2-3-14 council item-ourpaloalto

8/13/2019 2-3-14 Council Item-OurPaloAlto

1/52

City of Palo Alto (ID # 4353) City Council Staff Report

Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/3/2014

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Summary Title: "Our Palo Alto"

Title: Our Palo Alto: A Community Conversation About Our Citys Future.Staff Requests Council Input and Endorsement of a Three-Part Strategy ToEngage Residents in a Community Conversation About the Future Of Our City.The Strategy Would Include (a) A Series Of Conversations and Events FocusedOn Ideas, Dialogue and Building Community (b) Near Term Actions Aimed atAddressing Todays Critical Issues; and (c) Community Engagement EffortAimed at the Design Of Alternative Futures Through the Comprehensive PlanUpdate Planning Process

From: City Manager

Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment

Recommended Motion

Staff recommends that Council consider the following motion: Motion to endorse Our Palo Alto: A Community Conversation about our Citys Future as a conceptual framework for ideas,actions, and design during the next year, and requesting that staff (a) convene a series of topicalconversations and events throughout the year aimed at building community by broadening civicengagement about issues and ideas that are important to our City; (b) return to the Councilwith specific recommendations regarding near-term actions to address critical issues such astraffic and parking; and (c) return to Council with a specific schedule and scope of work to createa blueprint for the future of land use and development in our City by re-framing the ongoingupdate to the Comprehensive Plan to include broad community engagement, discussion andanalysis of alternative futures, cumulative impacts, and mitigation strategies.

Recommendation

Staff recommends that Council endorse the Our Palo Alto conceptual framework and providestaff direction regarding its component parts, including ongoing conversations and eventsabout ideas that affect our City, a series of near-term actions aimed at addressing todayscritical issues such as traffic and parking, and a re-framing of ongoing efforts to amend theComprehensive Plan to include broad community engagement, a program-level environmental


2/52


impact report (EIR), and a specific schedule with a completion date of December 31, 2015. Asdescribed below, component parts of the Our Palo Alto initiative can be categorized underthree headings: ideas, actions, and design.

Executive SummaryOn December 2, 2013, the City Council held a study session regarding the future of our City andasked staff to return to Council with specific recommendations for Council consideration andadoption. Tonights action item would respond by creatin g a conceptual framework for ideas,actions, and planning efforts throughout the year. This Our Palo Alto conceptual frameworkand its component parts -- categorized as ideas, action, and design -- are illustrated in theattached summary handout. (Attachment A Summary Diagram)

In the Ideas portion of the Our Palo Alto initiative, the City and its representatives will beconvening meetings, events, and conversations about issues and ideas that are important to

the future of our City. An initial schedule of meetings and events will be developed within thenext 30 days and will grow and change over the course of 2014. Meetings could include talksby inspiring thinkers or workshops about specific planning issues. Events could include tours ofsome Palo Alto places that will contribute to our future either through innovation and changeor through their preservation. All will be designed to incorporate or inspire conversationsabout our City that could happen in, living rooms, meeting halls, parks or on the streets andsidewalks of Palo Alto.

The goal of these meetings, events, and conversations will be to nurture and expand civicparticipation and build community by a full spectrum of the community, including residents ofall ages, homeowners and renters, business leaders and employees, non-profit and faith-basedorganizations, and a wide range of other stakeholders. Along the way, this effort will alsoincrease City staff s communication and listening skills, increase the organizations fluency withonline communication tools such as Open City Hall, and enhance trust in City government. Thiseffort will extend beyond the Planning Department to include staff support across the City,form Libraries to Community Services, from Police and Fire, to the City Managers Office .

The Action portion of the Our Palo Alto initiative will unfold in specificrecommendations for City Council direction and action that will be brought to the City Councilover the next 60 days. These will include:

o Planned Community (PC) zoning time out and direction to analyze potentialalternatives and reforms;


3/52


o Parking related actions, including actions that will lead to increased parking supplies, tothe design and implementation of residential permit parking, and to more efficient useof available parking supplies through the collection and dissemination of real timedata, use of attendants or valets, and more;

o Transportation Demand Management (TDM) actions, including actions leading toestablishment of a Transportation Management Authority that will be responsible forexpanding and coordinating transit incentives, and actions to expand Palo Altos shuttleservice to dramatically increase ridership;

o Bike Plan implementation actions, including design and environmental review of 18critical links in the Citys bicycle network, allowing for their construction as City andgrant funding becomes available;

o Housing-related actions responding to State mandates and planning for ways to addressthe need for housing affordable to all income levels;

2014 will also include design and density-related actions such as construction of the CaliforniaAvenue Streetscape project and changes to zoning rules to increase sidewalk widths along ElCamino Real and decrease densities (FAR) for Commercial Neighborhood (CN) sites in the Cityshousing inventory that are zoned for 20 dwelling units per acre. The Council is expected toadopt an Infrastructure Funding Plan to address issues identified by the Infrastructure BlueRibbon Commission.

The Design portion of the Our Palo Alto initiative will focus on the Citys ComprehensivePlan, which is its blueprint or design for the future, and similar long-range planning efforts.Within the next 60 days, staff will be bringing the City Council a request to adopt a newschedule and strategy for the Comprehensive Plan.

The Comprehensive Plan is the Citys governing document when it co mes to land use anddevelopment, and during the economic downturn, the City undertook a long process to developrevisions with only two new pieces, one focused on East Meadow Circle, and one focused onCalifornia Avenue. With the economic recovery, renewed development pressures, andconcerns about land use, traffic, and other quality of life issues, the time is ripe to reframe thiseffort as a broader community dialogue about alternative futures for our City, using revisionssuggested by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) as a starting place.


4/52


Staff will be requesting Council adoption of a new strategy and schedule that proposes:

Expanded Community Engagement with meetings, an online forum, emailcommunications, and formal hearings

Extended scoping and exploration of alternative futures Consolidation of planning efforts and review related to California Avenue, 27 University,

and the Downtown Cap

Baseline data reports and dissemination Draft Environmental Impact Report with mitigation strategies for incorporation into the

preferred alternative

Final Environmental Impact Report and di ssemination of a users guide to theComprehensive Plan, including interactive maps and a process for future plan

amendments Completion and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan Update by the end of 2015.

Investments in this process will also be investments in the community conversation envisionedin the Ideas portion of Our Palo Alto , and provide context for the Action portion. It will alsoensure appropriate coordination and compatibility with other long range planning efforts likean update to the Citys Climate Action Plan, and plans related to the urban forest and parks andopen space.

Background

On December 2, 2013 the City Council held a study session to initiate a conversation about theCitys shared vision for the future and how to get there. Staff recommended that C ouncildiscuss the initiation of an expanded public dialogue regarding the future of the city, includingongoing efforts to update the Citys Comprehensive Plan, re -examination of PlannedCommunity (PC) district zoning, and other land use and development issues. The need for thediscussion was born out of concerns of the pace of development within the city and how theCouncil should plan for and manage growth.

The renewed economy within Silicon Valley has generated significant contemporary challengesand concerns that affect the City of Palo Alto. Staff prepared a report which provided abackground of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and articulated the changes weveexperienced over the past fifteen years and the challenges those changes have produced.(Attachment B December 2, 2013 Staff Report.) Specifically, the renewed pace of commercialand residential development, increases in automobile traffic and decreases in parking supply,and the number of concurrent planning and land use studies have resulted in many people


5/52


feeling that the City has no coherent vision or narrative that connects current developmentwith the various planning efforts underway.

At the December 2 nd meeting, the Council heard from approximately thirty members of the

public who expressed their individual opinions and concerns regarding current conditions andthe future of the city. The issues identified included the pace of growth, automobile parkingand traffic congestion, and general quality of life issues. Some argued that the root of the issueis related to two conflicting visions for Palo Alto: one of Palo Alto as medium-density,residentially oriented town, the second one of Palo Alto as the professional and financial centerof the peninsula (Attachment C - December 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes). Others called for atransparent land use planning process that is consistent with and honors the ComprehensivePlan and the Zoning Ordinance.

The study session served as an opportunity to air various perspectives but was remarkable forthe common interests expressed. Speakers all valued the City and its quality of life, and sawvalue in planning for and managing growth. In addition, there were requests for accuratebaseline data, community engagement efforts, for an honest two-way dialogue between theCouncil and all members of the public and a transparent planning process.

While no formal action was taken by the Council, Staff agreed to bring action items back to theCity Council for direction related to the issues discussed. T onights agenda item is the first ofthese items.

Discussion

Our Palo Alto is an organizing principle that will accommodate a wide range of events, actionsand planning efforts in the next couple of years. The schedule and timeline for many of thesewill be developed within the next couple of months, but will be subject to change based oncommunity interest as the overarching conversation about our Citys future continues.

The Comprehensive Plan update is the element of this initiative that probably requires the mostexplanation, because many people in the community may not be aware of the Plans scope, and

may be wondering why staff is proposing to deviate from the process established over the lastseven or eight years.

The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is the Citys guiding planning document, settingforth the communitys vision when it comes to land use and related issues like transportation,the natural environment, community services, and business and economics.


6/52


The City Council allocated funding for an update to the Comprehensive Plan in 2007 and aconsultant team was selected in 2008. The amendment was intended to reflect the changesoccurring in Palo Alto since early 2000. A work program outlining City Councils direction wasadopted and City Staff began working with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)from late 2008 through 2009 to review the existing elements, preparing background reportsand updating baseline growth projections. As a part of the Comprehensive Plan amendmentprocess, Council directed staff to initiate work on two concept area plans: CaliforniaAvenue/Frys Area Concept Plan and the East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way Concept Area Plan .After initial review of existing Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, PTC and staffcommenced on Phase II of the review process, which focused on each Comprehensive Planelement and continued work on the two concept area plans, including community input atworkshops and commission meetings.

The City Council-approved work plan to update the Comprehensive Plan has progressedsteadily. From 2010 to present, City staff and PTC sub-committees have met to review eachelement of the Comp Plan. The PTCs Comp Plan subcommittee process has identified revisionsnecessary to create a clearer, cohesive and less redundant policy document. The original workprogram to update the structure, vision, goals and program statements developed into aneffort that involved rearranging chapters and elements and changing the format of the existingplan. New policies and programs have been proposed to clarify existing policies and programsand to accommodate new State requirements. The PTC has reviewed the Land Use Element,Transportation Element, Community Services and Facilities Element, Natural EnvironmentElement, and Business Element. The PTC Sub-committee work is continuing on the Governanceelement. Staff anticipates reviewing the Governance Element in February of 2014. TheCalifornia Avenue/Frys Area Concept Plan also awaits final PTC review in February 2014.

With the current economic recovery, renewed development pressures and concerns about landuse, traffic, and other quality of life issues, staff believes that the time is ripe to reframe thiseffort as a community dialog about alternative futures for our City. Using the work of the PTCas a foundation, staff suggests that now may be the appropriate time to initiate a renewedcommunity engagement effort around the Comprehensive Plan amendment.

A community engagement exercise would examine goals and priorities related to communitycharacter, land development, traffic and parking, and the preservation and conservation ofvaluable resources, and could be conducted concurrently with a comprehensive cumulativeimpacts analysis in the form of a program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A moredetailed recommendation regarding this strategy and schedule will be brought to the CityCouncil within the next 30 days, and is envisioned with the following components:


7/52


1. Expanded community engagement- this component would complement the Citysefforts to broaden civic engagement by encouraging the public to participate incommunity forums, surveys, workshops and meetings on the Comprehensive Planamendment. Possible topics for discussion include the development of a newComprehensive Plan vision statement, the identification of areas of the city for

preservation and those appropriate for future growth, and the identification ofinfrastructure investments consistent with the Citys goals.

2. Extende d scoping and exploration of alternative futures - This component wouldextend the traditional EIR scoping period in order to capture comments and directionobtained throughout the expanded community engagement exercise. The purpose ofthe extended scope would be to compile community comments and develop alternativeland use and growth futures that would be analyzed in detail.

3. Baseline data and reports- Council is aware of the communitys need for accurate datathat quantifies existing conditions and prior growth in order to understand how the citymay look if current policies, programs and regulations remain unchanged. City staffwould produce relevant data sets and reports so that the public may form their ownindependent conclusions regarding existing conditions.

4. Consolidation of concurrent planning efforts- Planning staff is currently working on anumber of studies like the Downtown Cap Study that have a direct relationship to theComprehensive Plan amendment, and other ideas, like an outreach effort related to the27 University site have been talked about but never started. For efficiency and clarity,Staff will recommend that these efforts be consolidated with the Comprehensive Planamendment.

5. Draft Environmental Impact Report & Draft Comprehensive Plan- Following a four to five

month community engagement and scoping process, the staff and consultants wouldprepare a Draft EIR for public review. The program level Draft EIR will evaluate potentialdirect, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts associated with theimplementation of the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs. Traffic impactreports, noise and air quality modeling, and a climate change analysis will be a part ofthe Draft EIR. It will also discuss the alternative futures developed as part of thecommunity engagement exercises and propose mitigation measures that will offset,minimize, or otherwise avoid significant environmental impacts. The Draft EIR will besubject to an extended public review period during which the City will solicit extensivepublic input on the environmental analysis and draft goals, policies, and programs.

6. Final Environmental Impact Report & Final Comprehensive Plan- The Final EIR willrespond to substantive comments on the Draft EIR and the Final Comprehensive Planproposed for adoption will be the preferred alternative that is selected based onpublic input on the Draft, as well as goals, policies and programs that have beenupdated to reflect required mitigation strategies and public input.

7. Compre hensive Plan Dissemination and Users Guide - Once the Plan Amendment isadopted, Staff will produce a final version for dissemination, with an interactive version


8/52


for the Citys website and a users guide explaining how the plan should be used andhow it can be amended in the future.

Resource Impact

Resources to conduct the tasks outlined in Our Palo Alto: A Community Conversation aboutour Shared Future will vary depening upon the scope of the exercise. Resources to review andreform the PC zoning process will depend on the Councils desired approach and schedule. TheCity Manager intends to restructure existing staffing to ensure an extensive communityengagement initiative. This will include additional resource investments. The need for moreplanning capacity and staff will be a subject of the upcoming budget review and City Managerrecommendations on the Budget. Future agenda items will outline alternative approaches andresources in detail, following Councils study session.

Policy ImplicationsThe tasks envisioned in the Our Palo Alto: A Community Conversation about our Citys Future effort and the cumulative impacts analysis (in the form of a program-level EIR) is anticipated toresult in an updated Comprehensive Plan with broad community support. At the same time,reforms to the PC zoning process can improve the publics perception of City government byfocusing on ways to improve transparency and predictability, and updating the Citys HousingElement can ensure continued compliance with State housing laws. All three efforts, as well asongoing initiatives related to traffic and parking, can honor the policies and programs of theexisting Comprehensive Plan, including Program G-2: Periodically assess the need for citizeninput on various policy issues and appoint advisory bodies and ad hoc committees as needed ,and Policy G-11: Encourage the development of new planning processes that emphasizes acollaborative exchange of ideas. Retain City Council authority over decision-making in these

processes.

Environmental Review

The action to endorse Our Palo Alto: A Community Conversation about our Citys Future isnot a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The future actions that would betaken, including adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, are not exempt from CEQAand environmental analysis consistent with the provisions of CEQA would be conducted andpresented as part of a recommendation for a future action.

Attachments:

Attachment A: Summary Diagram (PDF) Attachment B: December 2, 2013 City Council Staff Report (PDF) Attachment C: Excerpt Minutes of the December 2, 2013 City Council Meeting (PDF)


9/52

A Series of Conversations and Events

A Community ConversationAbout Our Citys Future

IDEAS

ACTION

DESIGN

Beyond City Hall Dialoguesand conversations across ourcommunity

Actions to Address Todays Critical Issues:

A Blueprint for the Future:

Creating connectionsNeighborhood gatherings

Planning workshops

House partiesPicnic in the park

Social mediaWalking/bike tours

Enact PC Zoning Reform

Conduct & EvaluateAttendant Parking Trial

Establish Satellite Parking &Shuttle to Downtown

Downtown Garage Design

Initiate Urban Lane TransitCenter Planning

Parking ManagementPrograms

Expanded Shuttle Service

TDM Programs , includingTMA Implementation Phase I

Housing Element Update

Bike Plan Implementation

Cal Ave StreetscapeCompletion

Trafc Signalization &Garage Technologies toEnable Real Time Data

The Citys ComprehensivePlan: Updated to plan fortomorrow.

Identify and prioritizeexisting challenges andopportunities

Baseline data report Design and test

alternative futures

Pace and location ofgrowth

Transportation , land use &design

The natural environment

Community services,business & the economy

Cumulative impacts &feasible mitigation

Informed decision-making Adopted Plan into action

Complimentary PlanningEfforts: Climate Action;Parks & Open Space

Online forumDesign competitions

t tac ment


10/52

City of Palo Alto (ID # 4294) City Council Staff Report

Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 12/2/2013


Summary Title: Initiate Community Conversation on Planning andTransportation Matters

Title: Initiating a Community Conversation on the Future of the City Includingthe Comprehensive Plan, Planned Community Zoning, Parking and TrafficStrategies and Related Matters

From: City Manager

Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment

Recommendation

Staff recommends that Council conduct a study session to discuss initiation of an expandedpublic dialog regarding the future of the city, including ongoing e fforts to update the CitysComprehensive Plan, re-examination of Planned Community (PC) district zoning, and other landuse and development issues.

Executive Summary

On November 12, 2013, Mayor Scharff and City Manager Keene removed two largedevelopm ent projects from the Councils agenda and scheduled this initial study session on thefuture of the City. This study session provides an opportunity for public input andCouncilmember questions and comments regarding land use and development issues in theCity. Possible issues for discussion include:

How should we initiate and engage in a robust public dialog about the future of the City,especially as it relates to existing commercial corridors and Pedestrian and TransitOriented Development (PTOD) districts?

How should this dialog relate to ongoing efforts to update the Citys ComprehensivePlan and projects such as the Downtown Cap study, 27 University outreach, etc.?

How should we re-examine the Planned Community (PC) process and address thecommun itys concerns about the exchange of new development entitlements for publicbenefits?

Attachment B


11/52


How should we ensure transparency, consistency, and predictability for developmentapplications that conform with current zoning?

Which traffic and parking solutions can be implemented in the short term, and how willthe cumulative impacts analysis associated with the Comprehensive Plan Update informdecision making in the long term?

Are there other questions related to zoning and land use that should be consideredseparately or in tandem with the Comprehensive Plan update?

At the closure of the study session, staff will attempt to summarize direction from the Council.One or more action items will be brought back to the Council for formal direction early in the2014.

Background

Palo Alto will be a vital, attractive place to live, work, and visit. The elements that makePalo Alto a great community its neighborhoods, shopping and employment centers,civic uses, open spaces, and natural resources will be strengthened and enhanced. Thediverse range of housing and work environments will be sustained and expanded tocreate more choices for all income levels. All Palo Alto neighborhoods will be improved,each to have public gathering spaces, essential services and pedestrian amenities, toencourage less reliance on the automobile.

Vision Statement from the Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan

The Comprehensive Plan is the Citys guiding planning document, setting forth the communitysvision when it comes to land use and related issues. Each time an individual project or rezoningis considered, that decision is required to be consistent with the policy framework of the Plan.This does not mean that every decision is required to be consistent with every policy andprogram of the Plan, but each must be consistent on balance with the Plan as a whole, and withany mandatory policies of the Plan.

Palo Altos current comprehensive plan was adopted in 1998 and has served this communitywell. It envisions a city of neighborhoods and a vision for the future that is expressed throughthe major themes of the document:

Building Community and Neighborhoods; Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character;


12/52


Reducing Reliance on the Automobile; Meeting Housing Supply Challenges; Protecting and Repairing Natural Features; Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs, and Providing Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership

The Comprehensive Plan articulates key values, expressed through policies and action itemsincluding such things as a limit on non-residential growth in the Downtown area (Program L-8)and throughout the City (Policy L-8), promoting decisions that encourage walking, bicycling andpublic transit use (Policy T-1), development of strategies to increase housing density anddiversity in appropriate locations (Policy H-2) and encouraging new businesses that meet theCitys business and economic goals (Policy B -9).

In general, the Comprehensive Plan establishes a land use regime that is protective of low-density residential neighborhoods (typically zoned R-1, R-2, and RMD) and open space areas. Itis supportive of commercial enterprises, but effectively targets growth and change to fully-developed commercial areas such as Downtown, the California Avenue area, Stanford ShoppingCenter and the Research Park, El Camino Real and interstitial areas comprising approximately5% of the City.

The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes the challenges in providing diverse and high-qualityhousing opportunities. Again, it is protective of existing residential neighborhoods, butsupportive of higher density in appropriate locations. The City has a long history of support foraffordable housing, including the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance in the mid-1970s, the establishment of affordable housing impact fees, and support for local, state andfederal programs that help to preserve and enhance the Citys affordable housing supply. Theinitial Housing Element adopted with the Comprehensive Plan and the revised HousingElements that have been adopted in conformance with State requirements since that time haveall contained policies and programs that address the housing challenges the City continues toexperience.


13/52


Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Map (as amended through 2013). Single- family neighborhoods are shown in yellow; open space and public uses are green.

The Comprehensive Plan Amendment

Unfortunately (since the plan is such a good one), the future that the Comprehensive Planenvisioned was 2010, and in 2006, the Council directed staff and the PTC to begin work on anupdate. City Council initiated the Comprehensive Plan amendment project in 2006. Funding forthe project was allocated in 2007 and a consultant team was selected in 2008. The amendmentwas intended not to overhaul the Comprehensive Plan and the Council adopted work programreflects the primary purposes of the amendment which includes:

Extending the horizon year of the Plan to 2020 (this was later extended to 2025), Updating baseline data and growth projections, Modifying the vision statements, policies and programs as needed to address the

focus of the Comp Plan Amendment, Ensuring the retention of sufficient land for neighborhood-serving retail uses and

commercial growth,


14/52


15/52


Community Changes Since the Comprehensive Plan was Adopted

Its obvious to most people that the economic, social, and environmental landscape haschanged significantly since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998. The City has

experienced boom and bust cycles in the economy, affecting employment, housing demand,and office development. The City has been relatively well-positioned to adapt to these cyclesand although weve had to cope with lean budget years and reductions in city services, thestrength of our commercial sectors, residential property values, and school districtachievements have brought us through difficult times. As a result, the City overall enjoys a high-level of resident, visitor and business community satisfaction.

Despite emergent concerns about traffic and parking (issues Palo Alto shares with other citiesacross the Bay Area), citizens continue to rank Palo Alto very high in the annual City Surveyconducted by the National Research Service. Recently, Palo Alto was named #1 on the Top 100Best Places to Live by Livability.com , a national website that ranks quality of life amenities ofAmericas sma ll and mid-sized cities. It certainly could be argued that the changes Palo Alto hasexperienced over the past 15 years have contributed to the success and the challenges our citycontinues to experience. The following charts illustrate some of the change weve experienced:
http://livability.com/http://livability.com/http://livability.com/http://livability.com/


16/52


City o Palo lto Households and Housing Units30,000

obs within City o Palo lto

100000

XJOO()

70000

60000

5OOJ )

40000

x l

70000

10000

0

7000 7005 2010 2011Horizon Years

30 000

28 000

26 O Oc

] 24 ODO

c] 22 ODO

5'20 000

100000

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

4OOlO

IJOOO

20000

10000

0

ity of Palo Alto Hou seholds and Hou sing Units

28 2

26 49

2 3 7 424 7

23 102

20 546 ousffiolds I1970 1980 1990 2000 20 1 0

Decennial Census Years

Jobs within ity of Palo Alto

2000 2005 2010 2011Horizon Years


17/52


Source: City of Palo Alto Traffic Counts for 1999 and 2013


18/52


Source: Caltrans Annual Traffic Counts


19/52


Recent Development and Community Concerns

Palo Alto has successfully navigated out of the Great Recession and is now facing newchallenges and concerns regarding the pace of development, although development over thelast 15 years has not exceeded the two non-residential development limits adopted as part ofthe 1998 Comprehensive Plan, as shown below. Also, most of the pending developmentapplications that can be characterized as major proposals, in the sense that they would add10,000 gross square feet or more, conform to the zoning regulations that were established toimplement the Comprehensive Plan.


20/52


1989 2013 Non-Residential Development within the 1989 Land Use Study Areas

Total Development Potential Growth Monitoring 3,257,900 sq. ft.

Net Non-Residential Square Feet Gained thru August 2013 1,570,033 sq. ft.

Remaining Square feet in Growth Monitoring 1,687,867 sq. ft.


21/52


Commercial Downtown Zone District Non-Residential Growth Cap

Commercial Downtown Zoning Districts Growth Cap 350,000 sq. ft.

Net Non-Residential Square Feet Gained thru August 2013 256,939 sq. ft.

Remaining Square feet in Growth Monitoring 93,061 sq. ft.


22/52


In-process Major Development Projects as of November 12, 2013

Address Project Description Status PC?

640 WAVERLEY Prelim ARB mixed-use building with

two dwelling units and commercialarea of 10,463 sf (demo existing onestory).

Zoning issues under review no

500 UNIVERSITY AV New three-story building (26,806 sfreplacing 15,899 sf) with ground floorretail, two floors of office and twolevels below grade parking.

First and second ARB Prelimcompleted, ARB 12/5/13

no

2500 EL CAMINOREAL

New four-story mixed use project with70 residential units (one, two and threebedroom units) of BMR rental housingand approximately 7,300 square feet ofcommercial space.

ARB Prelim completed; formalapp received 11/7

no

261 HAMILTON Addition to University Arts Building6,900 sf; generating 15K TDRs withoutparking exceptions.

Formal application submitted no

636 MIDDLEFIELD Prelim ARB for three residential units. ARB Prelim to be scheduled no

777 WELCH Prelim ARB for 22,820 sf of newconstruction (demo 3,048 sf).

ARB Prelim scheduled 11/21/13 no

429 UNIVERSITY Prelim ARB for one dwelling unit and16,500 sf commercial (existing 6,600sf).

ARB Prelim 11/7/13 no

180 EL CAMINO REAL Prelim ARB for 133,580 sf retail andrenovation (replacing same sf).


385 SHERMAN Prelim ARB for 55,566 sf mixed usebuilding.


2555 PARK Formal ARB for 23,269 sf office; demoexisting building.

Historic review initiated no

2609 ALMA Prelim ARB for four-unit multi-familyresidential condos.

ARB Prelim January 2014 no


23/52


In-process Major Development Projects as of November 12, 2013

Address Project Description Status PC?

441 PAGE MILL RD New 32,524 sf mixed use building

(21,540 sf commercial and 8 residentialunits) and one level of below gradeparking.

Formal submittal of a Site and

Design application on 7/29/13

no

2609 ALMA Preliminary Architectural Review Boardreview of a new four unit multifamilyresidential condominium project.

Prelim ARB no

3877 ECR Preliminary ARB review for new twostory mixed use project in at theCompadres site. 18 dwelling units and3,000 sf. commercial

Prelim ARB no

395 PAGE MILL ROADAND 3045 PARKBLVD

Planned Community and Comp PlanAmendment for New Office Buildings,Structured Parking and Public SafetyBuilding

PTC Initiated PC 7/10/13; ARBreview 9/19/13. Applicantholding community meetings

yes

1050 PAGE MILLROAD

Prelim ARB for a 284,000 sf. officebuilding

ARB 12/5/13 no

816 SAN ANTONIOAV

Minor ARB approval to allow a 8,200square foot structure for Hertz Rent-a-

Car.

Notice of incomplete issued toapplicant

no

240 HAMILTON AV Major ARB and variance to allow a new15,000 sf mixed use building.

ARB Approved 7/18/13,appealed

no

1875 EMBARCADERORD

Site and Design Review for the golfcourse reconfiguration project.

Pending Council review PTCand ARB completed

no

3980 EL CAMINOREAL APT 001

PC Application for conversion of BuenaVista Mobile Home Park.

Project under review yes

2755 EL CAMINOREAL

PC for a 19,563 sf, four story mixed usebuilding with three stories of belowgrade parking. CC prelim was February2013.

9/11/13 PTC PlannedCommunity initiation continuedto date uncertain

yes


24/52


The development described above represents a portion of the total number of projects underreview by Planning staff and other City representatives; it includes projects that would do anyof the following: add over 5,000 square feet of net new floor area, require design review underthe Site & Design process, consist of a major subdivision and/or a Preliminary Review of a majorproject. As illustrated in the charts in the preceding section, the Development ServicesDepartment issues a significant number of building permits each year, with total buildingpermit valuation approaching $600 million in FY 2013.

New developments typically represent an increased intensity of use at each site as compared tothe existing conditions. This increased intensity of use can place additional demands on theroadway network and automobile parking infrastructure. Citizens have clearly communicatedtheir concerns regarding the perceived increase in automobile traffic, the reduction of availableparking spaces in public-owned lots, automobile parking intrusion into residential

neighborhoods adjacent to commercial areas, and overall difficulty in moving throughintersections due to traffic congestion.

As illustrated earlier, daily traffic volumes ebb and flow over time, and with the end of therecession, volumes are approaching levels attained during the Dot-Com boom. In addition,local and regional traffic congestion is noticeably wors e for drivers, whether theyre commutinglong distances, or making short local trips. Complaints about traffic and parking are widespreadacross the Bay Area.

Architecture & DesignA relatively recent community concern engendered by ongoing development activity relates tothe architecture and design of newly constructed buildings. Some community members havecomplained that the Architectural Review Standards, contained within the Municipal Code, arenot being applied strictly and evenly and as a result, new buildings do not meet the level ofarchitectural quality that Palo Alto expects.

This concern about design compatibility is often expressed as a critique of individual projectsthat have been approved since the adoption of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Some of

these projects are listed in the following table:


25/52


Sample of Significant Projects Approved Since Adoption of 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan

Projects Zoning Year Approved

800 High Street- multi-family residential PC 2003

Vantage of Palo Alto ROLM 2003

Echelon- multi-family residential, East Meadow Drive ROLM 2004

Downtown parking garages (High Street & Bryant) PF/PC 2000

Hyatt Rickys/Arbor Real - multi-family residential CS/CN/R-1/RM-15

2005

TKCJL-community center and residential PC 2006

Altaire- Fabian Way, multi-family residential, affordable housing PC 2006

801 Alma- affordable housing RT-50 2009

Sterling Park multi-family residential, E. Bayshore Rd. ROLM 2007

Elks Lodge/Rosewood Gate- multi-family residential and private lodge RM-15/RM-30

2007

Palo Alto Bowl Site Redevelopment- hotel and multi-family residential CS 2009

Alma Plaza- retail and multi-family residential PC 2007

SUMC-hospitals modernization and expansion Hospital 2011

Edgewood Plaza- retail redevelopment PC 2013

101 Lytton- commercial office PC 2011

Source: Planning and Community Environment Department

By comparison, there has been relatively little criticism of the post-war strip mall design of ElCamino Real, for example, or other mediocre architecture from earlier periods.


26/52


Most importantly, discussion of some existing standards and their rigid application (height limit,for example) can contribute to poorer building design when the density and FAR (floor arearatio) of a project remains unchanged. A discussion of design as an integrated systemschallenge and not simply a collection of individual standards and requirements could generatean important and needed conversation and improve design.

Land Use & Transportation Studies

In addition to considering and approving individual development applications that areconsistent with the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, the City has undertaken numerous land use andtransportation studies since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan:

Land Use and Transportation Studies Completed/In-progress since Adoption of 1998-2010

Comprehensive Plan

Projects Completed / In-progress

Downtown Cap Study In-progress

Phase 1 datacollection/analysis

completion: May 2014

Phase 2 policy developmentand CEQA completion:

October 2014Comprehensive Plan Amendment

Transportation Element- Council review

Citywide Transportation Model- Council review

Land Use Element- Council review

California Avenue Concept Area Plan

East Meadow Circle/Fabian Way Concept Area Plan

In-progress

Completion Q2 2015

Q1 2014

Q1 2014

Q1 2014

PTC Review 11/20

Council approved Jan 2012

2014-2022 Housing Element In-progress

Completion: Q1 2015


27/52


Transportation survey Completed; to be

Transmitted to Council12/9/13

Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Programs In-progress,

scheduled for Councildiscussion on 12/16/13

Parking studies In-progress,

status will be provided atthe RPP Council discussion

on 12/16/13

California Avenue Streetscape In-progress,

currently out to bid

High Speed Rail/CalTrain Modernization In-progress

El Camino Real Grand Boulevard Initiative In-progress

Sidewalk Width Colleagues Memo Implementation In progress,

ARB & PTC input Q1 2014

Urban Forest Master Plan In-progress

Completion June 2014

Parks & Recreation Master Plan In-progress

Arts & Innovation District, 27 University On-hold,

pending outcome of the12/2/13 study session

1999-2006 Housing Element 2003

South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan I & II 2003- 2005

El Camino Real Design Guidelines

Adopted by ARB in 2002 and incorporated in the Municipal Code in 2005)

2005

El Camino Real Master Plan Study 2007

Zoning Ordinance Update 2007

Baylands Master Plan 2009

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2012


28/52


Sustainable Communities Strategy, Plan Bay Area 2013

2007-2014 Housing Element 2013

Rail Corridor Study 2013


The renewed pace of development since the end of the recession, daily traffic and parkingconditions, and the number of concurrent planning studies, have resulted in many peoplefeeling that there is no coherent vision or narrative connecting individual project review andthe various planning efforts underway. This feeling has led to significant discontent with thePlanned Community (PC) district rezoning process as well some concerns that theComprehensive Plan is being ignored or has lost its currency.

Planned Community DevelopmentRezoning to a PC district follows a set of procedures and standards, which are prescribed in

Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The PC process begins with PTC reviewof the concept plans, development program statement and draft development schedule. If thePTC recommends initiating the PC request, the development plan, site plan, landscape plan anddesign plans are submitted to the ARB for design review in the same manner as any commercialor mixed-use project. The environmental document is prepared and circulated prior to ARBconsideration. The development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then returnedto the PTC, together with a draft PC ordinance and environmental document, for review andrecommendation to the City Council. The PC ordinance would identify the permitted andconditionally permitted uses and site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of theproject. The Council may approve a PC zone change only if it finds that:

1. The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of suchcharacteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts willnot provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.

2. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community

district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application ofthe regulations of general districts or combining districts. In make the findingsrequired by this section, the Planning and Transportation Commission and CityCouncil, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected toresult from use of the planned community district.


29/52


3. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicablewithin the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, andshall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or withinthe general vicinity.

The PC process, whereby the City and a developer negotiate site-specific design anddevelopment standards in exchange for public benefits, is viewed by many as too opaque andtransactional, allowing neighborhood impacts to be traded for benefits that accrue to thoseoutside the immediate vicinity. The process and some of its outcomes (i.e. the public benefitsresulting from individual projects) have been critiqued as inadequate, and the ad hoc nature ofeach separate negotiation has contributed to community concerns about the lack of a coherentset of values or vision for the future.

The following table describes the Planned Community districts approved by Council since theadoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998.

Council Adopted Planned Community Districts Since 1998

Planned

Community

Address Known As ApprovalDate

Public Benefits

PC-4511 502-562 DriscollPlace

Driscoll PlaceTownhomes

07/01/98 TDM program, pedestrianoriented landscaping on

ECR, BMR unitsPC-4611 445 Bryant Street Parking Lot S/L 03/20/2000 Parking garage, landscaping,

art

PC-4612 528 High Street Parking Lot R 03/20/2000 Parking garage, landscaping,art

PC-4637

PC-2533

3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto Square;amendment topreviouslyapproved PC

05/22/2000 None listed on original 1969ordinance.

PC-4753 2051 El Camino Real 2051 El CaminoReal

06/13/2002 Redevelopment ofunderutilized site, twosmaller housing units, oneBMR unit.

PC-4779 800 High Street 800 High Streetcondos

02/18/2003 Public parking, open spaceplazas, auto access to 801Alma affordable housing


30/52


site, BMR units

PC-4782 33 Encina Avenue OpportunityCenter

03/17/2003 Services center forhomeless, BMR units.

PC-4831 2701 El Camino Real Sunrise AssistedLiving

06/21/2004 Redevelopment ofunderutilized site, seniorassisted living units, BMRunits for 12 persons,publically accessible openspace, $20K for street treesat ECR, art, Avenidasmeeting space

PC-4843

PC-2592

690 San AntonioAvenue

Auto dealershipdesign features;amendment topreviously

approved PC


PC-4846

PC-2554

1730 EmbarcaderoRoad

Auto dealershipdesign features;amendment topreviouslyapproved PC


PC-4847

PC-3350

1766 EmbarcaderoRoad

Auto dealershipdesign features;amendment topreviouslyapproved PC


PC-4917 3895 Fabian Way Altaire MarketRate Condos /Alta Torre SeniorApts.

10/10/2006 Alta Torre 100% BMR seniorapartment units

PC-4918 901 SanAntonio/3921 FabianWay

Taube-KoretCampus forJewish Life

10/10/2006 Shared-use communityfacility, BMR senior assistedliving units

PC-4956 3388-3557 AlmaVillage Circle

Alma Plaza 06/18/2007 15K sqft grocery store as apermanent use, park,community room, 14-BMRunits

PC-4995 449-453 AddisonAvenue

Creation of a flaglot

03/10/2008 Allows preservation of twohistoric residences

PC-5034 488 West CharlestonRoad

TreeHouse Apts. 03/30/2009 100% BMR project, 35 units


31/52


PC-5069 2180 El Camino Real JJ&F Market 01/11/2010 8,000 sqft grocery store,four BMR units, $5K treeplanting on ECR

PC-5116 4025-4075 El CaminoWay

Palo AltoCommons,

residentialaddition

04/21/2011 $100K to Avenidas, rentalsenior assisted housing,

pedestrian/bus stopimprovements

PC-5150 2060 ChanningAvenue

EdgewoodShopping Center

04/09/12 Preservation of historicgrocery store, public park, 3charging stations, historicpreservation payment

PC-5158 101 Lytton Avenue 101 LyttonCommercialOffice

06/11/12 4 charging stations, 1 zip carspace, parking studypayments of $310K, BMRnon-profit rental space, 8

surface parking spaces

Discussion

Comprehensive Plan Update

Using the work of the PTC on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as a foundation, Staffsuggests that now may be the appropriate time to initiate a renewed community engagement

effort around the Comprehensive Plans vision and priorities. A visioning exercise wouldexamine goals and priorities related to community character, land development, traffic andparking, and the preservation and conservation of valuable resources, and could be conductedconcurrently with a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis in the form of a program-levelEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR). Spe cific questions that could be framed for the publicsconsideration include:

Should the City increase, decrease or maintain the non-residential development capscurrently in-place for Downtown and the 1986 land use study areas?

Are there specific areas or development sites that should be the focus of change, so asto protect and preserve other areas?

Are there specific transportation investments that are needed in the near term or longterm to improve mobility, preserve the Citys neighborhoods, and perp etuate a robusteconomy?


32/52


At the time of the work plan initiation in 2006, the City Council did not include a visioningexercise as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, given the length of time ithas taken to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the significant changes that have occurredsince the adoption of the existing Comprehensive plan in 1998, Council may find it appropriateto conduct a visioning exercise at this time. The outcome of the visioning exercise would be to

inform the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process and validate or alter the work that hasbeen achieved thus far.

The visioning exercise will require additional time and resources, but can happen concurrentlywith preparation of a program-level EIR, which can provide the kind of overarching cumulativeimpacts analysis that members of the community are requesting and also propose a series ofmitigating actions and programs for incorporation into the plan.

The graphic below illustrates how the community visioning process and the program-EIR cancombine to inform the final Comprehensive Plan amendment that is proposed for adoption bythe City Council. If Council is amenable to this overall approach, staff would return to Councilwith a work plan and schedule early in 2014.

The Council will also have to decide which implementing ordinances and practices can betackled concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and which should be reservedfor future action. For example, the Council could seek to reform the Planned Communityzoning process ahead of the Comprehensive Plan Update or as part of that process. The Council


33/52


could also initiate the reform themselves, or request the PTC formulate a recommendationfirst.

One important issue to note is that the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan will have

to be updated on a separate schedule due to requirements in State law. Specifically, an updatefor the planning period 2014-2022 must be completed and adopted in January 2015 or the Citywill face significant penalties. The most notable penalty would be a requirement to update theelement again in four years, rather than in eight years as provided for in SB 375 and companionlegislation.

Planned Community Zoning

Planning staff believes that the Planned Community zoning tool can be re-examined and refinedto better achieve its original intent. As stated in the Specific Purposes section of PC regulations,

The planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planneddevelopments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with an enhance thepolicies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.

There may be intersections between this effort and the Comprehensive Plan update, andpossible refinements can range from wholesale reform to adjustments that:

Specifically define the types of projects that may apply for a PC district; Create minimum lot sizes that would be eligible for PC districts;

Establish a buffer (a minimum distance) between a proposed PC district and existinglow-density residential districts;

Create a menu of public benefits that would be allowed under a PC, and/or Establish a mechanism for mitigation and condition monitoring.

Pipeline Projects

The Council may decide whether to entertain rezoning proposals -- including proposals for theuse of the PC district prior to reforming the PC zoning process and/or completing theComprehensive Plan update. Logically, most such proposals would be deferred, however there

may be special circumstances in which the Council may wish to consider a rezoning proposaland the Council could choose to articulate related criteria or provide other guidance toproperty owners.

This community has long valued property rights of landowners to develop in conformance withexisting zoning. Both State law (State Permit Streamlining Act) and local law prescribe time


34/52


limits time limits for processing entitlements for zoning compliant projects. Also, the ability of alocal jurisdiction to efficiently and predictably process building permits and other entitlementsthat are consistent with its zoning regulations typically helps to define a positive businessclimate.

Palo Alto takes pride in a business climate that supports innovation and entrepreneurship; thisclimate would be challenging to maintain if proposals that are consistent with current zoningregulations are deferred. There are also legal hurdles associated with deferring certain zoningcompliant projects. On the other hand, Council has much more flexibility in deferringconsideration of discretionary zoning decisions like PCs or other up -zoning requests.

The need to process development proposals that are consistent with current zoning regulations

at the same time that the City is working on community-wide planning issues, suggests theneed for consistency and transparency. Applicants and members of the public should clearlyunderstand the existing regulations and standards by which a project is being evaluated, howdirect, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project are assessed, and how the project relatesto the Comprehensive Plan update and other planning and transportation initiatives that areunderway.

While Staff is suggesting a visioning initiative with a strong emphasis on the ComprehensivePlan it is important to recognize that existing zoning on all properties in the city is the mostconcrete form of a citys land use plan and placing restrictions on the use of that zoning (or

down zoning) is something that requires extensive engagement with property owners andothers in the community. This is a fact that is frequently misunderstood or ignored by somemembers of the public when the Council considers applications under existing zoning.

Traffic and Parking

Much of the communitys concerns regarding PC zonin g and the cumulative impacts ofdevelopment in general relates to parking and traffic issues. The Council will be getting anupdate on aspects of these issues in the coming weeks as staff brings forward a study sessionregarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM) on December 9 th and a framework for

Residential Permit Parking on December 16th

. In this context, staff will also summarizeinitiatives to expand parking supplies.

Also, on December 12 th , staff will be providing the PTC with a summary of the traffic analysismethodology that is used to assess project-specific and cumulative impacts, including theadjustments that are being made to reflect an updated travel demand model. Following


35/52


Commission questions and comments, staff will forward a revised summary/explanation to theCouncil for review.

Timeline

The City Council has initiated a community outreach plan for a discussion of the Citys CoreValues, and has requested that the public outreach component be completed in time forCouncils yearly retreat in Q1 2014 where Council sets its priorities for the upcoming year. ThePTC is scheduled to provide recommendations regarding elements of the Comprehensive Planamendment in the same timeframe.

The Council may wish to use both events to preface a community engagement/visioningprocess about community character, land development, traffic and parking, and other topics,and to direct this community engagement effort to be completed concurrently with

preparation of the program-level EIR for the Comprehensive Plan update. The Council may alsowish to revise the Citys PC zoning process in 2014, and the City is required to update theHousing Element of its Comprehensive Plan by the end of January 2015.

As a prelude to any revision process on PCs, th e City Manager recommends that all current PCprojects under consideration be stopped and put on hold for a sufficient period of time to allowthis comprehensive review of our plans and policies to unfold.

At the closure of the study session, staff will attempt to summarize direction from the Council.

One or more related action items will be brought back to the Council for formal direction earlyin the 2014.

Resource Impact

Resources to conduct a City-wide visioning process will vary depening upon the scope of theexercise. Resources to review and reform the PC zoning process will depend on the Councilsdesired approach and schedule. The City Manager intends to restructure existing staffing toensure an extensive community engagement initiative. This may include additional resourceinvestments. The need for more planning capacity and staff will be a subject of the upcoming

budget review and City Manager recommendations on the Budget. Future agenda items willoutline alternative approaches and resourc es in detail, following Councils study session.

Policy Implications

A community visioning exercise and cumulative impacts analysis (in the form of a program-levelEIR) can result in an updated Comprehensive Plan with broad community support. At the same


36/52


time, reforms to the PC zoning process can improve the publics perception of City governmentby focusing on ways to improve transparency and predictability, and updating the CitysHousing Element can ensure continued compliance with State housing laws. All three efforts,as well as ongoing initiatives related to traffic and parking, can honor the policies and programsof the existing Comprehensive Plan, including Program G-2: Periodically assess the need for

citizen input on various policy issues and appoint advisory bodies and ad hoc committees asneeded , and Policy G-11: Encourage the development of new planning processes thatemphasizes a collaborative exchange of ideas. Retain City Council authority over decision-making in these processes.

Environmental Review

Study sessions by definition are not projects under CEQA, because no actions will be taken.When staff returns for Council direction regarding the issues discussed, the agenda report willprovide information about the CEQA process for zoning and Comprehensive Plan changes thatare considered in the future.Attachments:

Attachment A: Comprehensive Plan Update Overview (DOCX)


37/52

ATTACHMENT AComprehensive Plan Update Overview

The ongoing Comprehensive Plan update has suggested rearranging chapters and elementsand substantially changing the format of the existing plan, without changing its core

values. The update also attempts to address the challenges of today, including affordablehousing, sustainability and climate adaptation, traffic and parking, and maintaining a place inthe community for non- profits and new businesses that cant pay the same rent s as establishedcommercial enterprises. New policies and programs are intended to clarify existing policies andprograms and to accommodate new State requirements. Aspects of the Comprehensive Planthat are proposed to remain unchanged include:

1. The limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential development in the 1986land use study areas;

2. The limit of 350,000 square feet of new non-residential development in theDowntown area, or 10% above the amount of development existing or approve as ofMay 1986, and

3. The existing road network within the city.

As currently drafted, approximately 85% to 90% of the existing policies and programs would becarried over either unchanged or with edits to improve clarity, intent, and to reduce repetition:

Continuation of 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs

Elements % ofPrograms

Completedand NotContinued

% Edited andCarried Over

% CarriedOver w/o

Edits

Total %Carried

Over

Land Use Element 13 48 39 87

Transportation Element 11 70 19 89

Housing Element 13 69 18 87

Community Services and Facilities Element 14 46 40 86

Natural Environment Element 15 52 33 85


In addition to the carry-over of existing polices and program from the 1998-2010Comprehensive Plan, staff and the PTC have suggested adding many new policies and programsthat are meant to address existing priorities of the City, such as:


38/52

Land Use Element

L1.1 POLICY Require that land use policies be consistent with Palo Altos Climate ProtectionPlan, striving to achieve and exceed target reductions in greenhouse gasemission levels set forth by City Council goals from City operations andcommunity emissions. (New Policy)

L2.9 POLICY Require infrastructure improvements to serve all areas of the City fairly, addressthe most urgent needs, and accommodate future growth. (New Policy)

L3.11.1 PROGRAM Introduce measures to counteract the loss of retail activities in PaloAltos Neighborhood Centers. (New Program)

L3.18 POLICY Encourage retention and enhancement of research and development (R&D),office, light industrial, and commercial development consistent with the EastMeadow Circle Concept Plan ensure that new and existing development iscompatible and includes appropriate transitions to nearby single- and multi-family development. (New Policy)

Transportation Element

T1.1 POLICY Reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation by reducingvehicle miles traveled and per-mile emissions through use of vehicletechnologies to meet the Citys goals for greenhouse gas reductions by 2020.(New Policy)

T4.1.1 PROGRAM Develop a Parking Management Program for both the

University/Downtown and California Avenue business districts that supportsalternative transportation modes. (New Program)

T4.3.1 PROGRAM Study parking pricing and congestion pricing options for on-off-streetparking in the Downtown/University Avenue and California Avenue businessdistricts that is responsive to the market and results in approximately 85%parking occupancy. As part of creating this system, review the existingDowntown parking system to ensure it is still consistent with the overallapproach to parking in the Downtown, and includes mechanisms that allowmerchants to defray parking fees for their customers. (New Program)

T4.5.1 PROGRAM Review on-street parking availability in residential neighborhoodsadjacent to business districts to determine how it is used during business andnon-business hours. Consider allowing designated disabled on-street parkingupon resident request when conducting this review. (New Program)

T4.5.2 PROGRAM Develop a program to implement new residential permit parkingdistricts to preserve neighborhood quality of life. (New Program)


39/52

Community Services and Facilities Element

C1.3 POLICY The Citys community services should be a catalyst in creating a culture of health,wellbeing and active living in our community. It shall contribute to theintellectual physical and social health of the community by providingopportunities for learning, expression and social interaction for all ages at ourlibraries, community facilities, parks and cultural centers. (New Policy)

C1.4 POLICY Incorporate the Developmental Assets approach into the Citys planning,development, implementation and evaluation of programs and services forchildren and youth. (New Policy)

C1.6 POLICY Develop strategies to help the community identify and combat depression,isolation, stress and other mental health issues. (New Policy)

Natural and Urban Environment and Safety Element

N2.1 POLICY Achieve and exceed City Council targeted goals for reductions in greenhouse gasemission levels from City operations and community emissions. (New Policy)

N2.3 POLICY Pursue the goal of achieving zero net energy homes for all new detached orsingle-family residences by 2025. (New Policy)

N3.5 POLICY Encourage renewable energy use by continuing to implement a dynamic 100%carbon neutral Renewable Portfolio Standard for electric service. (New Policy)

N8.10 POLICY Regularly review the adequacy of law enforcement services and emergency

services in the city. Plan and develop law enforcement infrastructure andtechnology according to overall need and the growth within the City. (NewPolicy)

Housing Element

H3.1.10 PROGRAM Adopt a revised density bonus ordinance that allows up to a maximumzoning increase of 35 percent in density and grants up to three concessions orincentives. The density bonus ordinance will meet State standards for theprovision of housing units for very low- and lower-income renters, seniors andmoderate-income condominium buyers in compliance withGovernment Code Section 65915, et seq. (New Program)

H 2.2.6 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encouragedevelopment on and consolidation of smaller lots, such as development reviewstreamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units, setbackmodifications, or graduated density when consolidated lots areover one-half acre. (New Program)


40/52

The intent of City staff and the PTC is to honor and maintain the themes and values described inthe existing Comprehensive Plan, repeated here:

Building Community and Neighborhoods; Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character; Reducing Reliance on the Automobile; Meeting Housing Supply Challenges; Protecting and Repairing Natural Features; Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs, and Providing Responsive Governance and Regional Leadership

and adding additional themes:

Adapting to climate change Protecting neighborhood-serving retail

Infrastructure management Health and well-being of our residents


41/52

CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES

Page 1 of 20

Special MeetingDecember 2, 2013

The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the CouncilConference Room at 6:05 P.M.

Present: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Scharff, Schmid,

Shepherd

Absent: None

Parks and Recreation Commission Members:

Present: Ashlund, Crommie, Hetterly, Lauing, Markevitch, Reckdahl

Absent: Knopper

AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETTIONS

None

CLOSED SESSION

1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Government Code Section54956.9(b), (c)Potential Litigation: Construction of the Mitchell Park Library andCommunity Center

The Council returned from the Closed Session at 6:50 P.M., and MayorScharff advised no reportable action.

Attachment C


42/52

MINUTES

Page 10 of 20City Council Meeting

Minutes: 12/02/13

STUDY SESSION

10. Initiating a Community Conversation on the Future of the City,Including the Comprehensive Plan, Planned Community Zoning,Parking and Traffic Strategies, and Related Matters.

James Keene, City Manager, acknowledged that residents were fortunate tolive in the center of one of the world's premier areas. Increasingly, everyexisting industry felt compelled to connect to Silicon Valley, and Palo Altowas the heart of Silicon Valley. The impacts of renewed demand for SiliconValley generated significant contemporary challenges and concerns in thecommunity. Because of concerns regarding planning for and managing ofgrowth, the Council scheduled the Study Session. Staff was concernedabout their ability to manage demands and workload. The Study Session

was a positive opportunity to clarify a collective vision expressed through arenewed Comprehensive Plan and through citizen participation to inform theCouncil's decisions. Staff solicited initial comments and questions from theCouncil to shape the Staff Report.

Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment,reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan was the City's guiding document forland use and development decisions. Other policies were intended to beconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan wasadopted in 1998 and remained valid. The Comprehensive Plan articulatedlimits for Citywide development and Downtown development, both of whichthe City had not reached. The Staff Report attempted to articulate changesin Palo Alto and concerns that occurred because of changes. The City had anopportunity to combine planning efforts into the Comprehensive Plan updateand to subject it to community engagement and environmental review.Another opportunity was to continue short-term problem solving related totraffic and parking. A third opportunity was to continue processing projectsconsistent with current zoning while holding them to a high standard. Staffprovided six broad questions to capture individual comments andsuggestions from Council Members. In discussing the questions, Staff hopedto focus on a process and return with information at the time of the Retreat.

Mr. Keene felt the Council needed time to hear from the public and todiscuss broader strategies. Staff provided initial thoughts for discussion andcould summarize the Council's comments at the end of the discussion.

Harvey Miller indicated a discussion of the future of the City should be placedin the context of the future of the nation. The issue was the demographicshift. He provided copies of an Atlantic Monthly article regarding housing.


43/52

MINUTES


Minutes: 12/02/13

Low density usage caused traffic and increased land prices. More multi-family housing was needed as the population aged.

Eric Filseth felt there were two conflicting visions for Palo Alto. Vision A wasa medium-density, family town. Vision B was a financial and professionalhub. Vision B came with unsolvable traffic, parking, pollution, and over-stretched City infrastructure and schools. Staff and the Council attempted toimplement Vision B within a framework of laws supporting Vision A. A clearmajority of residents were not willing to accept the costs of Vision B.

Robert Lancefield urged the Council to take a long view when considering thesmall changes that led to large changes.

Martin Bernstein stated a Planned Community (PC) was a tool for Cityevolution. A balance between developers and residents was key to a

successful PC process. The public could support a PC if it felt it received afair outcome.

Robert Moss suggested the Council consider the interaction of plannedprojects with existing projects; transparency; comparison of proposedprojects with the Comprehensive Plan; and careful revision of the PCprocess.

Ruth Luoy related problems with traffic lights and lack of turn lanes on ElCamino Real.

Dick Rosenbaum indicated the Council was ignoring the Stanford-Arrillagaand Jay Paul Projects. The Council should direct Staff to notify bothapplicants that their projects were no longer likely to be approved.

Neilson Buchanan recommended the Council initiate an effort with Staff andneighborhoods to understand development rights related to parkingassessment districts. Staff continued to approve projects with no negativeimpact.

Richard Brand indicated the parking problem in Professorville was worse

than in areas south of Oregon Expressway. The Comprehensive Plan stateddevelopment should meet commercial needs but not at the expense ofresidential quality of life. People moved to Palo Alto for the quality of life itprovided.

David Kleiman encouraged responsible development. Projects should beparked. The Council should provide developers with transparency andconsistency.


44/52

MINUTES


Minutes: 12/02/13

Ken Hayes stated PC Zoning allowed other opportunities not necessarilyenvisioned by the creators of the Zoning Ordinance. A PC Zone providedflexibility; however, that flexibility should be in accord with the objectivesand spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. The PC process should engage thecommunity. The Council should consider different PC Zone categories.

Randy Popp felt existing guidelines and regulations were thoughtful andforward-thinking, imperfect but well drafted. Halting projects in midstreamcreated an environment and an expectation of unmanageable risk. Growthof the City needed to occur in a fair and predictable manner within theestablished framework.

Michael Alcheck remarked that a diversity of opinion was crucial to thediscussion. He supported sustainable communities with smart growth and

density done well.

Susan Fineberg believed the Council and Staff did not listen to residents.The Council structured a planning process with predetermined outcomes thatfound no significant impacts. She requested the Council implement a seriesof reforms beginning with a moratorium on all major projects in all zoningdesignations; allow public participation in updating the Comprehensive Plan;revise the project review and approval process; restructure PC Zoningregulations with an emphasis on public benefit; and restore consistency andpredictability for development applications that conformed with currentzoning.

Chris Donlay suggested the process was not broken but only running amok.The many planning hearings should allow disclosure of pertinent information.The review bodies did not apply critical thinking to individual projects.

Paul Machado did not understand why the City had a Comprehensive Planwhen many exceptions were granted.

Herb Borock reported the 1989 Land Use and Transportation Study providedtotal development potential for nine areas of the City. The Council should

direct Staff to provide development totals for the City and for each of thenine areas. PC Zoning was not needed to protect 100 percent affordablehousing projects, because the State Housing Density Bonus Law providedprotections. It was inappropriate for the Council to consider the Arrillagaand Jay Paul Projects at the current time.


45/52

MINUTES


Minutes: 12/02/13

Fred Balin remarked that individual projects recast the Comprehensive Plan.The current Comprehensive Plan was a good document and the result ofwide community engagement; however, it was not respected.

Shani Kleinhaus noted all cities in Silicon Valley struggled with traffic andparking problems. The City was slowly chipping away the open space, whichwas a vital treasure.

Greg Goodwin related his experience with traffic and parking in SanFrancisco. Rapacious decisions could destroy the quality of the City.

Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, noted the use of electronic media in othercities to include a wider population in community discussions. In comingtransportation discussions, the Council should consider initiativescomprehensively and iteratively.

Daniel Garber indicated the City should find ways to take advantage ofgrowth to move forward the City's interests. Each project in the pipelinewas an opportunity to work with applicants to move the City closer to itsown goals. Involving the City earlier in the applicant's design process wouldbe more effective than enacting legislation. Creating incentives to meetcurrent parking demand was potentially a far more effective method tomanage a project's size and impacts.

Arthur Keller suggested the Council think proactively and consider changingpast policies to reflect current needs. In addition, the Council shouldconsider new and creative solutions.

Davina Brown stated commercial development increased parking, traffic, andpollution problems while providing few benefits. She requested the Councilstop granting exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan.

Norman Beamer reported the City did not need more office space. TheCouncil should halt efforts to build more office space in Palo Alto.

Joe Hirsch believed residents did not like project approvals granted by the

Council and its bodies. He requested a moratorium on all new higher-density developments until a Land Use and Transportation Study wascompleted. He requested the Council revise the Density Bonus Ordinance togrant the City more control and hold a true, two-way dialog with residents.

David Jeong participated in two prior revisions of the Comprehensive Plan.The Council ignored the Comprehensive Plan and citizens' wishes.


46/52

MINUTES


Minutes: 12/02/13

David Adams suggested the Council eliminate the PC process and direct Staffto be transparent and impartial.

Eric Rosenblum agreed that housing in Palo Alto was not affordable.Younger adults wanted a walkable community and higher density housing.Palo Alto did not need more offices. The Council had to work on thefundamental demand for transportation to alleviate the growing parkingproblem.

Jennifer Landesmann felt out-of-scale development marred the quality of lifein Palo Alto. The building height limit was important to maintain quality oflife.

Council Member Kniss requested Staff define Planned Community as itcurrently existed. Some valuable community projects would not exist

without PC Zoning, such as the Opportunity Center and Tree HouseApartments. In five years, the number of jobs in Palo Alto increased from70,000 to 90,000, which caused a great deal of the parking problems. Sherequested Staff comment on traffic data provided in the Staff Report.

Ms. Gitelman noted two data sets were included in the Staff Report. Onewas average daily traffic volumes for a number of locations in Palo Alto,comparing 1999 volumes with 2013 volumes. In many locations, dailytraffic volumes were not equal to those in 1999; although, some areas wereapproaching 1999 volumes. The second data set compared average dailytraffic volumes along El Camino Real from 2002 through 2012. That datademonstrated that traffic was essentially stable. Traffic data did not showsignificant traffic degradation. Traffic volumes followed economic cycles.

Council Member Kniss was surprised by the data. The community had grownand changed since the 1980s. The Council did listen to public comments.Palo Alto was a vibrant and exciting community to live in.

Council Member Schmid felt the dialog with respect to the ComprehensivePlan should express the vision for Palo Alto. The starting point for publicdialog was the identification of data. While Staff's data indicated traffic was

declining, travel time seemed to increase. He utilized data from the CurrentComprehensive Plan and the recent Stanford project to determine that trafficdelay at 12 intersections increased from 35 to 55 percent at eachintersection between 1996 and 2009. Traffic studies provided bydevelopment projects indicated the number of cars at specific intersectionsincreased 20 percent. Traffic was increasing dramatically, on the average of3-5 percent per year. He requested Staff comment on the conflictinginformation provided through these studies.


47/52

MINUTES


Minutes: 12/02/13

Ms. Gitelman wished to clarify that traffic volumes were not the soledeterminant of congestion. Peaking characteristics would differentiate dailytraffic volumes from peak hour traffic volumes. Other factors wereconflicting movements and signal operation. Staff needed to communicate agreat deal of data as part of a comprehensive evaluation of traffic andparking impacts. Perhaps that data could be communicated in the context ofthe Comprehensive Plan.

Council Member Schmid suggested the Council open a dialog with thecommunity beginning with the basic issues of traffic and parking. The PaloAlto traffic model consistently indicated no significant impact to traffic. Staffcould help the community engage in issues by providing data that everyonecould work with.

Council Member Klein believed a Special Meeting would be needed todevelop a dialog. The debate of growth in Palo Alto extended to the 1890s.Palo Alto was a vibrant community. Moratoriums had many types ofunintended consequences, usually negatives ones. He wanted to continueconsideration of the Jay Paul Company Project. The Council needed to becreative in its outreach to all residents.

Council Member Berman wanted to see smart, strategic, limited growth inPalo Alto. He expressed concern about the inability of his generation toafford housing in Palo Alto. Parking was clearly a problem for the City. TheCouncil needed to create a comprehensive vision for the Downtown,California Avenue areas and the City as a whole. The Council and Staffwould have to be creative in crafting a City dialog to create opportunities forresidents to engage.

Council Member Burt felt people lived in Palo Alto because they valued thequality of life in Palo Alto. The community had always been willing to accepta moderate rate of change under certain conditions. First, developmentprojects should be high quality. Second, indirect impacts of developmentprojects should not significantly degrade the broader quality of life. Third,residents wanted early and meaningful participation in the process for issues

that affected them. The City could not accommodate every person whowanted to live or work in Palo Alto. The harm that resulted frommisinformation was difficult to repair and undermined the Council's andStaff's credibility. Only 2 of the 21 projects in the pipeline were PC Zones.PC Zoning was not the primary culprit of too much development occurringtoo rapidly. The Council should ensure that PC projects were not abused.Zoning standards needed to be adjusted to allow public space andappropriately scaled buildings and parking. A 20 percent increase in jobs, an


48/52

MINUTES


Minutes: 12/02/13

8 percent increase in population, a 30-50 percent increase in intersectioncongestion, and a 20 percent decline in traffic was not possible. The numberof PC projects had not increased over the prior 15 years. Many PC projectswere now valued community assets. Community dialog was needed. Hewas frustrated by the lack of emphasis placed on project compliance withthe Comprehensive Plan. Staff Reports should present all significantelements of the Comprehensive Plan that a project impacted. He wasinterested in the possibility of new projects being fully parked and perhapseven over parked. The Council needed data regarding the number ofemployees for each employer in the City. He favored

2-3-14 council item-ourpaloalto

Documents