan and in the
Housing Element of the COOlpn:bensive Plan.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Divi.-K>D __ , , , ___ nil
AcImlnistratlve Services • , _ YES
No additional costs
STAFf RECOMMENDATION
_Recommended lOr 95196
L Consider again in 96197
No~ 41
Date of Assignmeol: lIIay 1m
Multi-year: Y ..
EXpected Completion Date: JUDO 1997
Manager's Office " , , , , , ' YES
__ Possible for 95196 ~-/budge1 amecdment
_-Y'O! recOIl1l1Knd«i
Origin of Issue: St.ft' at ffij .... t of P.I. Alt. Homing Co.-poralioD &. lnovlm. Housing
Planning Staff lead: Callly Siege'
89
.-: -,
Il1Iu,mg ITl-1 h,,'ll T -:l' ()rdin:tlKl' • ", " . II RL'\-i,l(\11 01 I hHhtnf,! RC'r...'f\r...' (Jtr.,Jdm~..., <.tno Commcn.:wl
,-'1 I, :~k I J""'"I_ .' ,,: ("'lIJ~l(t1 1\ f.h \~ "pr:l~:l1 B ",-i-{,r<.tH' Pr"~( ..I11h .
PROJECT DESCRIPDON
Submit Ne.us Study 10 Council whh an info staff report (compkted June 1995); Assist and
p!'O'o~ inpUlI<> City Attorney', Office lOt-m-isjoos '" Mitigation Fee Ordinance, R.,.ise
Housing Reserve Guidelines per Nexus Study and take o,dinance and guidelines 10 Council lOt
adoption.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
The re.ults of the Nexus Study indicate that an update of OrCman.:es and guidertnes should be
completed smce they have nO! been significantly reviewed and modified in O\'et" IS )'ears.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Divisioo _ ... , ... 140
Attorney's Office , ......• n:s
Administrative Services . ~ YES
Manag",'s Ofik" ....... YES
Contract costs lOt-legal assistance on fee Ordinanc-. will be ""'tssar)., through the City
Attorney's ~ (within? outside? budget)
STAff RECOMMENDADON
L.,RecoIIlI!lell<led for 95/96
_Coosidet again in 96197
No" 42
~OSSl'bJe lOr 95:96 w'budget amendment
_Not nx:ommcoded
Date of Assignment Not yet ... igoN
Multi-y= Yes
Expa:ted Completion Date: JUDe 1997
Origin of Issue; PJaDniDg starr and Cily Attorney 0fIi<.
Planning Staff lead: Jim GilblaDd (100) &: Cathy Siegel (40)
91
PROJECT DeSCRIPTION
Assist """'Profit (p ABC) in o!>tJIlning fun<lj.'8 10 construct now! 07 unit SRO. Actlviry lnvotv ..
assisting PAHC in obrajning fundinl; and prepantioo of. funding and 1oao'1l'"",,,enc.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
HOURLY 8EQUIREMENTS
Plnnning Division .••..... ~
Adminis1rativ. SeNkes •.. YES
STAFF RECOMMENQADON
.J!.)l.eeotnrlleOded f<>< 9Y.16
_C<>nsi<l<l again in %197
No" 4J
081. of Asslgnment: May 1m
Multi-year. '1' ..
£><pected Completion Date, JUDe 1998
Origin of Issue: C"1Cy COUllcil, P AHC
Planning Staff lead: Collty Sieset
Manager"sOfl:ke ......• YES
_Possible lOr 9:5196 w/budget """'odlnmt
__ NO( recommend<d
93
· , .~ ,
", -: .
II I \' I Wi(, II< ,.\'11 (,,',IIlt \pp['e"Il(\1l .' .
. "",\ " '
\" ' l ,,\~' ~ \ \, 'I "'I" _ I' .! (. ". • \' '\ \ ')~ \ I 'f \',-\ . t ~. \ ''-1-. t. I: ,\I' ~ PII,:;,.II\. .
PROJECT DESCRIPTIQN
~ application 10 Stale HCD fo< SlM of 1996 HOME funds. The primary pu!lXIS< for
obtaining 1he foMs is 10 .ssist in the cost. ofdeveloplng the nS-1S3 Alma SROand 10 limit the
amount of funds needed from kx:aI sources sud> as the CiI)"s Commercial-Iodustrial Housing
Reserve fund.
PROJECT JUSTIElCATION
Using federal funds to the extent rossible re(}J(;t:s the necessicy for local funds.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
P1anning Divisicn ....•.... 60
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
LRtcommended lOr 95196
_Consider again in 96197
No""
Dale of Assignment: Moy 1995
Multi-year: No
Expected Completion Dale: Pe«mber 1996
Origin of Issue: Coallcil
Planning Staff lead: Catlly Slegel
Manager" Of!ice _ ...... YES
_Po.sible for 95196 wlbudget amendment
--.Not recommended
95
-.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a) fupare appIiC8lion ... ,th Santa CIant Coonty foe DeW allocation of fY 1996 Mortgage Credit
Certificate (MC() au<hoci!y and an allocatiM foc Palo Aha. Our current MCC allo<;ati(JD .. pire~
00 121JlI9$. City will need 10 cooperate with 1hcCounty \0 obtain. Dew allocation or MCC's
will 001 be """labl • ..-i!hin ibe city after i213 \'<)S.
8) Assist Co!mly in efforts 10 continue cu.."'<mt level ofMCC alloc.tions 10 Santa CIant COUDly
and 10 preserve Statc..-ide priO<i<y lOr MCC program.
PROJECT JUSDflCADQN
Mortgage Credit Certificate, .ssist lower income households in purchasing homes. In Palo Aha
\hey .,..])IimariIy used by Below Market Rate unit buyers. The program is significant in
assisting ~ lime llome buy.,.'" get inlo home o .. nershlp.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
PlaMing o;visicn ••....... >U/
No adcliti<>na1 oosts
STAFf RfCQMMENDADON
LReC\Jmmended lOr 951%
_Consider again in 96197
No.: 45
Date of Assignment: Ongoing
Multi-year-: Y ..
Ex~ Completion Date'. December 1995
Origin oflssue: PlanniD& SUfi
PIannlng Staff lead: C.,by Siegel
Manager'sOffi« ." .... YES
_Possible lOr 95'96 ,.-!budget amendment
_Not recommen&:d
97
" ,~ ,
. -
PRQJECT DESCRIPTION
Develop rules and operating guidelines and fund • revolving fu."d 1)1'< mechanism for
emergency funding 0{ Below Marlet Rate units emergencies. Projeots wouid include pre=;mg
units from being lost from BMR inventory Ihrough furedosure ODd funding for Homeowner
Associaliou special ""essments tbat could not otherv.ise be: paid by !he BMR Cwn<:T.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
B.MR owners can CO( alVw'ays affOId special assessments. This program ""oWd anew.for an
emergeucy fund 10 be dispensed ODd ""'oYery 0{ the fund, added 10 the future sales pri<e 0{ the
tIllit. The fund would provide • ready source 0{ funding that could be accessed by the City
Manager 10 acquire BMR units when Ehat is the only 9o'ay '" prevent their Joss through
fo<eolosure. The units would then be re-sold 10 another qualified BMR buya-and !be fu;Jd
repaid.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Flanning Division •........ 60
Admini_ve Services ..• YES
Atl<>rney·.Offi. ........... ,. YES
Manager's Oflice .......... YES
Estimated fund is 580,000 10 be taken from Housing Resen-e Funds
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
_ltecommOllded for 95/96
LConsider again in %197
No; 016
Date of Assignment: Not yet assigued
Multi .. year: oa...going
ExpecIed Completion Date: June 1996
Origin of Issue: PloDDing Stall
Flanning Staff lead: Cat., Siegel
_Possible for 95,96 wlbudgct amendment
~ot r-ecoouneoded!
99
-:-... ,"
-i
PROJECT PESCRIPTION
With the approva! of The Hamill"" s<:nioc housing project througl: • Planned Conununity Zoo<:
in 1993.1he C<>uncil requind the applicant 10 agre< 10 provide • seven unit bek;w marl:et ttle
project fOr the community. The Palo Alto Housing C"""".tion will be the o,"'-profit
organization that the project will eventually be admlnist:red by. bowever the entitlements,
approvals and administl1ltive oupport 10 the appE,,,, •• "d PAHC .. ,11 <ome from the Planning
Division.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
This wOO< item is required in order 10 fulfil! the PC Zoo. Cbaoge BMR agr«mer.ts. It is
expected 10 ocrur in the 1995196 fiscal year.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Plaoning Division •....... 129 Public W 00<s Dept . . . . . . .. YES
MaD.lIger's Office ........ YES POOce Dept .............. YES
Building Division ........ YES o,mmunity Services _..... YES
T mnsportll\Ion Division ••• YES fire Dept ............... YES
Attomey'. Office ........ YES Utilities Dept _........... YES
Administrative Sen'ices ... YES
This is • 100'11 cost recovery project -DO additional costs.
STAfFRECOMMENPADQN
LR=>mmended fOr 95/96
_O>nsider again in %197
No" 4'
Date of Assignment: 199;l
Multi-year: Yos
Expe<Ied o,mpletion Date: lTn""o, ..
Origin of Issue: o,uncil
_Possible fOr 95I9Ci wlbudget amendment
~ot re.:ornmended
101
II s: ;1L'~11" t .. .'\..I)Il()ld~: -L, pIllrnUll1l'~tlh)(h (,fJphk:-. -'
( "(1'1' rf \!III ~ ••
11,1'1[,'1 l U'I \111kl::'U;',-'lt '.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Planning Division is beginning Ie develop systems and capabilities in Ibe roDowi..,g areas of
more advanced technology.·
A. Des1:. Top-Publlshing
C. Multi-modi. Presen!ations
E. On-Line Publlcations
B. o-.tabasc: Management Sys .. ems
D. Optical Imaging
Some oftbe major su~areas Of activity areas., -common 10 each, are:
I. Hardware
4. Soft .. we
2. Data proofing J. Data arohivlng
6. Hard-copy output
7. Data gathering
II). Data entry
B. Training
5-. Data organization
I. Data analysis
II. Data back-up
9. Mefadata/Documentation
12 .Digital Presentations
·Nore: The areas of E.. GeogrfJphic /nformatiofl Systems. arrJ F. Pe."mlt Tracking System cue
eadr separate projects.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Development of communications graphics is an ongoing functioD that supports the Division ~s
responsibility 10 educate, provide information 10, and assist Ille public as ... en as various Boards,
C.ommissions, and Ibe City Council. Also, development of four ne ... Ocsk-Top-Publishing
prnducts is an Impa;.1 Measure of MOB.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
C.osts are within current budget
103
.I
-•• ->
STAff RECOMMENPATION
£.h..~ ""'95196
__ C<>nsidet *ll1Iin in 96191
No""
iJoIk of A3$iBtJlnen!: Oft",hI&:
MuIti·y .... : 'os
ISxpsded Complctioo Dol!:: C ... tin<Utl
Qrigln of Is .... , Co .... .;! ..,<1,,,,11'
........J>_ibl. f<>t 95196 wfbudget """,rulnlenl
_No! letomme.a.d
~g SlIIflead, Gloria H,mllk (UlI), lA>rll'OI'l<}' (100, & Pion l)_.",bt (150)
1M
•
II ~1"'\l~IJPhlL' 'nL(1rllldIH~I1 S: sk'f1l·· ~ '.-~
~ ,,"1;:1 llJn~ ~
II '.1, II, 11~\ 1 \1 q1.l~~:lll,.:nl ..
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The P1arullng Division is participating in Ill< deveJ"Ixnent of !he enterprise .. ide GIS.
Some of abe major sub-areas or activi!y areas are:
I. Hardware
.(. Software
7. Data ga1bering
2. Data proofing
5. Dat> organization
I. Data anal)'si s
3, Data archiving
6. Hard-copy output
9.Docwnentation
10. Dat& entry 11. Data back-up 12. Digital PreentaoollS
11. Training
PROJECT JUSTIF!CATION
~
The GIS that is being cW:reJoped is envisioned kl be I comprehensive source of information
pertaining !o Ihe city. It is broa<l based enough tllat eaclt departmenJ win be able to o<ganize
their vital data, however diverse, such 1ha! it can be en'ered into Ill< S)'stem and used enle1prise
lOMe and by the public. GIS is viewed 10 be the future backbone of all data ",Iated acti,.jties at
Ill< inter'departmentallevel.
The P1arullng Division's responsibilities bave and "ill conti.nue 10 requlie inter-departmental
rooralJ'l..ation..
G .... pllk;a:
One of the most outstanding aspects of. GIS is its inberent capability '" express data spatially
and graphicaIl,. k~ in maps. Maps are excenent comruun1cation gTat;rucs that: can be wed k>
support the Division', responsibility \0 educate, analyze, provide information 10, and assist the
public as weD as various Boards, Commissions, and Ill< City Council.
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Di'.ision _ ....... 6611 Adtninistrativ Services _ .. YES
Manager'. Office •. __ .... YES PUbriC W oru .......... YES
Utilities Dept. ........... YES
Costs are ,..itbin cWYent budget
lOS
.'.<"
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
LR=aunended for 9SI96
_-_Consider again ill 96191
No:.'
Dale of Assisnment: o..coinC
Multi-y=: V ..
Expe.:Ied Ccmp!e6oa Date: CODtmual
Origin of Issue: Conti! ud ,talI
_Possible for 95196 w!l>udge! amrnc.1menl
__ N« recommended
PIa'Ulln8 Staff lead: Gloria IhDlbl. (395) " lA>rl T "ploy loS) 8< Ploil D"-""'m~ (lOll}
106
•
•
, .
~--..
II Pl'lmll.f r,~d,jn~ S~"'h,'m'.. . .
( nr~lJn IPl~ •
[11;'''1:'.0: df' \Llf'.I;I..,i1,-"n . ' ,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This item includes purchase and implementa600 of an automated Permit T racldng and Condition
Monitoring System. The system is 10 be used '" track and monit'" all types of l'<rmits "",J,ities
related 10 P<rmits sue'!> as applications, ticenses, inspections, utIlity s.rvice modifications,
complaints and code enforcomenl The system "ill be used 10 monitor the complete
deveJoP<D<nt process, from inltiaI planning entitlement requests through the final bUllding
inspection, including ongoing conditions of awcn,a! ronowing oc<:upan .. :y _ The system is 10 be
interconnected so infonnation regardinG any sppEcation can be obtained by all participating
departments and proyjded 10 applicants and membcr.i of Ill. pUbrlC during the apprlCation
process.. 1'he system is 10 cakuIate fees, place bold.<i. route information, require on-line
departmental sign-off, issue permits. and monitt.'l' project status,. comlitions of approval and
special fees. The system shall also inolude repocting capabilities.
The new system must incorporate the current ~tnlcfiIlg Inspectio[] Pencit system (BIPS) and Fire
Inspection System (FlS), and interact wilh the City', Geographic Informatio!l System (GIS),
IF AS and Cubis. The new system must also interact "ith the notebook computers used by the
building divisicn.
Pun:hasei1mplementatioo of the system is 10 include:
• permit tracking system softv"are purchase. license, Vrtarranty.
• any necessary custom modifications 10 !he system 10 achieve City requirements as specified
in this RFP.
• design of new scIeensifurmsfpennitsireceip<slreporu 10 be printed for penruts tracked in the
system.
• 9loritten system docuJ:nentation and trainlng manuils.,.
• staff training.
• system installation and implementation assistance, (start-up and debugging),
• on-going system maintenance and IecbniC41 support,
• system updates, and
• access 10 optional future !rainIng andIoc programmlng a.ssistanc<.
This "'or!< item is • n,ulti-year project. In 1995-% the system will be p=hased and
implementatlo[) '1.,11 be initiated
PROJECT JUSTIfICATION
101
, .. :::;
.J .. <:'Y?: .
..... ~ Y-.
. ~... . ,
, ~,"":;--~ .. "
' ... -. -
. ~ : ~ ; .. ;r.:
4-""; ....... .
Project approved .. part of Capital Improvement Program fo< 1994/95. The PIanrllng Division
cummtly lias no automated means ofl1ack.i1'.g the status ofappfications for planning approvals,
and monil<>rin6 compfiance ..mil conditions of approval 0< sa!isfaelof)' completion of
eJl"'lirorunentat mitigation measures.
" HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division ........ 27.
Bwlding Division .•....•• YES
Utilities Dept ••....••..• YES
Administrative Services ... YES Manag.,.-, Office •.•....• YES
$90,000 initial costs budgeted
STAfF RECOMMENPATION
.IUlecommended foe 95,<)6
_Conslderagainin96i91
No" SO
Dale of Assignment; 1994 ,,'11Il C1P adopCion
Multi-year. YES
Expected Completion Date: Fan 1996
Origin oflssue: Co""cjJ
Pubfic Wo<l<s Dept ...... YES
Attorney', Office . , , .... YES
fire Dept ..........•.. YES
Potoce Dept ............ YES
_Possible foe 95196 w;budget amendment
_No« retommC[}ded
Planning Staff lead: Sarah Cheney (I SO) '" Lori T op~ (l20)
108
( ';f'or 'np"'TT -...
',.
.
•
•
II ( C'rll!;"d I ilc',Ii bpI .:flllllc'l1l (CI (i) (ir~'l( Aprl i,'JIIOn
'ev • .
I' "d'n .1' \\,\ \1.1ll '...:..:-n1"-':1t .'-
PRQ,JECT PESCRIPTION
The Historic ~ Board would like to apply fe. ODOll",r CLG grant t.J upgrade its
computeriud !lli.1oric invent",>,. A-Ithough there are mony enllAnc=ents that would be useful,
the most important ones at this time mvotve data model changes such as normalizing street
nurnbc:rs. so 1hat they are no longei in ranges., but are discreet clrtegories in themselves.. Building
looIrop lists foe JIl3terlals and updating forms and reports 1<llcllect data model changes would
also be part of this itL'm.
PROJECT JUSTIFICADON
The historic inventory was recentJ)i computerized.. The data has nO« been nonnaflZed and is
Il>erek>re 11<)( !IS useful as it could he. Individual addresses can DOl he accessed if they ""ere
enlered into 1Ile data base .. part of a range (c.g. 340 -380 Co ... ".,. Street). This problem can be
<On'eCIed, but i! will tale a concerted cffort 10 identify those addresses that WeTe entered as part
of .. range. Building """'up tables will reduce the amount ofome oceded to access data and
updating forms and """"" will make the data base more efficienl
HOURLY REQUIREMENTS
Planning Division _ ........ 80
COna.<1 •........... _ ... 15O
Administr.J!ivc Services ..• YES
Historic Resources Bd _..... YES
!-.~-aa.ge[-'·s Office .... _ ~ .... YES
The grant appf'.lC3lion would be foe $8,000 to $l 0,000 and w~uld p"y foe the consultanJ', time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~ecommended foe 95196
LCoosider again in 96191
N"~ 51
Dole of Assignment Not )·tf usigned
Multi-year: N.
Expected Completioo Date: NA
_Possible lOr 951% w!budget amendment
_NO( recommended
. -:'-.
109
•
.:-,:----. --":: --------_.-.-------~ .. -----........... -II'
.. {-\!~~:.,
,
_.--"
Origin 0( 1Jsue: HRB ,
Plarulins S<alf lead: Lisa C",tc
110
'.'
•
. .
•
AVAILA8tE TIME IN DIVISION Cb<eakdownj*
MANAGEMENT:
Chief etaoojng Officfol fCPOt
52 wesls at 40 houra _ ••••.••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.••.••••..•• 2,080
less 4S C'ays
t1 S days ",se&tiOll. 12 6eys ~fid8y .. 6 days siclt. 2 days persona' bu~iness ..
5 lisys trainr~. 5 d&y$ profust<l,.,a/ de\lelopment] ••••.••••.• _ •••••••••.. 360
tess Manegeme-nt lind AlSministrBtjon
(Pel"'SOl1oel evaluations and i!S\Jes, progress reports from soperJ:sed 51 aft
an" superVi!!Of', p!'ob:em 5Ofvlng, cross education, 'Not1&. Pro9,am~ Soard's &.
Comminiarus :-etreatslorientstioll. interc1epartm&ntal' reTatiOfls) •.•••••••••••• .....9QQ
TOT~ CPO TIME ""MABlE FOR WO!'J< PROC.fIAM ITEMS .••.••..•...... 820
62 weeb Bt 40 ••••..... I •••••••• _ •••••••••••••• _ •••••• _ ••••• _ •• _. 2.080
tess 50 days
(See CPO with 20 dlilys YlPCationl . _ ••••••••••...••••••• _ • :.. _ • . . • • • • •• 400
lesI M'anagemenl atKf Admini$f..ratiol'l rsee cPOt ............................ ~
TOTAL N'O TIME "VAllASlE FOR WOfU( PROGRAM ITEMS ••.•••.••••••. 1.230
19nfD9 Adminj:;rrarpr (lA!
52 weeks CIt 4() •••••••••••.•••••••••••••••• ~ . ~ ••••••••••.••••••••• 2,080
l.ess 45 daya fSee CPC>I ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• _ ••••• _ 360
lese Zorung .... dministration
D-i'earings. 8ppT:cent meetings. cled5ion mlt'ki:1g. code interpretationl • • • . . • • • . .• 540
less DeveTopment Moni[oring Pfojects
""ocea. PlaMing IEntitfemerlt"s} ••••• __ ••.•• _ •••.•••.• _ .•• _ ••• _ • • •• 330
Less Manag&ment and' Administration ~ CPOt ••••••.••••••••••••••.•••••• ~
TOTAL ZA TIME AVAUBlE FOR WORK PROGRAM ITEMS •••••••.••••.••. 310
TOTAL MANAGEMENT TIM E AV AIl..ABlE ••.••.•••..••••••.• 2.360
-Does oot include !be time of the Director of Planning and Community En vironmenl
III
• 0"' ;_>._:.
,
STAFF:
52 wee11 at 40 !'lours •..... ~ ..••..•.••..•..•.• _ •..•....•.••.••.•••.. 2,080
less SO days
(15 d'.ys Iverage v.ecation. U days HondaV. 6 days sick., 2 days ptlreonal
btJsines.s~ 5 days noaters~ 5 d'ays training. '5 days professional devetopment) ••••• 400
LhS I hour. per ,witek & 42 remaining weeks
!Staff meetings, time m.!llnagitment. mail, coomer rotation
.ncr otnl!f simJl.,. functiOf1sl ••• ,.................................. 252
TOTAl. PlANNER TIME A"AllABlE FOO WOfIK PROGAAI'A ITEMS •••••••.•• 1,42e
Planning Qiyj,ion FLEI TIlDe fmNvatent
1 Fun TI1fI9 Sef1.iol Planner • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • . • • .. 1 ,00
1314 Time Senior Planner ••.•• , •• , •.•••.••••••••.••• _ •••••••.•..•••••• O.7S
1 f.JI Trtr.e Senior Planner !'tess.20 for budget} •••.•••••.•.•..•••..••.••.••.• 0.80
1 Ful TIme HOUsing Ptarmer fleu .25 lor on-gOinli projects. mOl1ito;ing, etc,-. _ + •••• +. O.7S
13!4TiI'I1fIPlaMer ._+.+ ••••••••••• +._ •• ++ ••••••••••• ~ •• + •• _ •• +.+ •••• 0.75
11,ra nne Planning Technician .••. ~ ...• + ••••••• +. + ••••••••••••• _ •••••• -~
FUll TIMe EO'JN AlENT PLANNERS ................................ 4.40
TOTAL PlANNER TIME AVAIlABLE (Hours x 4.40 HEI 6,283
TOTAl. MANAGEMENT AND P1..ANNER TIME A ... AllABlE FOR WORJ( PROGRAM ITEMS
2,360 + 6,283 ................................. : ............... 8,643
TOTAL HOURS AVAILABlE FOR WORK PROGRAM •••.•••••.•• 8.643
112
• no E.zI:lcnvn »oo~ l'rojKt. 12D u..~ Aobni1"itrIdOrl r1 CIrJ·. H.c:u.'iilll ~ flol:lds • 120 ~ ~ooI!OOrtg md
-ovmp clh I!'MJ.proen.m -I2ll boW'I, IT 1951Z HOME Gn!I ~.-'O IIoun.. Barter Hard' -40 ~
~ You AlDW Perf~ l:pon -.56 ~1l',I &ad 0It!en
..
• , ..
•
•
" •• •
AVAILABlE TIME. PlANNING OIRECTOR (b<eakdown}
OIRECTOR OF PlANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT:
e; 2 ","ret .t 40 hours ••••••••.••••.••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••• 2,080
'less 50 Days
(15 d~y .. vIer-ion. 12 days 'Hor~ay. 6 days sick.. 2 daY5 pefS~l1al bu'Sineu.
5 day, training. 5 da)'s pror~sioner t1evetopment} ••.••••••...••..••.• 400
len MZlnllgement Ind Mminirotration
~rsonnel evltruetwna and' Issues. pfDgreU reportl rrom supervised staff
Itnd 'U~rV1.$(1(. problem s<:Il¥ing, cross ~ucation,. Wor1t. PlcgTam. 80aIds It
Commissions reuestsJorie ntaw!'\. interda,Partme Ilta! rerationsl ••.•••. -. • . . .2.iJ.
TOTAl OOIECTQR TIMe "","UB\.E fOR WOfIl( PROGf\.6.M rrEMS ••••••.••• 1437
local' and tnterdepl!lrtmentar ., •••..•••..•..•. _ • _ ••••••.• _. 100
elf PYoJeetRe'liew •.•• _. __ •.••..• _ .•.••.... _ .•.•.•.•.•. 11
Su~!ooat CooI-d'inBtiol'l " _ •••••••••••••• _ ••••••••• _ •• _ .200
R~gione1 Coonf\r.stiol'l •••••.•••••••••••••.•••••••.••.•• _. so
PAM!' ............................................. 210
Ste.l\~oni ........ ~ . • . . • • • • . . • • • . . • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • . . .• 120
Con1pref!ensiv& Flan •••.••••••••••.•••••••••••.•••••••• 4.2()
en .............................................. 210
Fry". Electronics '.' ••••••••••••••.•••••••••••.•••••••• ~
1431
.... -"
113