City of Palo Alto

City Council Staff Report

Report Type: Action Items Summary Title: "Our Palo Alto" Meeting Date: 2/3/2014

(ID # 4353)

Title: Our Palo Alto: A Community Conversation About Our Citys Future. Staff Requests Council Input and Endorsement of a Three-Part Strategy To Engage Residents in a Community Conversation About the Future Of Our City. The Strategy Would Include (a) A Series Of Conversations and Events Focused On Ideas, Dialogue and Building Community (b) Near Term Actions Aimed at Addressing Todays Critical Issues; and (c) Community Engagement Effort Aimed at the Design Of Alternative Futures Through the Comprehensive Plan Update 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 topical conversations and events throughout the year aimed at building community by broadening civic engagement about issues and ideas that are important to our City; (b) return to the Council with specific recommendations regarding near-term actions to address critical issues such as traffic and parking; and (c) return to Council with a specific schedule and scope of work to create a blueprint for the future of land use and development in our City by re-framing the ongoing update to the Comprehensive Plan to include broad community engagement, discussion and analysis of alternative futures, cumulative impacts, and mitigation strategies.

Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council endorse the Our Palo Alto conceptual framework and provide staff direction regarding its component parts, including ongoing conversations and events about ideas that affect our City, a series of near-term actions aimed at addressing todays critical issues such as traffic and parking, and a re-framing of ongoing efforts to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include broad community engagement, a program-level environmental
City of Palo Alto Page 1

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

Executive Summary
On December 2, 2013, the City Council held a study session regarding the future of our City and asked staff to return to Council with specific recommendations for Council consideration and adoption. 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 framework and its component parts -- categorized as ideas, action, and design -- are illustrated in the attached summary handout. (Attachment A Summary Diagram) In the portion of the Our Palo Alto initiative, the City and its representatives will be convening 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 the next 30 days and will grow and change over the course of 2014. Meetings could include talks by inspiring thinkers or workshops about specific planning issues. Events could include tours of some Palo Alto places that will contribute to our future either through innovation and change or through their preservation. All will be designed to incorporate or inspire conversations about our City that could happen in, living rooms, meeting halls, parks or on the streets and sidewalks of Palo Alto. The goal of these meetings, events, and conversations will be to nurture and expand civic participation and build community by a full spectrum of the community, including residents of all ages, homeowners and renters, business leaders and employees, non-profit and faith-based organizations, and a wide range of other stakeholders. Along the way, this effort will also increase City staffs communication and listening skills, increase the organizations fluency with online communication tools such as Open City Hall, and enhance trust in City government. This effort 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.

Ideas

The portion of the Our Palo Alto initiative will unfold in specific recommendations for City Council direction and action that will be brought to the City Council over the next 60 days. These will include: o Planned Community (PC) zoning time out and direction to analyze potential alternatives and reforms;

Action

City of Palo Alto

Page 2

o Parking related actions, including actions that will lead to increased parking supplies, to the design and implementation of residential permit parking, and to more efficient use of available parking supplies through the collection and dissemination of real time data, use of attendants or valets, and more; o Transportation Demand Management (TDM) actions, including actions leading to establishment of a Transportation Management Authority that will be responsible for expanding and coordinating transit incentives, and actions to expand Palo Altos shuttle service to dramatically increase ridership; o Bike Plan implementation actions, including design and environmental review of 18 critical links in the Citys bicycle network, allowing for their construction as City and grant funding becomes available; o Housing-related actions responding to State mandates and planning for ways to address the need for housing affordable to all income levels; 2014 will also include design and density-related actions such as construction of the California Avenue Streetscape project and changes to zoning rules to increase sidewalk widths along El Camino Real and decrease densities (FAR) for Commercial Neighborhood (CN) sites in the Citys housing inventory that are zoned for 20 dwelling units per acre. The Council is expected to adopt an Infrastructure Funding Plan to address issues identified by the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission.

The portion of the Our Palo Alto initiative will focus on the Citys Comprehensive Plan, 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 new schedule and strategy for the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the Citys governing document when it comes to land use and development, and during the economic downturn, the City undertook a long process to develop revisions with only two new pieces, one focused on East Meadow Circle, and one focused on California Avenue. With the economic recovery, renewed development pressures, and concerns about land use, traffic, and other quality of life issues, the time is ripe to reframe this effort as a broader community dialogue about alternative futures for our City, using revisions suggested by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) as a starting place.

Design

City of Palo Alto

Page 3

Staff will be requesting Council adoption of a new strategy and schedule that proposes: Expanded Community Engagement with meetings, an online forum, email communications, 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 dissemination of a users guide to the Comprehensive 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 envisioned in the Ideas portion of Our Palo Alto, and provide context for the Action portion. It will also ensure appropriate coordination and compatibility with other long range planning efforts like an update to the Citys Climate Action Plan, and plans related to the urban forest and parks and open space.

Background
On December 2, 2013 the City Council held a study session to initiate a conversation about the Citys shared vision for the future and how to get there. Staff recommended that C ouncil discuss the initiation of an expanded public dialogue regarding the future of the city, including ongoing efforts to update the Citys Comprehensive Plan, re-examination of Planned Community (PC) district zoning, and other land use and development issues. The need for the discussion was born out of concerns of the pace of development within the city and how the Council should plan for and manage growth. The renewed economy within Silicon Valley has generated significant contemporary challenges and concerns that affect the City of Palo Alto. Staff prepared a report which provided a background of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and articulated the changes weve experienced over the past fifteen years and the challenges those changes have produced. (Attachment B December 2, 2013 Staff Report.) Specifically, the renewed pace of commercial and 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
City of Palo Alto Page 4

feeling that the City has no coherent vision or narrative that connects current development with the various planning efforts underway. At the December 2nd meeting, the Council heard from approximately thirty members of the public who expressed their individual opinions and concerns regarding current conditions and the future of the city. The issues identified included the pace of growth, automobile parking and traffic congestion, and general quality of life issues. Some argued that the root of the issue is 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 center of the peninsula (Attachment C - December 2, 2013 Meeting Minutes). Others called for a transparent land use planning process that is consistent with and honors the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.

The study session served as an opportunity to air various perspectives but was remarkable for the common interests expressed. Speakers all valued the City and its quality of life, and saw value in planning for and managing growth. In addition, there were requests for accurate baseline data, community engagement efforts, for an honest two-way dialogue between the Council 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 the City Council for direction related to the issues discussed. Tonights agenda item is the first of these items.

Discussion
Our Palo Alto is an organizing principle that will accommodate a wide range of events, actions and planning efforts in the next couple of years. The schedule and timeline for many of these will be developed within the next couple of months, but will be subject to change based on community interest as the overarching conversation about our Citys future continues. The Comprehensive Plan update is the element of this initiative that probably requires the most explanation, 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 last seven or eight years. The 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is the Citys guiding planning document, setting forth the communitys vision when it comes to land use and related issues like transportation, the natural environment, community services, and business and economics.

City of Palo Alto

Page 5

The City Council allocated funding for an update to the Comprehensive Plan in 2007 and a consultant team was selected in 2008. The amendment was intended to reflect the changes occurring in Palo Alto since early 2000. A work program outlining City Councils direction was adopted and City Staff began working with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) from late 2008 through 2009 to review the existing elements, preparing background reports and updating baseline growth projections. As a part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, Council directed staff to initiate work on two concept area plans: California Avenue/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 staff commenced on Phase II of the review process, which focused on each Comprehensive Plan element and continued work on the two concept area plans, including community input at workshops and commission meetings. The City Council-approved work plan to update the Comprehensive Plan has progressed steadily. From 2010 to present, City staff and PTC sub-committees have met to review each element of the Comp Plan. The PTCs Comp Plan subcommittee process has identified revisions necessary to create a clearer, cohesive and less redundant policy document. The original work program to update the structure, vision, goals and program statements developed into an effort that involved rearranging chapters and elements and changing the format of the existing plan. New policies and programs have been proposed to clarify existing policies and programs and to accommodate new State requirements. The PTC has reviewed the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Community Services and Facilities Element, Natural Environment Element, and Business Element. The PTC Sub-committee work is continuing on the Governance element. Staff anticipates reviewing the Governance Element in February of 2014. The California Avenue/Frys Area Concept Plan also awaits final PTC review in February 2014. With the current economic recovery, renewed development pressures and concerns about land use, traffic, and other quality of life issues, staff believes that the time is ripe to reframe this effort as a community dialog about alternative futures for our City. Using the work of the PTC as a foundation, staff suggests that now may be the appropriate time to initiate a renewed community engagement effort around the Comprehensive Plan amendment. A community engagement exercise would examine goals and priorities related to community character, land development, traffic and parking, and the preservation and conservation of valuable resources, and could be conducted concurrently with a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis in the form of a program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A more detailed recommendation regarding this strategy and schedule will be brought to the City Council within the next 30 days, and is envisioned with the following components:

City of Palo Alto

Page 6

1. Expanded community engagement- this component would complement the Citys efforts to broaden civic engagement by encouraging the public to participate in community forums, surveys, workshops and meetings on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Possible topics for discussion include the development of a new Comprehensive Plan vision statement, the identification of areas of the city for preservation and those appropriate for future growth, and the identification of infrastructure investments consistent with the Citys goals. 2. Extended scoping and exploration of alternative futures- This component would extend the traditional EIR scoping period in order to capture comments and direction obtained throughout the expanded community engagement exercise. The purpose of the extended scope would be to compile community comments and develop alternative land use and growth futures that would be analyzed in detail. 3. Baseline data and reports- Council is aware of the communitys need for accurate data that quantifies existing conditions and prior growth in order to understand how the city may look if current policies, programs and regulations remain unchanged. City staff would produce relevant data sets and reports so that the public may form their own independent conclusions regarding existing conditions. 4. Consolidation of concurrent planning efforts- Planning staff is currently working on a number of studies like the Downtown Cap Study that have a direct relationship to the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and other ideas, like an outreach effort related to the 27 University site have been talked about but never started. For efficiency and clarity, Staff will recommend that these efforts be consolidated with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. 5. Draft Environmental Impact Report & Draft Comprehensive Plan- Following a four to five month community engagement and scoping process, the staff and consultants would prepare a Draft EIR for public review. The program level Draft EIR will evaluate potential direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs. Traffic impact reports, noise and air quality modeling, and a climate change analysis will be a part of the Draft EIR. It will also discuss the alternative futures developed as part of the community engagement exercises and propose mitigation measures that will offset, minimize, or otherwise avoid significant environmental impacts. The Draft EIR will be subject to an extended public review period during which the City will solicit extensive public input on the environmental analysis and draft goals, policies, and programs. 6. Final Environmental Impact Report & Final Comprehensive Plan- The Final EIR will respond to substantive comments on the Draft EIR and the Final Comprehensive Plan proposed for adoption will be the preferred alternative that is selected based on public input on the Draft, as well as goals, policies and programs that have been updated to reflect required mitigation strategies and public input. 7. Comprehensive Plan Dissemination and Users Guide- Once the Plan Amendment is adopted, Staff will produce a final version for dissemination, with an interactive version
City of Palo Alto Page 7

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

Resource Impact
Resources to conduct the tasks outlined in Our Palo Alto: A Community Conversation about our Shared Future will vary depening upon the scope of the exercise. Resources to review and reform the PC zoning process will depend on the Councils desired approach and schedule. The City Manager intends to restructure existing staffing to ensure an extensive community engagement initiative. This will include additional resource investments. 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 will outline alternative approaches and resources in detail, following Councils study session.

Policy Implications
The 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 to result 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 by focusing on ways to improve transparency and predictability, and updating the Citys Housing 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 programs of 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 as needed, and Policy G-11: Encourage the development of new planning processes that emphasizes a collaborative 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 is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The future actions that would be taken, including adoption of a Comprehensive Plan amendment, are not exempt from CEQA and environmental analysis consistent with the provisions of CEQA would be conducted and presented 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)
Page 8

City of Palo Alto

IDEAS
Beyond City Hall Dialogues and conversations across our community

A Community Conversation About Our Citys Future

A Series of Conversations and Events
Creating connections Neighborhood gatherings Planning workshops House parties Picnic in the park Social media Walking/bike tours

Attachment A

Online forum Design competitions

Actions to Address Todays Critical Issues:

Enact PC Zoning Reform Conduct & Evaluate Attendant Parking Trial Establish Satellite Parking & Shuttle to Downtown Downtown Garage Design Initiate Urban Lane Transit Center Planning Parking Management Programs Expanded Shuttle Service TDM Programs, including TMA Implementation Phase I Housing Element Update Bike Plan Implementation Cal Ave Streetscape Completion Trafc Signalization & Garage Technologies to Enable Real Time Data

ACTION

DESIGN
The Citys Comprehensive Plan: Updated to plan for tomorrow.

A Blueprint for the Future:

Identify and prioritize existing challenges and opportunities Baseline data report Design and test alternative futures Pace and location of growth Transportation, land use & design The natural environment Community services, business & the economy Cumulative impacts & feasible mitigation Informed decision-making Adopted Plan into action Complimentary Planning Efforts: Climate Action; Parks & Open Space

Attachment B

City of Palo Alto

City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 12/2/2013

(ID # 4294)

Summary Title: Initiate Community Conversation on Planning and Transportation Matters Title: Initiating a Community Conversation on the Future of the City Including the Comprehensive Plan, Planned Community Zoning, Parking and Traffic Strategies 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 expanded public dialog regarding the future of the city, including ongoing efforts to update the Citys Comprehensive Plan, re-examination of Planned Community (PC) district zoning, and other land use and development issues.

Executive Summary
On November 12, 2013, Mayor Scharff and City Manager Keene removed two large development projects from the Councils agenda and scheduled this initial study session on the future of the City. This study session provides an opportunity for public input and Councilmember questions and comments regarding land use and development issues in the City. 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 Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) districts? How should this dialog relate to ongoing efforts to update the Citys Comprehensive Plan and projects such as the Downtown Cap study, 27 University outreach, etc.? How should we re-examine the Planned Community (PC) process and address the communitys concerns about the exchange of new development entitlements for public benefits?
Page 1

City of Palo Alto

How should we ensure transparency, consistency, and predictability for development applications that conform with current zoning? Which traffic and parking solutions can be implemented in the short term, and how will the cumulative impacts analysis associated with the Comprehensive Plan Update inform decision making in the long term? Are there other questions related to zoning and land use that should be considered separately 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 the 2014.

Background
Palo Alto will be a vital, attractive place to live, work, and visit. The elements that make Palo Alto a great community its neighborhoods, shopping and employment centers, civic uses, open spaces, and natural resources will be strengthened and enhanced. The diverse range of housing and work environments will be sustained and expanded to create more choices for all income levels. All Palo Alto neighborhoods will be improved, each to have public gathering spaces, essential services and pedestrian amenities, to encourage 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 communitys vision when it comes to land use and related issues. Each time an individual project or rezoning is 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 and program of the Plan, but each must be consistent on balance with the Plan as a whole, and with any mandatory policies of the Plan. Palo Altos current comprehensive plan was adopted in 1998 and has served this community well. It envisions a city of neighborhoods and a vision for the future that is expressed through the major themes of the document: Building Community and Neighborhoods; Maintaining and Enhancing Community Character;
Page 2

City of Palo Alto

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 items including 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 and public transit use (Policy T-1), development of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations (Policy H-2) and encouraging new businesses that meet the Citys business and economic goals (Policy B-9). In general, the Comprehensive Plan establishes a land use regime that is protective of lowdensity residential neighborhoods (typically zoned R-1, R-2, and RMD) and open space areas. It is supportive of commercial enterprises, but effectively targets growth and change to fullydeveloped commercial areas such as Downtown, the California Avenue area, Stanford Shopping Center and the Research Park, El Camino Real and interstitial areas comprising approximately 5% of the City. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes the challenges in providing diverse and high-quality housing opportunities. Again, it is protective of existing residential neighborhoods, but supportive of higher density in appropriate locations. The City has a long history of support for affordable housing, including the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance in the mid1970s, the establishment of affordable housing impact fees, and support for local, state and federal programs that help to preserve and enhance the Citys affordable housing supply. The initial Housing Element adopted with the Comprehensive Plan and the revised Housing Elements that have been adopted in conformance with State requirements since that time have all contained policies and programs that address the housing challenges the City continues to experience.

City of Palo Alto

Page 3

Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Map (as amended through 2013). Singlefamily 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 Plan envisioned was 2010, and in 2006, the Council directed staff and the PTC to begin work on an update. City Council initiated the Comprehensive Plan amendment project in 2006. Funding for the project was allocated in 2007 and a consultant team was selected in 2008. The amendment was intended not to overhaul the Comprehensive Plan and the Council adopted work program reflects 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,
Page 4

City of Palo Alto

Preparing concept plans for East Meadow Circle area and California Avenue area and identify appropriate land use and zoning changes, Adequately mitigating impacts of increased housing on community services such as parks, libraries and schools; and Addressing the City's commitment to climate protection and sustainability.

City Staff worked with the PTC between 2008 and 2010 to review the existing elements, background reports on baseline growth topics, and information regarding the two concept area plans. In 2010, the PTC and Council held a joint study session to address the Comp Plan amendment work plan, including the recommended approach to the Housing Element update. In addition, the Council provided direction regarding updated growth projections, updates to the Comp Plan structure, vision, goals, policies and program statements, and additional work regarding review of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and LEED for neighborhood Development (LEED-ND). From 2010 to present, City staff and PTC sub-committees have met to review each element of the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan subcommittee process has been effective in identifying necessary changes to the Comp Plan including creating a clearer, cohesive and less redundant policy document. The original work program to update the structure, vision, goals and program statements has developed into a more robust update as a result of the subcommittee process. This involved rearranging chapters and elements and substantially changing the format of the existing plan. New policies and programs are included to clarify existing policies and programs and to accommodate new State requirements. As of November 2013, the PTC has reviewed and recommended inclusion of the following draft elements into the Comp Plan amendment: Housing Land Use Transportation Community Services & Facilities Natural Environment Work continues on the Business & Economics and Governance elements. It is expected that all elements will have been reviewed by the PTC prior to the end of Q1 2014. Please see Attachment A for more information regarding the ongoing Comprehensive Plan amendment process.

City of Palo Alto

Page 5

Community Changes Since the Comprehensive Plan was Adopted Its obvious to most people that the economic, social, and environmental landscape has changed 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 cycles and although weve had to cope with lean budget years and reductions in city services, the strength of our commercial sectors, residential property values, and school district achievements have brought us through difficult times. As a result, the City overall enjoys a highlevel of resident, visitor and business community satisfaction. Despite emergent concerns about traffic and parking (issues Palo Alto shares with other cities across the Bay Area), citizens continue to rank Palo Alto very high in the annual City Survey conducted by the National Research Service. Recently, Palo Alto was named #1 on the Top 100 Best Places to Live by Livability.com, a national website that ranks quality of life amenities of Americas small and mid-sized cities. It certainly could be argued that the changes Palo Alto has experienced over the past 15 years have contributed to the success and the challenges our city continues to experience. The following charts illustrate some of the change weve experienced:

City of Palo Alto

Page 6

Hou seholds and Housing Units City of Palo Alto Households

30,000

28,000

28,2

26,49
.~

" ~
]
~

26,ODO

24,ODO

2374

24,700

22,ODO

23,102

'"

5
20,546

-+- Housffiolds

20,000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Decennial Census Years

Jobs within City of Palo Alto

100000
'XJOO() 90000

80000 """" 70000 60000

5OOJ() 50000

40000 4OOlO 3IJOOO =xl 20000 70000 10000 0 2000 7000 7005 2005 2010
2011

Horizon Years

City of Palo Alto

Page 7

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

City of Palo Alto

Page 8

Source: Caltrans Annual Traffic Counts

City of Palo Alto

Page 9

Recent Development and Community Concerns Palo Alto has successfully navigated out of the Great Recession and is now facing new challenges and concerns regarding the pace of development, although development over the last 15 years has not exceeded the two non-residential development limits adopted as part of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, as shown below. Also, most of the pending development applications that can be characterized as major proposals, in the sense that they would add 10,000 gross square feet or more, conform to the zoning regulations that were established to implement the Comprehensive Plan.

City of Palo Alto

Page 10

1989 2013 Non-Residential Development within the 1989 Land Use Study Areas Total Development Potential Growth Monitoring Net Non-Residential Square Feet Gained thru August 2013 Remaining Square feet in Growth Monitoring 3,257,900 sq. ft. 1,570,033 sq. ft. 1,687,867 sq. ft.

City of Palo Alto

Page 11

Commercial Downtown Zone District Non-Residential Growth Cap Commercial Downtown Zoning Districts Growth Cap Net Non-Residential Square Feet Gained thru August 2013 Remaining Square feet in Growth Monitoring 350,000 sq. ft. 256,939 sq. ft. 93,061 sq. ft.

City of Palo Alto

Page 12

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

640 WAVERLEY

Project Description
Prelim ARB mixed-use building with two dwelling units and commercial area of 10,463 sf (demo existing one story). New three-story building (26,806 sf replacing 15,899 sf) with ground floor retail, two floors of office and two levels below grade parking. New four-story mixed use project with 70 residential units (one, two and three bedroom units) of BMR rental housing and approximately 7,300 square feet of commercial space.

Status
Zoning issues under review

PC?
no

500 UNIVERSITY AV

First and second ARB Prelim completed, ARB 12/5/13

no

2500 EL CAMINO REAL

ARB Prelim completed; formal app received 11/7

no

261 HAMILTON

Addition to University Arts Building 6,900 sf; generating 15K TDRs without parking exceptions.

Formal application submitted

no

636 MIDDLEFIELD 777 WELCH

Prelim ARB for three residential units. Prelim ARB for 22,820 sf of new construction (demo 3,048 sf).

ARB Prelim to be scheduled ARB Prelim scheduled 11/21/13

no no

429 UNIVERSITY

Prelim ARB for one dwelling unit and 16,500 sf commercial (existing 6,600 sf).

ARB Prelim 11/7/13

no

180 EL CAMINO REAL

Prelim ARB for 133,580 sf retail and renovation (replacing same sf). Prelim ARB for 55,566 sf mixed use building.

ARB Prelim 10/3/13

no

385 SHERMAN

ARB Prelim 12/5/13

no

2555 PARK

Formal ARB for 23,269 sf office; demo existing building.

Historic review initiated

no

2609 ALMA

Prelim ARB for four-unit multi-family residential condos.

ARB Prelim January 2014

no

City of Palo Alto

Page 13

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 residential units) and one level of below grade parking. Preliminary Architectural Review Board review of a new four unit multifamily residential condominium project.

Formal submittal of a Site and Design application on 7/29/13

no

2609 ALMA

Prelim ARB

no

3877 ECR

Preliminary ARB review for new two story mixed use project in at the Compadres site. 18 dwelling units and 3,000 sf. commercial Planned Community and Comp Plan Amendment for New Office Buildings, Structured Parking and Public Safety Building

Prelim ARB

no

395 PAGE MILL ROAD AND 3045 PARK BLVD

PTC Initiated PC 7/10/13; ARB review 9/19/13. Applicant holding community meetings

yes

1050 PAGE MILL ROAD 816 SAN ANTONIO AV

Prelim ARB for a 284,000 sf. office building Minor ARB approval to allow a 8,200 square foot structure for Hertz Rent-aCar.

ARB 12/5/13

no

Notice of incomplete issued to applicant

no

240 HAMILTON AV

Major ARB and variance to allow a new 15,000 sf mixed use building.

ARB Approved 7/18/13, appealed

no

1875 EMBARCADERO RD 3980 EL CAMINO REAL APT 001 2755 EL CAMINO REAL

Site and Design Review for the golf course reconfiguration project. PC Application for conversion of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park. PC for a 19,563 sf, four story mixed use building with three stories of below grade parking. CC prelim was February 2013.

Pending Council review PTC and ARB completed Project under review

no

yes

9/11/13 PTC Planned Community initiation continued to date uncertain

yes

City of Palo Alto

Page 14

The development described above represents a portion of the total number of projects under review by Planning staff and other City representatives; it includes projects that would do any of the following: add over 5,000 square feet of net new floor area, require design review under the Site & Design process, consist of a major subdivision and/or a Preliminary Review of a major project. As illustrated in the charts in the preceding section, the Development Services Department issues a significant number of building permits each year, with total building permit valuation approaching $600 million in FY 2013. New developments typically represent an increased intensity of use at each site as compared to the existing conditions. This increased intensity of use can place additional demands on the roadway network and automobile parking infrastructure. Citizens have clearly communicated their concerns regarding the perceived increase in automobile traffic, the reduction of available parking spaces in public-owned lots, automobile parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods adjacent to commercial areas, and overall difficulty in moving through intersections due to traffic congestion. As illustrated earlier, daily traffic volumes ebb and flow over time, and with the end of the recession, volumes are approaching levels attained during the Dot-Com boom. In addition, local and regional traffic congestion is noticeably worse for drivers, whether theyre commuting long distances, or making short local trips. Complaints about traffic and parking are widespread across the Bay Area. Architecture & Design A relatively recent community concern engendered by ongoing development activity relates to the architecture and design of newly constructed buildings. Some community members have complained that the Architectural Review Standards, contained within the Municipal Code, are not being applied strictly and evenly and as a result, new buildings do not meet the level of architectural quality that Palo Alto expects. This concern about design compatibility is often expressed as a critique of individual projects that have been approved since the adoption of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Some of these projects are listed in the following table:

City of Palo Alto

Page 15

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

Projects 800 High Street- multi-family residential Zoning PC Year Approved 2003

Vantage of Palo Alto Echelon- multi-family residential, East Meadow Drive Downtown parking garages (High Street & Bryant) Hyatt Rickys/Arbor Real- multi-family residential

ROLM ROLM PF/PC CS/CN/R1/RM-15 PC

2003 2004 2000 2005

TKCJL- community center and residential

2006

Altaire- Fabian Way, multi-family residential, affordable housing 801 Alma- affordable housing

PC RT-50

2006 2009

Sterling Park multi-family residential, E. Bayshore Rd. Elks Lodge/Rosewood Gate- multi-family residential and private lodge

ROLM RM15/RM30 CS PC

2007 2007

Palo Alto Bowl Site Redevelopment- hotel and multi-family residential Alma Plaza- retail and multi-family residential

2009 2007

SUMC- hospitals modernization and expansion

Hospital

2011

Edgewood Plaza- retail redevelopment 101 Lytton- commercial office

PC PC

2013 2011

Source: Planning and Community Environment Department

By comparison, there has been relatively little criticism of the post-war strip mall design of El Camino Real, for example, or other mediocre architecture from earlier periods.
City of Palo Alto Page 16

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 area ratio) of a project remains unchanged. A discussion of design as an integrated systems challenge and not simply a collection of individual standards and requirements could generate an important and needed conversation and improve design. Land Use & Transportation Studies In addition to considering and approving individual development applications that are consistent with the 1998 Comprehensive Plan, the City has undertaken numerous land use and transportation studies since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan: Land Use and Transportation Studies Completed/In-progress since Adoption of 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan
Projects Downtown Cap Study Completed / In-progress In-progress Phase 1 data collection/analysis completion: May 2014 Phase 2 policy development and CEQA completion: October 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendment In-progress Completion Q2 2015

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

Q1 2014 Q1 2014 Q1 2014 PTC Review 11/20 Council approved Jan 2012 In-progress Completion: Q1 2015

2014-2022 Housing Element

City of Palo Alto

Page 17

Transportation survey

Completed; to be Transmitted to Council 12/9/13

Residential Permit Parking (RPP) Programs

In-progress, scheduled for Council discussion on 12/16/13

Parking studies

In-progress, status will be provided at the 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 the 12/2/13 study session

1999-2006 Housing Element South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan I & II El Camino Real Design Guidelines
Adopted by ARB in 2002 and incorporated in the Municipal Code in 2005)

2003 2003- 2005 2005

El Camino Real Master Plan Study Zoning Ordinance Update Baylands Master Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

2007 2007 2009 2012

City of Palo Alto

Page 18

Sustainable Communities Strategy, Plan Bay Area 2007-2014 Housing Element Rail Corridor Study
Source: Planning and Community Environment Department

2013 2013 2013

The renewed pace of development since the end of the recession, daily traffic and parking conditions, and the number of concurrent planning studies, have resulted in many people feeling that there is no coherent vision or narrative connecting individual project review and the various planning efforts underway. This feeling has led to significant discontent with the Planned Community (PC) district rezoning process as well some concerns that the Comprehensive Plan is being ignored or has lost its currency. Planned Community Development Rezoning 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 review of the concept plans, development program statement and draft development schedule. If the PTC recommends initiating the PC request, the development plan, site plan, landscape plan and design plans are submitted to the ARB for design review in the same manner as any commercial or mixed-use project. The environmental document is prepared and circulated prior to ARB consideration. The development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then returned to the PTC, together with a draft PC ordinance and environmental document, for review and recommendation to the City Council. The PC ordinance would identify the permitted and conditionally permitted uses and site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. 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 such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not 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 of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In make the findings required by this section, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district.

City of Palo Alto

Page 19

3. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The PC process, whereby the City and a developer negotiate site-specific design and development standards in exchange for public benefits, is viewed by many as too opaque and transactional, allowing neighborhood impacts to be traded for benefits that accrue to those outside the immediate vicinity. The process and some of its outcomes (i.e. the public benefits resulting from individual projects) have been critiqued as inadequate, and the ad hoc nature of each separate negotiation has contributed to community concerns about the lack of a coherent set of values or vision for the future. The following table describes the Planned Community districts approved by Council since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. Council Adopted Planned Community Districts Since 1998
Planned Community PC-4511 502-562 Driscoll Place 445 Bryant Street 528 High Street 3000 El Camino Real Driscoll Place Townhomes Parking Lot S/L Parking Lot R Palo Alto Square; amendment to previously approved PC 2051 El Camino Real Address Known As Approval Date 07/01/98 Public Benefits

TDM program, pedestrian oriented landscaping on ECR, BMR units Parking garage, landscaping, art Parking garage, landscaping, art None listed on original 1969 ordinance.

PC-4611 PC-4612 PC-4637 PC-2533

03/20/2000 03/20/2000 05/22/2000

PC-4753

2051 El Camino Real

06/13/2002

Redevelopment of underutilized site, two smaller housing units, one BMR unit. Public parking, open space plazas, auto access to 801 Alma affordable housing

PC-4779

800 High Street

800 High Street condos

02/18/2003

City of Palo Alto

Page 20

site, BMR units PC-4782 PC-4831 33 Encina Avenue 2701 El Camino Real Opportunity Center Sunrise Assisted Living 03/17/2003 06/21/2004 Services center for homeless, BMR units. Redevelopment of underutilized site, senior assisted living units, BMR units for 12 persons, publically accessible open space, $20K for street trees at ECR, art, Avenidas meeting space None listed on original 1971 ordinance.

PC-4843 PC-2592

690 San Antonio Avenue

Auto dealership design features; amendment to previously approved PC Auto dealership design features; amendment to previously approved PC Auto dealership design features; amendment to previously approved PC Altaire Market Rate Condos / Alta Torre Senior Apts. Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life Alma Plaza

10/04/2004

PC-4846 PC-2554

1730 Embarcadero Road

10/04/2004

None listed on original 1970 ordinance.

PC-4847 PC-3350

1766 Embarcadero Road

10/04/2004

None listed on original 1982 ordinance.

PC-4917

3895 Fabian Way

10/10/2006

Alta Torre 100% BMR senior apartment units

PC-4918

901 San Antonio/3921 Fabian Way 3388-3557 Alma Village Circle

10/10/2006

Shared-use community facility, BMR senior assisted living units 15K sqft grocery store as a permanent use, park, community room, 14-BMR units Allows preservation of two historic residences 100% BMR project, 35 units

PC-4956

06/18/2007

PC-4995 PC-5034

449-453 Addison Avenue 488 West Charleston Road

Creation of a flag lot TreeHouse Apts.

03/10/2008 03/30/2009

City of Palo Alto

Page 21

PC-5069

2180 El Camino Real

JJ&F Market

01/11/2010

8,000 sqft grocery store, four BMR units, $5K tree planting on ECR $100K to Avenidas, rental senior assisted housing, pedestrian/bus stop improvements Preservation of historic grocery store, public park, 3 charging stations, historic preservation payment 4 charging stations, 1 zip car space, parking study payments of $310K, BMR non-profit rental space, 8 surface parking spaces

PC-5116

4025-4075 El Camino Way

Palo Alto Commons, residential addition Edgewood Shopping Center

04/21/2011

PC-5150

2060 Channing Avenue

04/09/12

PC-5158

101 Lytton Avenue

101 Lytton Commercial Office

06/11/12

Discussion
Comprehensive Plan Update Using the work of the PTC on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as a foundation, Staff suggests that now may be the appropriate time to initiate a renewed community engagement effort around the Comprehensive Plans vision and priorities. A visioning exercise would examine goals and priorities related to community character, land development, traffic and parking, and the preservation and conservation of valuable resources, and could be conducted concurrently with a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis in the form of a program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Specific questions that could be framed for the publics consideration include: Should the City increase, decrease or maintain the non-residential development caps currently 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 as to protect and preserve other areas? Are there specific transportation investments that are needed in the near term or long term to improve mobility, preserve the Citys neighborhoods, and perp etuate a robust economy?

City of Palo Alto

Page 22

At the time of the work plan initiation in 2006, the City Council did not include a visioning exercise as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, given the length of time it has taken to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the significant changes that have occurred since the adoption of the existing Comprehensive plan in 1998, Council may find it appropriate to 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 has been achieved thus far. The visioning exercise will require additional time and resources, but can happen concurrently with preparation of a program-level EIR, which can provide the kind of overarching cumulative impacts analysis that members of the community are requesting and also propose a series of mitigating actions and programs for incorporation into the plan. The graphic below illustrates how the community visioning process and the program-EIR can combine to inform the final Comprehensive Plan amendment that is proposed for adoption by the City Council. If Council is amenable to this overall approach, staff would return to Council with a work plan and schedule early in 2014.

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

City of Palo Alto

Page 23

could also initiate the reform themselves, or request the PTC formulate a recommendation first. 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 update for the planning period 2014-2022 must be completed and adopted in January 2015 or the City will face significant penalties. The most notable penalty would be a requirement to update the element again in four years, rather than in eight years as provided for in SB 375 and companion legislation. Planned Community Zoning Planning staff believes that the Planned Community zoning tool can be re-examined and refined to 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 planned developments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with an enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. There may be intersections between this effort and the Comprehensive Plan update, and possible 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 existing low-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 the use of the PC district prior to reforming the PC zoning process and/or completing the Comprehensive 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 proposal and the Council could choose to articulate related criteria or provide other guidance to property owners. This community has long valued property rights of landowners to develop in conformance with existing zoning. Both State law (State Permit Streamlining Act) and local law prescribe time

City of Palo Alto

Page 24

limits time limits for processing entitlements for zoning compliant projects. Also, the ability of a local jurisdiction to efficiently and predictably process building permits and other entitlements that are consistent with its zoning regulations typically helps to define a positive business climate. Palo Alto takes pride in a business climate that supports innovation and entrepreneurship; this climate would be challenging to maintain if proposals that are consistent with current zoning regulations are deferred. There are also legal hurdles associated with deferring certain zoning compliant projects. On the other hand, Council has much more flexibility in deferring consideration 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 the need for consistency and transparency. Applicants and members of the public should clearly understand the existing regulations and standards by which a project is being evaluated, how direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project are assessed, and how the project relates to the Comprehensive Plan update and other planning and transportation initiatives that are underway. While Staff is suggesting a visioning initiative with a strong emphasis on the Comprehensive Plan it is important to recognize that existing zoning on all properties in the city is the most concrete 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 and others in the community. This is a fact that is frequently misunderstood or ignored by some members 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 of development in general relates to parking and traffic issues. The Council will be getting an update on aspects of these issues in the coming weeks as staff brings forward a study session regarding Transportation Demand Management (TDM) on December 9th and a framework for Residential Permit Parking on December 16th. In this context, staff will also summarize initiatives to expand parking supplies. Also, on December 12th, staff will be providing the PTC with a summary of the traffic analysis methodology that is used to assess project-specific and cumulative impacts, including the adjustments that are being made to reflect an updated travel demand model. Following

City of Palo Alto

Page 25

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

Timeline
The City Council has initiated a community outreach plan for a discussion of the Citys Core Values, and has requested that the public outreach component be completed in time for Councils yearly retreat in Q1 2014 where Council sets its priorities for the upcoming year. The PTC is scheduled to provide recommendations regarding elements of the Comprehensive Plan amendment in the same timeframe. The Council may wish to use both events to preface a community engagement/visioning process 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 also wish to revise the Citys PC zoning process in 2014, and the City is required to update the Housing Element of its Comprehensive Plan by the end of January 2015. As a prelude to any revision process on PCs, the City Manager recommends that all current PC projects under consideration be stopped and put on hold for a sufficient period of time to allow this 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 early in the 2014.

Resource Impact
Resources to conduct a City-wide visioning process will vary depening upon the scope of the exercise. Resources to review and reform the PC zoning process will depend on the Councils desired approach and schedule. The City Manager intends to restructure existing staffing to ensure an extensive community engagement initiative. This may include additional resource investments. 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 will outline alternative approaches and resources in detail, following Councils study session.

Policy Implications
A community visioning exercise and cumulative impacts analysis (in the form of a program-level EIR) can result in an updated Comprehensive Plan with broad community support. At the same
City of Palo Alto Page 26

time, reforms to the PC zoning process can improve the publics perception of City government by focusing on ways to improve transparency and predictability, and updating the Citys Housing 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 programs of 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 as needed, and Policy G-11: Encourage the development of new planning processes that emphasizes a collaborative exchange of ideas. Retain City Council authority over decisionmaking 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 will provide information about the CEQA process for zoning and Comprehensive Plan changes that are considered in the future. Attachments: Attachment A: Comprehensive Plan Update Overview (DOCX)

City of Palo Alto

Page 27

ATTACHMENT A

Comprehensive Plan Update Overview The ongoing Comprehensive Plan update has suggested rearranging chapters and elements and substantially changing the format of the existing plan, without changing its core values. The update also attempts to address the challenges of today, including affordable housing, sustainability and climate adaptation, traffic and parking, and maintaining a place in the community for non-profits and new businesses that cant pay the same rent s as established commercial enterprises. New policies and programs are intended to clarify existing policies and programs and to accommodate new State requirements. Aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that are proposed to remain unchanged include: 1. The limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential development in the 1986 land use study areas; 2. The limit of 350,000 square feet of new non-residential development in the Downtown area, or 10% above the amount of development existing or approve as of May 1986, and 3. The existing road network within the city. As currently drafted, approximately 85% to 90% of the existing policies and programs would be carried 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 % of Programs Completed and Not Continued 13 11 13 % Edited and Carried Over % Carried Over w/o Edits Total % Carried Over

Land Use Element Transportation Element Housing Element

48 70 69 46 52

39 19 18 40 33

87 89 87 86 85

Community Services and Facilities Element 14 Natural Environment Element 15

Source: Planning and Community Environment Department

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

Land Use Element L1.1 POLICY Require that land use policies be consistent with Palo Altos Climate Protection Plan, striving to achieve and exceed target reductions in greenhouse gas emission levels set forth by City Council goals from City operations and community emissions. (New Policy) Require infrastructure improvements to serve all areas of the City fairly, address the most urgent needs, and accommodate future growth. (New Policy)

L2.9 POLICY

L3.11.1 PROGRAM Introduce measures to counteract the loss of retail activities in Palo Altos 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 East Meadow Circle Concept Plan ensure that new and existing development is compatible and includes appropriate transitions to nearby single- and multifamily development. (New Policy)

Transportation Element T1.1 POLICY Reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation by reducing vehicle miles traveled and per-mile emissions through use of vehicle technologies 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 supports alternative transportation modes. (New Program)

T4.3.1 PROGRAM Study parking pricing and congestion pricing options for on-off-street parking in the Downtown/University Avenue and California Avenue business districts that is responsive to the market and results in approximately 85% parking occupancy. As part of creating this system, review the existing Downtown parking system to ensure it is still consistent with the overall approach to parking in the Downtown, and includes mechanisms that allow merchants to defray parking fees for their customers. (New Program) T4.5.1 PROGRAM Review on-street parking availability in residential neighborhoods adjacent to business districts to determine how it is used during business and non-business hours. Consider allowing designated disabled on-street parking upon resident request when conducting this review. (New Program) T4.5.2 PROGRAM Develop a program to implement new residential permit parking districts to preserve neighborhood quality of life. (New Program)

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 the intellectual physical and social health of the community by providing opportunities for learning, expression and social interaction for all ages at our libraries, community facilities, parks and cultural centers. (New Policy) Incorporate the Developmental Assets approach into the Citys planning, development, implementation and evaluation of programs and services for children and youth. (New Policy) Develop strategies to help the community identify and combat depression, isolation, stress and other mental health issues. (New Policy)

C1.4 POLICY

C1.6 POLICY

Natural and Urban Environment and Safety Element N2.1 POLICY Achieve and exceed City Council targeted goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emission levels from City operations and community emissions. (New Policy) Pursue the goal of achieving zero net energy homes for all new detached or single-family residences by 2025. (New Policy) Encourage renewable energy use by continuing to implement a dynamic 100% carbon neutral Renewable Portfolio Standard for electric service. (New Policy)

N2.3 POLICY

N3.5 POLICY

N8.10 POLICY Regularly review the adequacy of law enforcement services and emergency services in the city. Plan and develop law enforcement infrastructure and technology according to overall need and the growth within the City. (New Policy) Housing Element H3.1.10 PROGRAM Adopt a revised density bonus ordinance that allows up to a maximum zoning increase of 35 percent in density and grants up to three concessions or incentives. The density bonus ordinance will meet State standards for the provision of housing units for very low- and lower-income renters, seniors and moderate-income condominium buyers in compliance with Government Code Section 65915, et seq. (New Program) H 2.2.6 PROGRAM Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage development on and consolidation of smaller lots, such as development review streamlining, reduction in required parking for smaller units, setback modifications, or graduated density when consolidated lots are over one-half acre. (New Program)

The intent of City staff and the PTC is to honor and maintain the themes and values described in the 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

Attachment C

CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
Special Meeting December 2, 2013 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:05 P.M. Present: Absent: Berman, Burt, Holman, Klein, Kniss, Price, Scharff, Schmid, Shepherd None

Parks and Recreation Commission Members: Present: Absent: Ashlund, Crommie, Hetterly, Lauing, Markevitch, Reckdahl Knopper

AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETTIONS None CLOSED SESSION 1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Government Code Section 54956.9(b), (c) Potential Litigation: Construction of the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center

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

Page 1 of 20

MINUTES
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 to live in the center of one of the world's premier areas. Increasingly, every existing industry felt compelled to connect to Silicon Valley, and Palo Alto was the heart of Silicon Valley. The impacts of renewed demand for Silicon Valley generated significant contemporary challenges and concerns in the community. Because of concerns regarding planning for and managing of growth, the Council scheduled the Study Session. Staff was concerned about their ability to manage demands and workload. The Study Session was a positive opportunity to clarify a collective vision expressed through a renewed Comprehensive Plan and through citizen participation to inform the Council's decisions. Staff solicited initial comments and questions from the Council to shape the Staff Report. Hillary Gitelman, Director of Planning and Community Environment, reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan was the City's guiding document for land use and development decisions. Other policies were intended to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998 and remained valid. The Comprehensive Plan articulated limits for Citywide development and Downtown development, both of which the City had not reached. The Staff Report attempted to articulate changes in Palo Alto and concerns that occurred because of changes. The City had an opportunity to combine planning efforts into the Comprehensive Plan update and to subject it to community engagement and environmental review. Another opportunity was to continue short-term problem solving related to traffic and parking. A third opportunity was to continue processing projects consistent with current zoning while holding them to a high standard. Staff provided six broad questions to capture individual comments and suggestions from Council Members. In discussing the questions, Staff hoped to 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 to discuss broader strategies. Staff provided initial thoughts for discussion and could summarize the Council's comments at the end of the discussion. Harvey Miller indicated a discussion of the future of the City should be placed in the context of the future of the nation. The issue was the demographic shift. He provided copies of an Atlantic Monthly article regarding housing.
Page 10 of 20 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/02/13

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

Eric Filseth felt there were two conflicting visions for Palo Alto. Vision A was a medium-density, family town. Vision B was a financial and professional hub. Vision B came with unsolvable traffic, parking, pollution, and overstretched City infrastructure and schools. Staff and the Council attempted to implement Vision B within a framework of laws supporting Vision A. A clear majority of residents were not willing to accept the costs of Vision B. Robert Lancefield urged the Council to take a long view when considering the small changes that led to large changes. Martin Bernstein stated a Planned Community (PC) was a tool for City evolution. A balance between developers and residents was key to a successful PC process. The public could support a PC if it felt it received a fair outcome. Robert Moss suggested the Council consider the interaction of planned projects with existing projects; transparency; comparison of proposed projects with the Comprehensive Plan; and careful revision of the PC process. Ruth Luoy related problems with traffic lights and lack of turn lanes on El Camino Real. Dick Rosenbaum indicated the Council was ignoring the Stanford-Arrillaga and Jay Paul Projects. The Council should direct Staff to notify both applicants that their projects were no longer likely to be approved. Neilson Buchanan recommended the Council initiate an effort with Staff and neighborhoods to understand development rights related to parking assessment districts. Staff continued to approve projects with no negative impact. Richard Brand indicated the parking problem in Professorville was worse than in areas south of Oregon Expressway. The Comprehensive Plan stated development should meet commercial needs but not at the expense of residential quality of life. People moved to Palo Alto for the quality of life it provided. David Kleiman encouraged responsible development. Projects should be parked. The Council should provide developers with transparency and consistency.
Page 11 of 20 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/02/13

MINUTES
Ken Hayes stated PC Zoning allowed other opportunities not necessarily envisioned by the creators of the Zoning Ordinance. A PC Zone provided flexibility; however, that flexibility should be in accord with the objectives and spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. The PC process should engage the community. The Council should consider different PC Zone categories. Randy Popp felt existing guidelines and regulations were thoughtful and forward-thinking, imperfect but well drafted. Halting projects in midstream created an environment and an expectation of unmanageable risk. Growth of the City needed to occur in a fair and predictable manner within the established framework. Michael Alcheck remarked that a diversity of opinion was crucial to the discussion. 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 that found no significant impacts. She requested the Council implement a series of reforms beginning with a moratorium on all major projects in all zoning designations; allow public participation in updating the Comprehensive Plan; revise the project review and approval process; restructure PC Zoning regulations with an emphasis on public benefit; and restore consistency and predictability for development applications that conformed with current zoning. 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 Plan when many exceptions were granted. Herb Borock reported the 1989 Land Use and Transportation Study provided total development potential for nine areas of the City. The Council should direct Staff to provide development totals for the City and for each of the nine areas. PC Zoning was not needed to protect 100 percent affordable housing projects, because the State Housing Density Bonus Law provided protections. It was inappropriate for the Council to consider the Arrillaga and Jay Paul Projects at the current time.

Page 12 of 20 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/02/13

MINUTES
Fred Balin remarked that individual projects recast the Comprehensive Plan. The current Comprehensive Plan was a good document and the result of wide community engagement; however, it was not respected. Shani Kleinhaus noted all cities in Silicon Valley struggled with traffic and parking problems. The City was slowly chipping away the open space, which was a vital treasure. Greg Goodwin related his experience with traffic and parking in San Francisco. Rapacious decisions could destroy the quality of the City. Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain, noted the use of electronic media in other cities to include a wider population in community discussions. In coming transportation discussions, the Council should consider initiatives comprehensively and iteratively. Daniel Garber indicated the City should find ways to take advantage of growth to move forward the City's interests. Each project in the pipeline was an opportunity to work with applicants to move the City closer to its own goals. Involving the City earlier in the applicant's design process would be more effective than enacting legislation. Creating incentives to meet current parking demand was potentially a far more effective method to manage a project's size and impacts. Arthur Keller suggested the Council think proactively and consider changing past policies to reflect current needs. In addition, the Council should consider new and creative solutions. Davina Brown stated commercial development increased parking, traffic, and pollution problems while providing few benefits. She requested the Council stop granting exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan. Norman Beamer reported the City did not need more office space. Council should halt efforts to build more office space in Palo Alto. The

Joe Hirsch believed residents did not like project approvals granted by the Council and its bodies. He requested a moratorium on all new higherdensity developments until a Land Use and Transportation Study was completed. He requested the Council revise the Density Bonus Ordinance to grant 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.
Page 13 of 20 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/02/13

MINUTES
David Adams suggested the Council eliminate the PC process and direct Staff to 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 the fundamental demand for transportation to alleviate the growing parking problem. Jennifer Landesmann felt out-of-scale development marred the quality of life in Palo Alto. The building height limit was important to maintain quality of life. Council Member Kniss requested Staff define Planned Community as it currently existed. Some valuable community projects would not exist without PC Zoning, such as the Opportunity Center and Tree House Apartments. In five years, the number of jobs in Palo Alto increased from 70,000 to 90,000, which caused a great deal of the parking problems. She requested Staff comment on traffic data provided in the Staff Report. Ms. Gitelman noted two data sets were included in the Staff Report. One was average daily traffic volumes for a number of locations in Palo Alto, comparing 1999 volumes with 2013 volumes. In many locations, daily traffic volumes were not equal to those in 1999; although, some areas were approaching 1999 volumes. The second data set compared average daily traffic volumes along El Camino Real from 2002 through 2012. That data demonstrated that traffic was essentially stable. Traffic data did not show significant traffic degradation. Traffic volumes followed economic cycles. Council Member Kniss was surprised by the data. The community had grown and 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 Comprehensive Plan should express the vision for Palo Alto. The starting point for public dialog was the identification of data. While Staff's data indicated traffic was declining, travel time seemed to increase. He utilized data from the Current Comprehensive Plan and the recent Stanford project to determine that traffic delay at 12 intersections increased from 35 to 55 percent at each intersection between 1996 and 2009. Traffic studies provided by development projects indicated the number of cars at specific intersections increased 20 percent. Traffic was increasing dramatically, on the average of 3-5 percent per year. He requested Staff comment on the conflicting information provided through these studies.
Page 14 of 20 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/02/13

MINUTES
Ms. Gitelman wished to clarify that traffic volumes were not the sole determinant of congestion. Peaking characteristics would differentiate daily traffic volumes from peak hour traffic volumes. Other factors were conflicting movements and signal operation. Staff needed to communicate a great deal of data as part of a comprehensive evaluation of traffic and parking impacts. Perhaps that data could be communicated in the context of the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Schmid suggested the Council open a dialog with the community beginning with the basic issues of traffic and parking. The Palo Alto traffic model consistently indicated no significant impact to traffic. Staff could help the community engage in issues by providing data that everyone could work with. Council Member Klein believed a Special Meeting would be needed to develop a dialog. The debate of growth in Palo Alto extended to the 1890s. Palo Alto was a vibrant community. Moratoriums had many types of unintended consequences, usually negatives ones. He wanted to continue consideration of the Jay Paul Company Project. The Council needed to be creative in its outreach to all residents. Council Member Berman wanted to see smart, strategic, limited growth in Palo Alto. He expressed concern about the inability of his generation to afford housing in Palo Alto. Parking was clearly a problem for the City. The Council needed to create a comprehensive vision for the Downtown, California Avenue areas and the City as a whole. The Council and Staff would have to be creative in crafting a City dialog to create opportunities for residents to engage. Council Member Burt felt people lived in Palo Alto because they valued the quality of life in Palo Alto. The community had always been willing to accept a moderate rate of change under certain conditions. First, development projects should be high quality. Second, indirect impacts of development projects 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 who wanted to live or work in Palo Alto. The harm that resulted from misinformation was difficult to repair and undermined the Council's and Staff'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 occurring too rapidly. The Council should ensure that PC projects were not abused. Zoning standards needed to be adjusted to allow public space and appropriately scaled buildings and parking. A 20 percent increase in jobs, an
Page 15 of 20 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/02/13

MINUTES
8 percent increase in population, a 30-50 percent increase in intersection congestion, and a 20 percent decline in traffic was not possible. The number of PC projects had not increased over the prior 15 years. Many PC projects were now valued community assets. Community dialog was needed. He was frustrated by the lack of emphasis placed on project compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Reports should present all significant elements of the Comprehensive Plan that a project impacted. He was interested in the possibility of new projects being fully parked and perhaps even over parked. The Council needed data regarding the number of employees for each employer in the City. He favored implementation of a business registry to obtain accurate data. The review process should be altered to ensure the quality and compatibility of projects was better for the community. Council Member Holman inquired about further discussion of the topic and the possibility of Staff summarizing Council comments. Mayor Scharff indicated a Special Meeting would be held to continue the discussion. Council Member Holman requested clarity regarding next steps for Staff follow up. Council Member Klein called Point of Order. There should be an understanding regarding the length of Council Member comments. Mayor Scharff believed each Council Member should be allowed to speak at least once. Council Member Klein suggested Council Members be notified when their comments reached 15 minutes in length. Council Member Holman agreed with a number of Council Member Burt's comments. The Council recently discussed Core Values, and the Council should adopt public trust as a Core Value. The Council should require transparent, objective, and balanced Staff Reports. Data regarding traffic impacts was not plausible, and the Staff Report should contain other factors. The Staff Report mentioned support of innovation and entrepreneurship; however, it did not mention support of community character. The City should have a moratorium on PC projects, including projects in the pipeline. In a number of instances, public benefits were not delivered, were not consistent, were not clearly identified, or were not enduring. The Council, Boards, and Commissions needed specific training on compatibility. Development standards should be reviewed. Her previous question to Staff
Page 16 of 20 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/02/13

MINUTES
regarding employee density in commercial space as it affected traffic analysis, parking demand, and traffic demand management programs should be addressed coherently. She also favored implementation of a business registry as a means to track traffic and parking implications. She questioned whether data contained in the Longitudinal Employee Household Dynamics Program was applicable to Palo Alto. Ms. Gitelman reported the data was specific to Palo Alto. Staff was engaged in collecting data regarding employee density as a part of the Downtown CAP Study. Council Member Holman believed California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) training was necessary for the Council, Boards, and Commissions. The 27 University Avenue Project received public scrutiny with little of it being positive. Any project at that site should be significantly different and presented in a transparent manner. Vice Mayor Shepherd stated the sense of community in Palo Alto was vibrant. The Council's most impactful decision was dedicating 700 acres for development of Stanford Research Park. The Council could review processes to ensure transparency. She was unsure how to initiate a discussion regarding the future of the City. An update of the Comprehensive Plan had been delayed for various reasons; however, it should be presented without further delay. The City's website could contain a timeline regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Efforts to keep the community informed regarding development decisions were important. Council Member Price indicated the Council had a responsibility to define the terms of engagement. Her responsibilities as a Council Member were to represent both the current and future community. Decisions were needed regarding housing, density, and urban design. The residential population and the employment population would continue to grow. The questions were the pace of growth and how to anticipate growth. She opposed a moratorium for PC Zoning. Greater education regarding development standards, base zoning, and PC development was needed. She inquired whether the next discussion would include the integration of other plans and programs with an intensified community engagement program. Mr. Keene reported Staff would need to compile a map of the connections of all topics. Staff hoped to return to the Council in the first part of February 2014 with detailed recommendations. Time and intensive Staff work was needed to organize information coherently.

Page 17 of 20 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/02/13

MINUTES
Council Member Price asked if a discussion of PC reform would occur in the short term. Mr. Keene would return to that issue in the summation. Mayor Scharff felt the Council was concerned with quality of life. The Council made progress during the year regarding parking; however, progress was small when compared to the magnitude of the problem. He wanted the City to build a parking garage. He inquired about the amount of money contained in the Parking Fund. Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director Planning and Community Environment, indicated the Parking Fund would contain $4-$4.5 million by the end of 2014. Mayor Scharff believed a parking garage and a Residential Parking Permit (RPP) Program would provide relief to neighborhoods. Traffic was a continuing problem. The best way to solve both the traffic and parking problems was to reduce car trips through a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Program. The Planning Department was overwhelmed with initiatives. Updating the Comprehensive Plan while engaging the community was important. He asked if an updated Comprehensive Plan could be presented to the Council in two years. Mr. Keene responded yes. Mayor Scharff requested the City Manager provide a plan to increase Staff in the Planning Department. Both the City Manager and Director of Planning should carefully review Staff Reports for logic and accuracy. Staff Reports should list advantages and disadvantages in order to provide information to the Council. The right way to engage the community was through the Comprehensive Plan. Staff should come back with a plan for doing that. The City should have a moratorium on processing PC applications until the community understood PCs and PC Zoning. Mr. Keene clarified that the Jay Paul Project and the Arrillaga Outreach Project were removed from the December 2013 Agenda because of a community design process. The Agendas for meetings on December 9 and 16, 2013 were full. A discussion to frame the issues related to PC Zoning would inform next steps. Given the Council's comments, Staff would have to navigate between accuracy and completeness in its reports and recommendations. The Staff Report was careful not to draw conclusions with respect to the traffic data. Staff would begin a data and research initiative to support the Comprehensive Plan process. First Staff would need
Page 18 of 20 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/02/13

MINUTES
to design a process for and have the capacity to support and implement topics suggested by the Council. Citizen participation and outreach alone would be a major undertaking. The Comprehensive Plan and Cumulative Impact initiative was the organizing focus around which other planning processes had to converge. The entire process would be a public collaboration that would be iterative and evolutionary. Staff could provide recommendations on the two PC projects for specific action prior to returning with components for the Comprehensive Plan discussion. He questioned whether the Council wished to target February 2, 2014 for Staff to return with the process design and resource plan. Ms. Gitelman noted public and Council comments covered many aspects of planning. Staff could return with specific resource and scheduling items or continue the Study Session discussion. Council Member Holman wanted to continue the discussion to either December 9 or 16, 2013 in order to provide clear direction to Staff regarding next steps. Mr. Keene could not include the discussion on either December 9 or 16. Staff could return on one of those dates with the two PC projects. Council Member Holman clarified that Staff would not need to return on December 9 or 16 with responses. She wanted the Council to complete the dialog in order to provide Staff with definitive direction. Mayor Scharff agreed the December 9 and 16 Agendas were full. The Council could hold a Special Meeting in December 2013; however, he was unsure if a Special Meeting was necessary. He understood Staff recommended February 2014 as a possible date. Mr. Keene reported Staff would return sooner than February 2014 if they could complete the work sooner. The main themes for discussion were clear. He wondered whether a Council discussion of next steps would be efficient. Council Member Kniss did not believe a discussion of next steps was needed. Staff would have a difficult time summarizing the Council discussion. Council Member Holman reiterated that she wished to hold a Council discussion to assist Staff with determining next steps. Council Member Kniss expressed confidence in Staff's ability.
Page 19 of 20 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/02/13

MINUTES
Council Member Schmid suggested a prioritization of questions related to the Comprehensive Plan, visioning, and engagement would be helpful. It might be helpful for the Council to engage in determining the first steps. Mr. Keene indicated it was not realistic for Staff to prepare information in only eight days for the Council meeting on December 16, 2013. Staff needed time to organize and compile information. All the main pieces were there; Staff needed time to add details regarding the process. Council Member Burt inquired whether a discussion in January 2014 was feasible. Mr. Keene would begin working on information and provide a status update close to the New Year. Staff could present the two PC projects for a decision on January 13, 2014. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 A.M.

Page 20 of 20 City Council Meeting Minutes: 12/02/13