HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-22 City Council (10)~Ci~ of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: January 22, 1996 CMR:115:96
SUBJECT:Approval of Ordinance Approving Amendment to Palo Alto
Medical Foundation Development Agreement
REQUEST
The attached First Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City~ and the Palo
Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) has been prepared to achieve several objectives:
Ensure that if and when PAMF occupies the proposed Urban Lane Campus, there will
be no opportunity for PAMF or any other entity to either occupy the existing
downtown area PAMF facilities or implement previous City development approvals;
Establish PAMF’s maintenance and security obligations for the downtown facilities
during the period between closure of the facilities and redevelopment of the
properties; and
Establish the outlines of a planning process for reuse of PAMF’s downtown
properties, including PAMF’s financial obligation for the planning process.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Comanission, on December 12, 1995, reviewed and recommended approval of
a similar, but slightly different, version of the Amendment. The Commission was aware that
additional refinement of the text would occur prior to City’ Council consideration. Staff
recommends City’ Council approval of the attached ordinance approving the First
Amendment to the Development Agreement.
CMR:115:96 Page I of 6
BACKGROUND
In 1989-1991, the City prepared, reviewed and adopted a Specific Plan for the renovation and
expansion of PAMF’s downtown facilities. A Development Agreement, si~aned by PANIF
and the City, provides for guarantees that the Specific Plan can be implemented.
Subsequently, PAMY acquired an approximately 9-acre area located on E1 Camino Real
between Wells Avenue and the rear of properties fronting on Encina Avenue. The Planning
Commission and ARB have recommended approval of a medical facilities development
proposal for this area (i.e., PAMF’s Urban Lane Campus). If and when PAMF gains
approval o£ and decides to relocate to, the Urban Lane Campus, reuse of PAMF’s existing
downtown facilities needs to be addressed. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
new campus assumes that the existing facilities (with the exception of the Surgecenter at 400
Forest Avenue, which is not owned or operated by the Foundation, and a 5 - 10 prima~~
health care provider plus support staff medical office) incorporated into the 1991 Specific
Plan will no longer be used (or available for reuse) as medical facilities. The EIR also notes
that the 1991 Development Agreement would need to be modified as part of the Foundation’s
relocation to the Urban Lane area. The EIR assumes that the appropriate reuse of PAMF’s
downtown facilities and property, will be decided on during a separate planning process to
be conducted if and when the Urban Lane Campus project is approved by the City and
PAMF decides that implementation of the new campus is financially feasible. For purposes
of analyzing cumulative impacts, the EIR assumes that the existing facilities are reused for
282 residential units, a reasonable maximum density used to create a reasonable worst case
scenario for the environmental analysis.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Development Agreement Amendment has two policy implications. First, it will
establish a City policy ceasing medical use of PAMF’s downtown facilities (as covered in
the 1991 Specific Plan and with two exceptions identified previously) if and when PAMF
occupies the Urban Lane Campus. Second, it commits the City and PAMF to "an intensive
neighborhood- and community-based process" to address land use issues associated with
reuse of the existing properties.
DISCUSSION
The implementation aspects of the attached First Amendment to the Development Agreement
are contained in the General Terms starting on page 4 of the Amendment. Under definitions,
the major discussion point for the City and PAMF has been "Occupancy." Because of the
size and complexity of the new PAMF facilities, there will be a fairly long time between
occupancy as generally defined in the Uniform Building Code and the start of patient visits.
PAM~ estimates that at least 90 days will be needed between final building inspections and
the initial patient visits.
CMR:115:96 Page 2 of 6
Sections 5 and 6 establish the effective termination of PAMF rights to pursue development
under the Specific Plan. Section 7 establishes that PAMF’s ability to use the downtown
facilities identified in the Specific Plan cease upon occupancy of the Urban Lane Campus,
with the exception of a small (not to exceed 13,000 square feet) satellite office. The
Surgecenter is not part of PAMF’s facilities and is therefore not covered by this provision.
A City concern is how the existing facilities are maintained and secured once medical
operations have shifted to the Urban Lane Campus. Section 8 identifies PA_MF’s
maintenance and security obligations, including maintaining existing vegetation. Changes
to Section 8 since the Planning Commission’s December 12 review include clari~ing the
wording of paragraph (a) (e.g., ~maintain trees" has been modified to ~maintain healthy
existing trees") and the addition of the last two sentences. Paragraph (b) has been added on
suggestion of neighbors that a demolition prohibition is needed and the subsequent
recommendation of the Planning Commission to develop text to address demolition (see
pages 32 to 35 of the Commission’s December 12, 1995 minutes).
Section 9 addresses what happens ifPAMF decides that the Urban Lane Campus cannot or
should not be developed. PAMF has a limited option of reinstating the downtown
Development Agreement (and thus the Specific Plan) and voiding any and all City approvals
for the Urban Lane project.
The process for addressing reuse of the downtown properties is addressed in Sections 10 and
11. City staff envisions addressing the PAMF properties as part of a land use study focusing
on the PAMF and South ofl=orest Avenue Area (SOFA). The planning process is patterned
after the area plan process described in the attached November 13, 1995 revision of a
June 30, 1995 staff report (CMR:295:95). Staff proposes a concentrated process
(approximately twelve months) involving intensive neighborhood and community
involvement and resulting in both land use planning policies and related implementation
tools. PAMF’s active participation in the process is encouraged. The planning process
would begin no later than eighteen months after the effective date of the approval of the
Urban Lane project. The process may commence earlier at the request of PAMF. Eighteen
months was chosen because it is long enough to allow PAMF to focus on the extensive work
needed to secure building permits, if the Urban Lane project is approved and implemented,
and short enough to provide a reasonable likelihood that planning for reuse of the downtown
properties can be completed by the time PAMF vacates the downtown properties.
The Amendment provides that PAMt: will contribute up to two-thirds of the City’s contract-
related costs (i.e., not including the cost of staff time), not to exceed $200,000. PAMF’s
payments will be divided between $75,000 payable at the time of commencement of the
planning process and $125,000 payable when the properties are sold.
CMR:115:96 Page 3 of 6
Section 11 commits the City to expeditious processing of applications seeking to implement
the approved land use plan and regulatory, amendments developed and adopted as part of the
area plan process.
Two changes have been made to Section 13 since Planning Commission review. First, the
language has been revised to clarify that the continuing obligation to lease the
Channing/Ramona property is for child care purposes. Second, the last sentence has been
modified to clarify the termination date of the Development Agreement. The Planning
Commission text read: "All other terms and provisions of the Agreement, as amended
herein, shall remain in effect until expiration of the original term of the Agreement, or until
, whichever first occurs2’ The sentence now" reads: "All other terms and
provisions of the Agreement, as amended herein, shall remain in effect until (i) the effective
date of the rezoning of the Downtown Site or (ii) the end of the thirty-third month following
the date of Notice of Commencement, whichever comes first." The Notice of
Commencement is identified in Section 10(b) and (c) as the time that the reuse planning
process starts. That time is either eighteen months after the effective date of the Urban Lane
approvals, or earlier if requested by PAMF. The revised Section 13 wording responds to a
PAMF concern that selling their downtown properties with a long-term Development
A~eement of record (the original Development Agreement would expire in 2003) will be
difficult for both buyers and especially lending institutions. Having the expiration date tied
to either the original expiration date or City adoption of new zoning for the downtown
properties could mean that PAMF’s ability to obtain needed funds from the sale of their
properties could be significantly compromised by the unwillingness of a future CiD, Council
to approve any,reuse plan and related zoning regulations. Section 10(a) identifies the
objective of having the reuse planning process completed in twelve months. If that objective
can not be met, it is still realistic to complete the process in fifteen months. Thus, the thirty,-
three months included in Section 13 is over twice as long as the reuse planning process is
targeted to take.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative is to not amend the Development Ageement, with the loss of the aspects
identified above and retention of the Foundation’s ability to pursue implementation of the
Specific Plan incorporated in the Development Agreement. Inability to occupy both the
Urban Lane and downtown facilities would need to be achieved through a use permit
condition applied to the Urban Lane project and other tools, such as adoption of a rezoning
or moratorium ordinance affecting PAMF’s downtown properties. As currently
recommended by staff., the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Changes, Rezoning and Use
Permit actions are conditioned upon approval and execution of the First Amendment.
CMR:115:96 Page 4 of 6
FISCAL IMPACT
The Amendment commits the City to a planning process for the PAMF/SOFA area that will
require use of consultants. As elaborated on in attached CMR:295:95 (revised 11/13/95),
the cost of the area planning process is likely to be in the range of $250,000 to $300,000.
PAMF is committed to pay two-thirds of the cost up to a maximum PAMF payment of
$200,000, with $125,000 payable when the PAMF’s doxvntown properties are sold. This
means that there are costs the City. will incur that PAMF will not pay for, and other costs that
will be reimbursed to the City by PAMF at a later date.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Amendment of the 1991 Development Ageement is identified in the Draft Environmental
Impact Report for PA_MF’s Urban Lane project. No significant environmental impacts are
identified for the Amendment. The environmental findings for the Development Ageement
Amendment will be incorporated into certification of the Final EIR.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAl,
Upon approval and execution by both parties, the First Amendment to the Development
A~eement will be recorded with the Office of the Santa Clara Count, Recorder.
ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance Approving First Amendment to Development A~eement
CMR:295:95, as revised on 11/13/95
CC:Palo Alto Medical Foundation (Doug Aikins, David Juw)
University South Neighborhood Group (Judith Kemper)
University South Association (Susan Beall)
PREPARED BY: Kenneth R. Schreiber
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CMR:115:96 Page 5 of 6
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
FLEMING
Manager
CMR:115:96 Page 6 of 6
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PALO ALTO MEDICAL
FOUNDATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
fol!ows:
SECTION I. The City Counci! finds as follows:
A.In 1991 the City of Palo Alto ("City") and the Pa!o
Alto Medical Foundation ("Foundation") entered into a Development
Agreement with respect to certain Foundation property in Downtown
Palo Alto ("Downtown Site"), upon which Foundation intended to
develop an expanded medica! clinic and medical research facility.
B.Foundation has received approvals from City which
will allow development by Foundation of a new medical clinic and
medica! research facility outside the Downtown Area (the "Urban
Lane Site").
C.The City approvals for the Urban Lane Site are
conditioned upon amendment to the Development Agreement, to ensure
that the facilities at the Urban Lane Site will replace the
facilities at the Downtown Site, allowing for planned redeve!opment.
of the Downtown Site for other uses.
D.The City Counci! finds and determines that notice of
intention to consider the First Amendment to the Deve!opment
Agreement has been given pursuant to Government Code section 65867.
E.The City Council has conducted a public hearing on
the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, and on the
approvals for the Urban Lane site, which include amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan.
F.The City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Palo Alto Medical Foundation New
Campus Final Environmental Impact Report, has certified the
adequacy of the EIR, and has made findings upon the significant
environmenta! impacts identified in the EIR, including a statement
of overriding considerations.
G.The City Council finds and determines that the First
Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Pa!o Alto, as amended. The City
Council has specifically considered the regional welfare and the
impacts of the. development agreement upon the regional welfare.
The City Council finds and determines that the benefits of the
1
960105 luc 00g0167
project set forth in the First Amendment to the Development
Agreement and the statement of overriding considerations establish
the reasonable relationship of the project to the regional welfare;
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the First
Amendment to the Deve!opment Agreement between the City of Palo
Alto and the Pa!o Alto Medical Foundation for Health Care,
Research, and Education, a California nonprofit public benefit
corporation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and
authorizes the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the
City.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk is directed to cause a copy of
the deve!opment agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder
not later than ten (i0) days after it becomes effective.
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective upon the
thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS :
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
2
960105 lac 0080167
This document is recorded
for the benefit of the City
of Pa!o Alto and is entitled
to be recorded free of charge
in accordance with Section 6103
of the Government Code.
After Recordation, mail to:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREE~IENT
Between
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION
FOR HEALTH CARE, RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION,
A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation
and
CITY OF PAL0 ALTO, CALIFORNIA
A Chartered City
1
960109 lac 0080168
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This first amendment ("Amendment") to the statutory
development agreement ("Development Agreement") which was enacted
and entered between the parties as of , 1991, is
enacted and entered into as of the day of
, 1996 ("Effective Date"), between the CITY OF PALO
ALTO ("City"), a chartered city and California municipal
corporation, and the PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION FOR HEALTH CARE,
RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION ("Foundation"), a California nonprofit
public benefit corporation.
RECITALS
THIS AMENDMENT is entered into and enacted on the basis of the
following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties:
A. This Amendment uses certain capitalized terms, which are
defined either herein or in Section 1 of the Development Agreement,
which was filed for record in the office of the Santa Clara County
Recorder on November 3, 1991. The meaning of each capitalized term
used herein, unless otherwise defined, shall be the same as that
defined in the Development Agreement.
B. This Amendment is enacted and entered pursuant to
Government Code sections 65864-65865.5 ("Development Agreement
Act"); which authorize the parties to enact, enter into and amend
binding development agreements affecting the development of real
property within the City’s jurisdiction.
C. City Resolution No. 6597 establishes procedures and
requirements governing consideration and amendment of development
agreements.
D. Foundation is the owner of the Property, also referred to
herein as the "Downtown Site," which is affected by the Development
Agreement and this Amendment. Said property is described in
Exhibit A hereto.
E. The City Council of City has enacted certain land use
regulations ("Downtown Site Plan") affecting the Property, which
include a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, and the
Development Agreement.
F. Following execution of the Development Agreement,
Foundation acquired an alternative site ("Urban Lane Site") for its
proposed medical facility, and has applied for certain legislative
and administrative development approvals ("Urban Lane Approvals")
affecting the Urban Lane Site. The Urban Lane Site is more
2
960109 lac 0080168
particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached and incorporated
herein by this reference.
G. City has completed an Environmental Impact Report
("EIR"), which EIR has been certified as complying with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
and all applicable City regulations, and which analyzes development
of the Urban Lane Site. That EIR and the conclusions therein are
based upon the representations of Foundation that the Foundation’s
primary medical facilities will be relocated from the Downtown site
to the Urban Lane Site, and that the Downtown Site will thereafter
be redeveloped for non-medical facility uses.
H. Adoption of the Urban Lane Approvals by City was based
upon the EIR conclusions and the representations by Foundation
recited above. The parties specifically acknowledge their mutual
understanding that prior to reuse of the Downtown Site, appropriate
consideration and planning for its replacement land uses must be
conducted. Accordingly, in order to preclude operation of medical
facilities at both the Downtown Site and the Urban Lane Site, the
parties agree by the terms of this Amendment to suspend
implementation of the Downtown Site Plan during the interval
between enactment or granting of the Urban Lane Approvals and
completion of occupancy of the Urban Lane Site. Further, the
parties agree to preclude occupancy or reoccupancy of the
structures on the Downtown Site after occupancy of the Urban Lane
Site, except for the limited purposes specifically provided in this
Amendment. Further, the parties agree that Foundation shall retain
a limited option to cancel this Amendment and reinstate the
Downtown Site approvals.
I. In order to amend the terms of the Development Agreement,
Foundation ~has applied to City pursuant to the Development
Agreement Act and Resolution No. 6597 for this Amendment to the
Development Agreement. City’s Planning Commission and Council duly
have given notice of their intention to consider this Amendment,
have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to Government Code
section 65867 and Resolution No. 6597, and have found that the
terms hereof are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as
amended.
J. The terms and conditions of this Amendment have been
found by City to be fair, just and reasonable and, prompted by the
necessities of the situation, to provide extraordinary benefits to
the City.
K. This Amendment is consistent with the present public
health, safety and welfare needs of the residents of the City and
the surrounding region. City specifically has considered and
approved the effects of this Amendment upon the regional welfare.
3
960109 lac 0080168
L. This Amendment will bind future City Councils to the
terms and obligations specified in the Development Agreement and
this Amendment, and in furtherance of the interests of City and
regional residents and the public generally, presently exercises,
to the degree specified herein and in state law, the City’s
authority to allow or preclude deve!opment of the Property.
M. This Amendment will eliminate uncertainty in planning for
orderly development of the Downtown Site and the Urban Lane Site,
will provide dependable assurances to the public that only a single
major medical campus facility will be operated on the foregoing
properties, will help provide for an efficient transition of
Foundation operations from one site to the other, and will provide
Foundation with some certainty that future contingencies would not
deprive it of current development rights to one or the other
medical facility site.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby do agree as follows:
GENERAL TERMS:
i.Definitions. As used in this Amendment,
(a) "Urban Lane Approvals" means the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments, Zoning. amendments, conditional use permit,
Architectura! Review Board approval, and design enhancement
exception, together with all variances and other Discretionary
Actions and City decisions and approvals deemed by Foundation to be
necessary to development and use of the Urban Lane Site as an
integrated medical research and treatment facility.
(b) "Urban Lane Project" means the medica! research and
treatment facility proposed by Foundation to be built and operated
at the Urban Lane Site.
(c) "Occupancy" means completion of construction,
commencement of tenancy and establishment of complete operations,
equipment, supplies, personnel and patients at the Urban Lane
Project. For purposes of this Amendment, the date of Occupancy
("Occupation Date") shall be determined by City, and shal! be the
later of:
(i)One hundred twenty (120) days after the date
when certificates of occupancy have been
issued for Buildings A, B, and C at the Urban
Lane Site, or
(ii)One hundred twenty (120) days after the final
inspection of nhe work authorized by the
building permits for Buildings A, B, and C.
960109 lac 0080168
(d) Each other capitalized term used, unless otherwise
defined herein, shall have the meaning defined in the Development
Agreement.
2. Interest of Foundation. Foundation represents to City
that as of the Effective Date it owns the Property and the Urban
Lane Site in fee, subject only to encumbrances, easements,
covenants, conditions, restrictions and other matters of record.
3. Bindinq Effect Subject to the provisions of Section
17(f) of the Agreement, this Amendment and al! of its terms and
conditions shall run with the land, binding and inuring to the
benefit of the parties and their respective assigns, heirs and
other successors in interest.
4. Negation of Agency. The parties acknowledge that in
entering, enacting and performing this Amendment, each is acting as
an independent entity and not as an agent of the other party in any
respect.
5. Implementation of Development Agreement Suspended.
During the interval between the Effective Date and (a) Occupancy of
the Urban Lane Site or (b) Reinstatement of the Development
Agreement as defined in Section 9 hereof, Foundation shall not be
entitled or authorized to use or implement the terms of the
Development Agreement, the Specific Plan or any other Downtown Site
Project Approvals. All Urban Lane Approvals shall be conditioned
so as to take effect no sooner than the Effective Date of this
Amendment. Nothing in this Amendment shall impair Foundation’s
right to continue operation of the Downtown Site until the
Occupation Date defined in Section 1 hereof.
6. Riqht to Implement Specific Plan Terminated. The right
to develop and occupy the Property in accordance with the Specific
Plan and other Project Approvals, as provided in Section 8(b) (I) of
the Development Agreement, shall terminate without further action
of the parties upon the date ("Termination Date") thirty (30) days
after the Occupation Date of the Urban Lane Site. No new
development or redevelopment shall occur on the Property until
completion of the planning process described in Section !0 of this
Amendment.
7. Riqht to Occupancy Terminated; Exceptions Foundation’s
right to occupy the existing facilities on the Downtown Site, for
medical or any other purposes, shall terminate on the Occupation
Date set forth above. The following are the only exceptions to
this occupancy restriction:
5
960109 lac 008016~
(a) Such limited activity as is required to fulfill the
maintenance and security obligation set forth in Section 8 of this
Amendment;
(b) Foundation will retain the right, in conformance
with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, to keep or establish
a small satellite medica! office in the Downtown Area. This office
will provide medical services as determined necessary by the
Foundation. It will be staffed by a maximum of five (5) physicians
(full time equivalent) and necessary associated staff, in a
facility not to exceed 13,000 square feet in area. This office
shall not be located within the two blocks bounded by Channing,
Waverley, Homer and Ramona.
(c) PAMF does not have a controlling interest in the
Surgicenter located at 400 Forest Avenue, which accordingly is not
governed by this Agreement.
Nothing contained in the Development Agreement or this
Amendment shall affect the rights of Foundatfon to acquire,
develop, lease, use or occupy any premises within the City of Palo
Alto, other than the Downtown Site, for any purpose consistent with
applicable Comprehensive Plan, zoning, and other land use
regulations.
8.Maintenance and Security Obligation.
(a) Foundation shall provide reasonable security and
maintenance of the Downtown Site structure and facilities during
the period between vacation of the facilities and redevelopment of
the Downtown Site. Such security and maintenance shall be designed
and implemented to prevent criminal activity and blighted
appearance of the Downtown Site, and to prevent the occurrence of
any nuisance, including but not limited to the nuisance conditions
described in Section 9.56.030 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
Foundation’s maintenance obligation shall include the following with
respect to the existing landscaping: maintain healthy existing
trees, shrubs, lawn and ground cover; cut weeds; clear and remove
debris; and maintain and operate irrigation system. This Agreement
shall not prohibit Foundation from removing without replacing dead
or diseased trees and other vegetation. Foundation may discontinue
planting of seasonal landscape features.
(b) None of the existing buildings on the Downtown Site
shal! be demolished prior to issuance of permits for redevelopment
of the property unless the Director of Planning and Community
Environment, in consultation with the Chief Building Official and
Fire Chief, determines that an imminent safety hazard exists.
6
960109 lac 0080168
9. Reinstatement of Development Agreement. At Foundation’s
option, at any time before completion of substantial improvements
in reliance upon the final building permit(s) for improvements on
the Urban Lane Site, this Amendment may be canceled by delivery of
written notice of reinstatement ("Reinstatement") of the
Development Agreement, delivered to City at least ten (i0) days
before the effective date of Reinstatement. Upon Reinstatement,
the Urban Lane Approvals shall be null and void, without further
action by either party, and Foundation shall immediately cease and
desist any and all construction or pre-construction activity on the
Urban Lane Site. Upon Reinstatement, the Development Agreement
shall be in full force and effect, unaffected by this Amendment or
by any other action of the parties inconsistent with its terms.
i0. Cooperation in Downtown Site Planning. Foundation agrees
to participate cooperatively in a City-designed planning process
for the Property and nearby areas, including the mixed use South of
Forest Area (SOFA) extending from the Property to Alma Street. The
planning process will include use of City-contracted expertise
("Planning Consultants"), which may include but not be limited to
a public process facilitator, community design expert, development-
oriented economist, attorney, and other technical experts such as
environmental and transportation consultants.
(a) Description of Process. The planning process will
be designed to be conducted and completed within approximately
twelve (12) months. It will be an intensive neighborhood and
community-based process that wil! include development of a land use
plan for the Foundation/SOFA area; development of implementing
ordinances and other regulations as appropriate; preparation of
appropriate environmental review documents; and review of and
action on the land use plan, ordinance, regulations and
environmental documents by the Planning Commission and City
Counci!. Foundation shall be entitled to active participation in
City’s planning process, and City encourages Foundation’s active
participation in this planning process, including securing any
necessary outside assistance to help make the products of the
process an acceptable basis for reuse of the Property.
(b) Commencement of Process. The planning process will
commence upon written notice by either party to the other ("Notice
of Commencement") in accordance with the process described in
paragraph (c) of this Section. It shall begin no later than
eighteen (18) months after the effective date of the Urban Lane
Approvals and may commence earlier at the request of the
Foundation.
(c) Financial Contribution by Foundation. The Foundation
shall pay sixty-six percent (66%), up to a maximum of Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($200,000), of the costs of the Planning
960109 lac 0080168
.7
Consultants for the Foundation/SOFA planning process. Payment
shall be made as follows: Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000)
shall be paid to City within thirty (30) days after written notice
by City to Foundation that the planning process will be commenced,
or within thirty (30) days of Foundation’s request for commencement
of the planning process, whichever date is earlier. The remaining
sum due, which shall be no greater than One Hundred Twenty-Five
Thousand Dollars ($125,000), shall be paid upon sale by Foundation
of any of the properties comprising the Downtown Site. Foundation
agrees to recordation of an appropriate instrument evidencing this
obligation. The costs to be reimbursed by Foundation under this
provision shall not include City employee time.
ii. Application for New Downtown Site .Land Use Approvals.
Following conclusion of the planning process described in Section
i0 above, Foundation may apply for the land use approvals and/or
permits deemed necessary in its discretion to authorize
redevelopment of the Downtown Site. City promptly shall conduct
all CEQA compliance procedures and other analysis necessary in
City’s discretion to consider Foundation’s Downtown Site
redevelopment proposals. The parties intend hereby that the
planning process outlined above and the process for City’s
consideration of new Downtown Site land use approvals and permits
shall not be delayed or deferred pending City’s consideration of
citywide Comprehensive Plan amendments, but instead that
Foundation’s requested new Downtown Site land use approvals will be
considered on as expeditious a schedule~as is practicable, and that
the new approvals will be consistent with all applicable current
and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
12. Extraordinary Processinq Fee. Before issuance of any
building permits for the Urban Lane Site, Foundation shall pay to
City an extraordinary processing fee to compensate City for
additional costs incurred as a result of the negotiation and
processing of this Agreement. Such fee shall include all staff,
consultant, City Attorney, or other time and material charges in
excess of those charges estimated in City’s usual processing fees,
or otherwise reimbursed by Foundation to City, in an amount not ~to
exceed $15,000.
13. Termination of Development Aqreement; Survival of Terms.
As of the Termination Date, the provisions of Sections 5, 6, and 7
of the Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and
effect, with the exception of Section 6 (d) regarding lease of the
Channing/Ramona property for child care purposes, which Section is
hereby amended to provide that the date by which the subject lease
must be executed and effective shall be the date of City issuance
of the first building permit in furtherance of and consistent with
the Urban Lane Approvals. All other terms and provisions of the
Agreement, as amended herein, shall remain in effect until (i) the
8
960109 lac 0080168
effective date of the rezoning of the Downtown Site, or (ii) the
end of the thirty-third (33rd) month following the date of Notice
of Commencement, whichever first occurs, at which time the
Agreement shall terminate.
14. Miscellaneous.
(a) Authority to Execute. The person or persons
executing this Agreement warrant and represent that they have the
authority to bind Foundation to the performance of its obligations
hereunder.
(b) Exhibits. The following exhibits to which reference
is made in this Agreement are deemed incorporated herein in their
entirety:
Exhibit A -- Description of Downtown Site
Exhibit B -- Description of Urban Lane Site
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has.been executed by the
parties as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST:CITY OF PALO ALTO
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
APPROVED:
PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION
FOR HEALTH CARE, RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION
By :
Its:
City Manager
By:
Its:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
9
960109 lac 00g0168
EXHIBIT "A~
Description of Downtown Site
I0
960109 lac 0020168
EXHIBIT "B’~
Description of Urban Lane Site
9601091ac 00g0168
11
CERTIFICATE OF ACKnOWLEDgMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
)
)
)
On , before me, , a
notary public in and for said County, personally appeared
, personally known to me
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument,
and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
960109 lac 008016~
12
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
CITY MANAGER
~-~-,,~,.y, o,,~,~ l,,, I795
November 13, 1995
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
CMR:295:95 (REVISED)
SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan Update- Staff Recommendations Regarding
Coordinated Area Plans
REQUEST
The Comprehensive Plan Advisoff Committee (CPAC) and the Planning Commission have
recommended use of" coordinated area plans as a Comprehensive Plan implementation tool.
This staff report provides additional information on the elements of" coordinated area plans,
as envisioned by CPAC, and identifies areas of the City where staffdisagrees and agrees with
the Committee and Commission recommendation. Staff identifies an approach that would
incorporate one (or possibly two) area plans into the next phase of the Comprehensive Plan
Update process (preparation of the Draf~ Plan and Dral~ Environmental Impact Report). An
updated schedule is provided which indicates that incorporation of an area plan into the
Comprehensive Plan ~ "pdatc process would likely push adoption of a new Plan into very late
1997 or earl), 1998
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Comprehensive Plan Advisor, Committee (CPAC) and the Planning Commission have
recommended that implementation of the Comprehensive Plan include a series of
coordinated area plans. These area planning efforts would involve extensive public
participation in the creation of more detailed land use plans than traditionally used by the
CiW. The objective of an area planning process is to create land use plans that are both
acceptable to the community and economically viable. In some circumstances, the terms
"area plan" and "Specific Plan" have been used interchangeably. Specific Plans are an
implementation tool allowed under State law and would be one possible way of
implementing area plans. The details of implementing an area plan would need to be
identified as part of the area plan process.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95) Page 1 of 32
Staff recommends that:
Coordinated area plans are not needed for Stanford Shopping Center and the three
(Charleston, Alma, Edgewood) neighborhood centers.
A plan for the Stanford Medical Center area should be undertaken by Stanford ~
.~ 1 ,~..- n~ if they d exp ofthrequest to, cxpan ansion e Medical Center’s
development potential.
The City. should acknowledge in the Comprehensive Plan that more detailed (than
traditional for the City) land use plans are appropriate and desired for:
-Midtown;
-California-Ventura Area;
-E1 Camino Real (from Curtner to Charleston);
-South of Forest Area (including Palo Alto Medical Foundation lands); and
the Dream Team Area (lands on either side of University Circle west of the
railroad tracks).
e Council wishes to pursue an area an
as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, it is recommended that the Cal-Ventura
area be the foc~ ~[ the area plan and staff be directed to return to Council with
Comprehensive Plan consultant contact amendments for the area plan work and
a~eements wtth mq!or proper& owners regarding sharing the cost of the work. ~
~,-,-~,,~---’ th~ ~e Midtown ~ea is being ~ studied sep~ately, co~encing
wi~ a propen3 o~ncr-funded m~ter site ply. ~e approach taken is would bc more
prope~’ owner-driven th~ ~e ~eawide ply.
If the Council wishes to pursue an area planning approach, either as part of or
separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update, it is recommended that staff be
directed to return to Council with an implementing ordinance and procedures.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The key policy issue is to what extent should the City rely on traditional planning and zoning
approaches for areas where either the private market has not functioned particularly well in
past decades (e.g., Midtown, neighborhood shopping centers, portions of E1 Camino Real)
or the City anticipates and!or desires significant change (e.g., University Train Station/Dream
Team area, California-Ventura, Midtown). CPAC and the Planning Commission recommend
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95) Page 2 of 32
that the City more actively intervene in areas where change is desired. It is important to
stress that the focus of area plans is to facilitate and manage physical change. As such, the
product of an area planning effort should be both acceptable to the community and
economically feasible for both the private sector and the City.
City intervention would involve both process and regulatory product considerations. The
CPAC-envisioned process for developing land use plans for desired change areas would
involve substantial public participation, organized in a structured problem-solving approach
prior to formal City review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The regulatory
product would most likely be more detailed and visually oriented (i.e, three dimensional
plans, arrd. guidelines and regulations rather than the traditional mapped land use plan and
zoning designations).
The roles and obligations of the City Council, City staff, directly affected property owners
and the general public, including neighbors and other interested parties, would be different
with coordinated area plans than with either traditional City initiated land use planning
studies or developer initiated proposals. Roles and obligations include:
City Council -
Establish process and product parameters and expectations including guiding
principles; the nature of the public process," product specifications, including
plans, guidelines and regulations; time frame; and a decision on the extent of
public and private sector financing of the area plan.
General willingness to look favorably upon proposed change if the process
yields general agreements among the major participants. "General
willingness" means that Council concerns and possible changes should focus
more on significant public policy issues than the details of a proposal.
"General agreements" means that most participants are in agreement but
recognizes that 1 O0 percent agreement is neither necessary nor appropriate.
-Willingness to commit City. resources (dollars and stafftime) to the process.
-Willingness to take the risk that a proactive planning effort may not succeed.
City staff-
Allocate time and effort to administer consultant contracts and the planning
process, including undertaking technical work.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95) Page 3 of 32
r,11.~o1,~,1 ,~,OUlL. To the greatest extent possible, given planning, legal and
fiscal constraints, allow the process to shape the policy and physieal results
without interjecting preconceived staff objectives.
Provide education and advice in the planning process regarding urban design
and urban planning concepts, area history, existing City policies and
regulations, and technical considerations.
Provide policy and technical advice regarding the outcome of the public
process to the City Council and advisor3, bodies.
Commercial/nonresidential and other directly affected property owners -
City staff believes that property owners who stand to gain from the process
should be expected to financially contribute to the cost of consultants.
Willingness to participate and cooperate in both the planning process and the
results (noting again that creation of economically viable results is a key
objective).
Public (neighbors and other interested parties),
Willingness to participate and cooperate in an effort to achieve positive results.
Willingness to accept results if the process has been open and fair and most
participants concur with a set of recommendations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CPAC recommends coordinated area plans for the following areas:
Midtown (CD Sections, pp. 33)
E1 Camino Real (CD Section, pp. 31)
California-Ventura Area (CD Section, pp. 14)
Dream Team Area (CD Section, pp. 12)
Stanford Medical Center (CD Section, pp. 12)
South of Forest Area (SOFA) (CD Section, pp. 13)
Charleston Shopping Center (CD Section, pp. 36)
Alma Plaza (CD Section, pp. 36)
Edgewood Plaza (CD Section, pp. 36)
Stanford Shopping Center (CD Section, pp. 24 and 25)
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113195)Page 4 of 32
Staff recommends that coordinated area plans are not needed for Stanford Shopping Center
and the three (Charleston, Alma, Edgewood) neighborhood centers. Instead, owners should
be encouraged to develop and share master plans for the use and upgrading of these sites.
Planning for the Stanford Medical Center should be included by Stanford as part of tt’re
ipat ny futantic cd a ure Medical Center expansion proposedal
in-lakg-5,-96. Detailed planning for the Dream Team area (i.e., University Avenue train
Station area) can and should wait until after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has identified four of the areas cited by CPAC for proactive planning as being of the
highest priority. These areas are Cal-Ventura, Midtown, South E1 Camino Real from Curtner
to Charleston, and SOFA/PAMF. Cal-Ventura and Midtown have a clear need for attention
in the near future. SOFA/PAMF is likely to need to receive attention sometime a~cr
3pring of in 1996, wher~ after the City review process for PAMF’s Urban Lane project is
--~,,.,v,,~,.,, to be completed. South E1 Camino Real, while of significant concern, has
somewhat less pressing issues than the other three areas.
A key characteristic of the four highest priority areas is the close relationship of residential
and nonresidential land. Staff concludes that any area planning effort that does not involve
the neighborhood(s) early and often in the plan developmel.t process has a significantly
lower chance of eventual adoption and success. Each of these areas involves difficult
physical and economic issues, that should be addressed within a process that offers ongoing
opportunities for all stakeholders to voice their needs and desires, hear the needs and desires
of others, and learn from technical experts the possibilities and consequences of various
courses of action. Key resources in this type of process include neutral process facilitation,
professional land use/design expertise, economic expertise, m~td transportation and other
technical expertise, and legaliregulatot3,program consultation.
Adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan is unlikely to occur until "~-~
late summer or early fall of 1997. The combination of near-term property owner desires for
direction and decisions and property owner and community desires for change lead staff to
conclude that it would be better to incorporate plans for the Cal-Ventura area into Phase III
of the Comprehensive Plan Update process (i.e., preparation of a draft Plan; likely to begin
in September 1995). An area planning process along the lines envisioned by CPAC and the
Planning Commission can be developed for the Cal-Ventura area, focusing primarily on the
area bounded by Page Mill Road, E1 Camino Real, the residential areas south of Lambert and
the railroad tracks. May 23 and June 12, 1995 staff reports regarding Midtown propose a
separate planning approach for the Midtown area. This would result in at least a 3 to 4
month delay in adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan, but the specific timing and process
details have yet to be worked out. ~-:~ "~ .... ,-÷~.~ n~ .......... :
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 5 of 32
If an area plan is incorporated into Phase IIl, it is important to stress
~,,~,,,~ ~n several critical assumptions:
The current Comprehensive Plan consulting team and Keyser Marston will be used,
rather than starting a new consultant selection and contracting process.
Major property owners are willing to participate in the planning process.
Any approval of a PAMF relocation plan includes both restrictions on what PAMF
can do with their current properties and commitments to a future area planning
process sufficient to reassure PAMF’s neighbors that they will not be placed in a
purely reactive position to a future redevelopment proposal.
Staff has n~t begun to work with the City’s consultants to estimate the costs of doing an area
planning study either independently or as part of Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan
Update. Advice has been sought from the major Comprehensive Plan consultants. The
combination of a facilitator, community design resource~ economist, and environmental
impact, including transportation expertise, is likely to cost approximately $200,000-250,000.
In addition, tegal/regulatory program assistance to the City Attorney’s Office may be needed.
If undertaken at a time when City staff resources are substantially committed to other work,
a contract planner to supplement City staff would be necessary and would cost between
$50,000 and $75,000 for a 10- to 12-month work period. As a matter of policy, staff
concludes that it is a reasonable City expectation that commercial property owners in the Cal-
Ventura area, as well as other areas undergoing area plans ~,’,idt~-c,’n, be expected to pay
some percentage of the consultant costs for the area planning efforts. Some other City costs
may be offset by a cost recovery mechanism related to future building permits.
Since the June 10 staff report was prepared, staff in consultation with Comprehensive Plan
consultant Daniel Iacofano has developed more detailed aspects of an area planning effort.
Guiding Principles
Quality design consistent with City and community goals --
An area planning process needs to be conducted within the context of adopted land
use and other City goals and policies. Critical goals and policies should be identified
by the City Council at the beginning of the area planning process. This goal and
policy framework will be important in focusing the subsequent work on the area plan.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 6 of 32
A major theme of CPAC’s recommendations is creating better opportunities for a
physical and psychological sense of community. Any area planning process is a
critical opportunity to do this both through public involvement and the nature of the
physical recommendations. Extensive opportunities for public involvement through
workshops or other mechanisms is essential An area planning process will have a
greater design component than traditional City land use plans. Design and land use
needs to be integrated with and compatible with existing residential and non-
residential areas surrounding the focus of the area plan.
Economic incentives --
One of the purposes of an area plan is to facilitate desired physical change. To
accomplish that desire, the area plan needs to provide enough economic incentive for
the private sector to proceed with development. Likewise for the public sector, there
must be sufficient assurance that development will proceed to warrant appropriate
infrastructure investments. Implementation of an area plan may span a considerable
time period. To help facilitate individual investment decisions, the results of an
approved area plan need to be structured so that they are a reliable basis for both
private and public sector investment decisions.
Development feasibility --
The physical development concepts incorporated into an area plan have to be
supported by the market in order for the desired changes to occur.
Environmental quality and review --
The level of development incorporated into an area plan should not overwhelm the
resource carrying capaciO, of both the immediate area and the broader community.
The environmental review document prepared for an area plan should be structured
to facilitate subsequent implementation of the area plan.
Manage the area’s public and private improvement process to facilitate desired
changes --
As noted before, an area pla~ning process is intended to facilitate physical change.
For the private sector, land use policies and implementation tools need to be oriented
to achieve the desired changes. The area plan should clearly identify public and
private sector investment expectations. The public sector expectations need to be
consistent with City operating and capital budget policies and resources.
Provide opportunities for broad and focused public participation --
The area plan effort needs to provide participation opportunities for all members of
the public who believe they have a stake in the outcome and focused participation
opportunity for those most directly impacted by the plan. Staff envisions use of both
open public meetings and workshops and a Working Group of key property owners,
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 7 of 32
representatives of affected groups (e.g., neighborhood and business associations) and
members of the broader community (e.g., general public, environmental community,
Chamber of Commerce).
Process Parameters
Work needs to be done consistent with a time line/schedule
Integrate the area plan into the Comprehensive Plan
Process needs to be responsive to the needs and constraints of property
owners, people living or working in the surrounding neighborhoods, and the
broader community
Work towards maximum community agreement but not require consensus
Community involvement and communication should involve both large
working meetings involving the active participation of the general public and
a Working Group whose members have both a recommending role to the Cir.,
and a communication and education role to the community
The Working Group should be a representative group of stakeholders in the
immediate area and the broader public
Product Specifications
Comprehensive Plan land use designations
Zoning designations - includes, if necessary, development of new zoning tools
and amendment of existing regulations
General development standards - design guidelines for the private and public
realms that focus on volume and placement of future development and
landscape expectations. Guidelines are not intended to be detailed building-
specific designs
Circulation plan
Environmental analysis (assumed to be an environmental impact report)
¯List of public investments and relatedfinancingplan.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113/95)Page 8 of 32
Staff/Consultant Resources
In addition to staff resources, needed consultant resources include."
o
o
o
o
Facilitator
Community Design
Development-oriented economist
Technical- environmental, transportation and perhaps others
Legal/regulatory program consultation
Time Frame
The minimum time needed to have an intensive public process and prepare a draft
Area Plan and draft EIR is seven months followed by three to four months for
Planning Commission and City Council review.
A revised Comprehensive Plan Update time line has beenprepared. If the Council concludes
review o fall dr@ goals, policies and programs by the end of Janua~ and all Land Use Map
issues by the end of February, adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan could occur in late
summer or early fall of 1997. If an area plan is added to the Plan update process, adoption
of a new Comprehensive Plan is unlikely to occur before at least 1998.
FISCAL IMPACT
Individual area plans will address issues having positive and negative fiscal impacts on the
CiD’. These impacts should be addressed in the area planning process.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
At the current stage of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, the Council is giving
direction for items to be incorporated into a draft Plan. Future preparation and review of the
Draft Comprehensive Plan, with or without area plans, will be the subject of an
environmental impact report.
Prepared By: Kenneth R. Schreiber
Nancy Maddox Lytle
James E. Gilliland
Department Head Review:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community, Environment
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 9 of 32
CiB, Manager Approval:
CMR:295:95 Devised 11/13/95)Page 10 of 32
SUBJECT:Comprehensive Plan Update - Staff Recommendations Regarding
Coordinated Area Plans
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and the Planning Commission have
recommended that implementation of the Comprehensive Plan include a series of
coordinated area plans. These area planning efforts would involve extensive public
participation in the creation of more detailed land use plans than traditionally used by the
City. Staff recommends that:
Coordinated area plans are not needed for Stanford Shopping Center and the three
(Charleston, Alma, Edgewood) neighborhood centers.
A plan for the Stanford Medical Center area should be undertaken by Stanford ~
-~ ,’ ~,--. J.,-~,~n~ if they request ~-,,, cxpand expansion of the Medical Center’s
development potential.
The City should acknowledge in the Comprehensive Plan that more detailed (than
traditional for the City) land use plans are appropriate and desired for:
Midtown;
California-Ventura Area;
E1 Camino Real (from Curtner to Charleston);
South of Forest Area (including Palo Alto Medical Foundation lands); and
the Dream Team Area (lands on either side of University Circle west of the
railroad tracks).
e Council wishes to pursue an area
plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, it is recommended that the Cal-
Ventura area be the foc~ of the area plan and staff be directed to return to Council
with Comprehensive Plan consultant contact amendments for the area plan work and
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 11 of 32
agreements with major property owners regarding sharing the cost of the work. trots
,~,~on-,i.~.~,,.,~ .,.~ The Midtown area # being be studied separately, commencing
with a property owner-funded master site plan. The approach taken is ...... ,~ t.~
property owner-driven than the areawide plan.
If the Council wishes to pursue an area planning approach, either as part of or
separate from the Comprehensive Plan Update, it is recommended that staff be
directed to return to Council with an implementing ordinance and procedures.
BACKGROUND
The City’s approach to regulating land use and encouraging desired design features has been
primarily to rely on Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and zoning regulations to
establish the expectations for development. Property owners/developers are then encouraged
to work ’within the box’ (i.e., within the parameters set by the policies and regulations) with
the expectation that adequately-designed projects will be approved by the appropriate City
body. There has been significant opposition to a more active planning process that would
establish more detailed design and use expectations and requirements for the property owner.
The city’s approach has worked very well in the Downtown, Stanford Research Park and
much of the Sand Hill Corridor, especially the Shopping Cev.ter, and reasonably well in the
California Avenue commercial area. The approach has been less successful for Midtown,
sections of E1 Camino Real, and the neighborhood shopping centers.
CPAC has recommended that the City engage in proactive planning (coordinated area plans)
for areas where the City wishes to see extensive physical upgrading and change. It is very
important to stress the critical underlying assumption that there are areas where the City
wants to see physical upgrading, including likely redevelopment of some properties.
Proactive planning, as discussed in this report, is fundamentally about how to facilitate
physical change. The key objective is to identify land use changes that are publicly (and thus
politically) acceptable and economically viable. The resulting physical change may, and
often will, involve more intense levels of development than currently exist. More intense
development involves more usable floor area and/or changes in development perimeters (e.g.,
parking ratios, height, setbacks, use restrictions). Thus proactive planning focuses on areas
where CPAC and others believe that current conditions are a problem and continuation of
existing policies and regulations does not encourage the upgrading that is desired.
Coordinated area plans, implemented through techniques such as specific plans, precise
plans, and more detailed zoning regulations, including design requirements, offer the
opportunity to create a new ’box’ of regulations within which developers could have a
relatively high chance of gaining approval of specific development proposals. Underlying
assumptions behind area planning are that the City’s zoning regulations do not offer
sufficient flexibility to induce substantial physical upgrading in areas experiencing problems;
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 12 of 32
parcel and ownership patterns are often obstacles that need to be overcome in part by City
incentives and regulations; broadly based increases in zoning flexibility and development
potential without detailed design expectations will not be acceptable to the residential
property owners and occupants living near problem areas; and creation of a new and
expanded ’box’ of regulations will encourage new development. While there are some
common characteristics described later in this report that apply to the concept ofproactive
planning, there is no universal process that can be applied to all areas. Each area for which
change is desired will need to have a specific process created that fits factors such as current
use and occupancy conditions, parcel size, configuration and ownership patterns, the strength
of existing property owner and occupant organizations and the history of development-
related activities in the area.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The key policy issue is to what extent should the City rely on traditional planning and zoning
approaches for areas where either the private market has not functioned particularly well in
past decades (e.g., Midtown, neighborhood shopping centers, portions of E1 Camino Real)
or the City anticipates and!or desires significant change (e.g., University Train Station!Dream
Team area, California-Ventura, Midtown). CPAC and the Planning Commission recommend
that the City more actively intervene in areas where change is desired.
City intervention would involve both process and regulatory product considerations. The
CPAC-envisioned process for developing land use plans for desired change areas would
involve substantial public (i.e., nonresidential property owners, residential property owners,
merchants, renters, and other interested members of the community.) participation organized
in a structured problem-solving approach prior to formal Cit3.’ review by the Planning
Commission and City Council. The regulatory product would most likely be more detailed
and visually oriented (i.e, three dimensional plans, ~ guidelines and regulations rather than
the traditional mapped land use plan and zoning designations).
The roles and obligations of each of the major participants in the land use planning and
development process would include some changes under proactive planning as recommended
by CPAC and the Planning Commission versus more traditional pr6cesses. Roles and
obligations include:
City Council -
Establish process and product parameters and expectations, including guiding
principles; the nature of the public process; product specifications, including
plans, guidelines and regulations," time frame; and a decision on the extent of
public and private sector financing of the area plan.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113/95)Page 13 of 32
General willingness to look favorably upon proposed change if the process
yields general agreements among the major participants. "General
willingness" means that Council concerns and possible changes should focus
more on significant public policy issues than the details of a proposal.
"General agreements" means that most participants are in agreement but
recognizes that 100 percent agreement is neither necessary nor appropriate.
-Willingness to commit City resources (dollars and staff time) to the process.
-Willingness to take the risk that a proactive planning effort may not succeed.
City. staff-
Allocate time and effort to administer consultant contracts and the planning
process, including undertaking technical work.
_t....: ~, .....,~ To the greatest extent possible, given planning, legal and
fiscal constraints, allow the process to shape the policy and physical results
without interjecting preconceived staff objectives.
Provide education and advice in the planning process regarding urban design
and urban planning concepts, area history, existing CiU’ policies and
regulations, and technical considerations.
Provide policy and technical advice regarding the outcome of the public
process to the CityCouncil and advisory bodies.
Commercial/nonresidential and other directly affected property owners -
City staff believes that property owners who stand to gain from the process
should be expected to financially contribute to the cost of consultants.
Willingness to participate and cooperate in both the planning process and the
results (noting again that creation of economically viable results is a key
objective).
Public (neighbors and other interested parties) -
Willingness to participate and cooperate in an effort to achieve positive results.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95) Page 14 of 32
Willingness to accept results if the process has been open and fair and most
participants concur with a set of recommendations.
DISCUSSION
Introduction
The CPAC process concluded that for many areas of the City, more detailed land use
planning is necessary than could be accommodated in the CPAC process. CPAC and the
Planning Commission recommended that the City undertake proactive planning (i.e.,
development of coordinated area plans) for a large number of areas.
If the City is to undertake a proactive planning approach, questions need to be addressed,
including:
What areas should be focused on, recognizing that detailed area planning is costly and
requires significant staff time?
What should be the public participation and other procedural aspects and expectations
of these studies7
Is there a need or desire to incorporate one or more of these studies into the
Comprehensive Plan Update process, rather than waiting until after adoption of the
new Plan?
Are these studies to be funded entirely by the City or should, at least in some areas,
property owners be encouraged or expected to financially participate?
The following material is organized in these sections:
-City staffs November 1994 Comments on CPAC Recommendations
-General components of an Area Planning Program
-Detailed Aspects of an Area Plan
-Alternatives to Area Planning as Envisioned by CPAC
-High Priority Areas for Area Plans/Special Land Use Studies
The Possibility of Integrating One or Two Area Plans Into the Comprehensive Plan
Update Process.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 15 of 32
City Staff’s November 1994 Comments on CPAC Recommendations
The following observations on CPAC’s Community Design recommendations are from the
November 7, 1994 staff report (CMR:496:94) that transmitted staff comments on CPAC
recommendations:
"CPAC’s recommendations for proactive plans/preparation of coordinated area
plans raise critical policy issues. The City’s approach to regulating land use
and encouraging desired design features has been primarily to rely on
Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and zoning regulations to establish
the expectations for development. Properly owners/developers are then
encouraged to work ’within the box’ (i.e., within the parameters set by the
policies and regulations) with the expectation that adequately-designed
projects will be approved by the appropriate City body. There has been
significant opposition to a more active planning process that would establish
more detailed design and use expectations and requirements for the property
owner. The city’s approach has worked very well in the Downtown, Stanford
Research Park and much of the Sand Hill Corridor, especially the Shopping
Center, and reasonably well in the California Avenue commercial area. The
approach has been less successful for Midtown, sections of E1 Camino Real,
and the neighborhood shopping centers.
"The policy issue for the City is to what extent should the City rely on the
traditional planning and zoning approach for areas where the private market
has not functioned particularly well in past decades. CPAC has recommended
that the City engage in proactive planning (coordinated area plans) for areas
where the City wishes to see extensive physical upgrading and change.
Coordinated area plans (e.g., specific plans, precise plans, more detailed
zoning regulations, including design requirements) offer the opportunity to
create a new ’box’ of regulations within which developers could have a
relatively high chance of approval. Underlying assumptions behind area
planning are that the City’s zoning regulations do not offer sufficient
flexibility to induce substantial physical upgrading in areas experiencing
problems; parcel and ownership patterns are obstacles that can best be
overcome by City incentives and regulations; broadly based increases in
zoning flexibility and development potential without detailed design
expectations will not be. acceptable to the residential property owners and
occupants living near problem areas; and creation of a new and expanded
’box’ of regulations will encourage new development. Properly done area
plans involve business and residential property owners and sufficient process
management, planning, economic, and environmental review resources to
attain an implementable set of plans. It is important to stress that area
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 16 of 32
planning involves a significant commitment of City resources (on the order of
$200,000 each); state law on specific plans permits full recovery of the City’s
costs. Also, many area planning efforts result in the need/desire for
substantially more detailed land use regulations than the City has used in the
past, and City decision makers should be prepared to consider and impose a
greater regulatory burden.
"Other jurisdictions report that Plans have resulted in greater clarity and
simplicity than our current regulations. For example, Specific Plans which are
also zoning ordinances remove many physical inconsistencies between code
sections by requiring the city to technically solve spatial or design conflicts
and inconsistencies prior to adopting regulations and applying the resulting
inconsistency to specific areas. Rather than approving regulations in the
’abstract’ that then don’t work, these plans can streamline development.
"CPAC recommends coordinated area plans for the following areas:
"Midtown (CD Sections, pp. 33)
E1 Camino Real (CD Section, pp. 31)
California-Ventura area (CD Section, pp. 14)
Dream Team area (CD Section, pp. 12)
Stanford Medical Center (CD Section, pp. 12)
South of Forest Area (SOFA) (CD Section, pp. 13)
Charleston Shopping Center (CD Section, pp. 36)
Alma Plaza (CD Section, pp. 36)
Edgewood Plaza (CD Section, pp. 36)
Stanford Shopping Center (CD Section, pp. 24 and 25)
"Staff recommends that coordinated area plans are not needed for Stanford
Shopping Center and the three (Charleston, Alma, Edgewood) neighborhood
centers. Instead, owners should be encouraged to develop and share master
plans for the use and upgrading of these sites.
"As noted in the Business and Economics section (pp. 16 and 17, Policy BE-
15A), initial expectations for SOFA are varied and likely to be in conflict. In
November of 1993, the City Council directed that there be a planning charette
process for SOFA after City Council action on the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation’s Urban Lane redevelopment application. Unless the Council
adopts a policy to not consider doing coordinated area planning and to rely
strictly on conventional zoning approaches, the decision as to the best planning
process for SOFA should emerge from Council review of the planning charette
results.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95) Page 17 of 32
"The use of a more detailed planning process for the Medical Center assumes
that the City is receptive to additional development beyond the current Public
Facilities zone 1:1 floor area ratio. If the City is receptive, as recommended
by staff, the preparation by Stanford of a Master Plan for City review,
modification and approval would be appropriate. A coordinated area plan as
envisioned by CPAC for larger multi-parcel/use areas would not be necessary.
"The Dream Team area redevelopment hopes and desires are linked to the
creation of a carefully planned and integrated multi-use urban environment.
Preparation of a coordinated area plan would be a logical extension of the
process.
"Midtown, E1 Camino Real south of Page Mill, and the California-Ventura
area are the three areas where either the private redevelopment process has not
worked well in the 1980s (Midtown and significant sections of E1 Camino
Real) or, for California-Ventura, the CPAC process has identified a significant
desire for physical change and upgrading. The issue for the Council is whether
change (assuming it is desired) is best facilitated by reliance on the traditional
City zoning/private development proposal/City review process approach or
whether desired change needs a more active intervention by the City."
General Components of an Area Planning Program as Envisioned bv CPAC
Area planning efforts, as envisioned by CPAC, reflect widespread discontent, emerging
throughout the nation, with traditional planning and development processes. There have
recently been a variety of efforts to find a way to develop land use plans, especially for infill
development and redevelopment of established communities, that result in both community
acceptance and economically viable development regulations. In reviewing the literature on
successful in fill and redevelopment efforts, some common process characteristics have been
identified. The following observations reflect both the emerging nationwide trends and staff
observations about Palo Alto’s traditional planning process.
Public Participation - There are significant community support and procedural reasons
for having a much more broadly based public participation process than has been
historically used. The traditional process would have City staff, perhaps with
consultant assistance, prepare a proposed one-dimensional land use plan. Plan
preparation might involve a small advisory group and one or more public meetings
intended to gain community sentiment. The draft plan would be sent to the Planning
Commission and then on to the City Council. Public debate would focus on pro and
con reactions to the draft plan and take the form primarily of limited time speaker
presentations and letters. At the conclusion of the process, there almost always would
be a sense of winners and losers.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95) Page 18 of 32
A public participation approach that is emerging nationwide and which found strong
support within CPAC would focus on a process open to a wide range of
"stakeholders" representing property owners and all other elements of the community
with concerns about the particular issues. A neutral facilitator and design
professional(s) would manage an extensive public process of workshops and
meetings, during which all affected parties could present their views, learn the views
of others and engage in structured behavior intended to seek compromises that are
physically and financially workable and acceptable development solutions. The
CPAC one-day workshops were mini-versions of this process. An actual process
would be longer and more detailed, with the goal of generating a widely supported,
economically feasible land use plan, with a predictable physical development
outcome, along with related implementation tools. The traditional Planning
Commission and City Council public hearing process would focus on the land use
plan and development standards that, if the process is successful, already has
significant community, including property owner, support. In many of these
processes, the active involvement of some Commissioners and Council Members is
provided for in the plan development process.
Neutral Process Facilitator - In complex and highly charged public process situations,
it is impossible for staff to combine the roles of technical resource and policy advisor
to the Commission and Council with being a neutral meeting and process facilitator.
This is a lesson that City staffleamed in the 1970s and 1980s. Complicated and
emotional land use-oriented public meetings are far more likely to be successful if
organized and run by someone with professional training in meeting/process
facilitation and no stake in the outcome.
Professional Land Use/Design Resources - To make these planning efforts successful,
there needs to Ix" the involvement of creative design professional(s) with the ability
to illustrate and communicate solutions. Participants and observes of community-
based planning cl’tbrks stress that when community members can see, in clear visual
form, and then discuss, what is being proposed, there is a much better chance to
transcend the NIMBY concerns that plague so many proposed development, and
especially infill and redevelopment, efforts. An important assumption is that three-
dimensional illustration of proposed land use regulations is more effective than the
traditional land use map.
Economic Analysis Expertise - Resolution of multiple parcel (i.e., areawide) land use
issues inherently involves economics and numerous aspects of potential development
feasibility or infeasibility. In the 1970s and much of the 1980s, Palo Alto’s planning
processes contained relatively little and ot~entime no economic expertise. In the far
more competitive environment of the 1990s, the economic feasibility of proposed lane
use plans is critical if implementation is desired, especially in the reasonably near
CMR:295:95 0~evised 11/13/95)Page 19 of 32
future. The previously described public process needs to have available a neutral and
highly creditable economist. This is another role that City staff, even if the expertise
were available, can not fill.
Technical Resources - In order to be adopted, the product of an area study needs to
have an appropriate environmental review. For larger areas with complex issues, the
environmental review will probably be an EIR. For both the public plan development
process and the subsequent environmental documentation, staff resources will need
to be supplemented by technical resources not available within City staff. The type
of outside expertise needed will vary, depending on the issues involved with a
particular area. In nearly all, if not all, cases, additional resources will be needed for
traffic modeling and forecasting, visual simulation and analysis, site planning and
design review, and assisting staff in preparing the environmental review documents.
Another technical resource would be assistance to the City Attorney’s Office in the
analysis of issues and development of regulatory tools.
There is no one best way to construct the details of an area planning process. Factors
individual to an area will influence the specifics of the process. For example:
Parcel ownership patterns may mean that one or several larger properties become a
key focus for an area or the process may need to find a way to establish cooperation
among a varied group of smaller property, owners.
The objectives of key property owners can vary from protecting long-standing family
considerations to developer/investor-based objectives 0fsale and capital gain.
The histor-, of a particular area, both in terms of internal factors and relationship to
the City. will bc an important consideration.
The ex~tent to \~hich the City is looked to for financial and physical involvement can
vary substantiall\.
If area planning is to be undertaken, a specific process will need to be identified for each
area. Identification of the process would most likely be undertaken by a combination of the
person who would facilitate the public process and Cit3, staff, with recommendations
reviewed and approved by the Council.
A major and time-consuming City staff activity is the consultant hiring (developing request
for proposal and work scope, selecting the consultants, preparing contracts) and consultant
work management (i.e., contract administration) effort. It is fairly typical to require 50 to
200 hours of staff time over a four month period to complete the City consultant selection
and hiring process. Coordination and management of a consultant contract and related
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11113/95)Page 20 of 32
administrative work can consume 10 to 50 percent of a staff person’s time per week,
depending on the complexity of the contract. With complex area planning efforts often
involving more than one consultant contract, a significant part of the available City resources
can be consumed in managing the needed experts.
The complexity of the process described above is why staff, after consultation with people
who have undertaken these processes, indicated that area planning efforts can cost on the
order of $200,000 or more and take 18 months to complete. Assuming different consultant
teams, undertaking more than one of these efforts at a time would be very difficult within
existing City staff resources. Using the same consultants working under one contract could
mean that two areas could be addressed at one time.
Area planning, as set forth in CPAC’s Community Design recommendations, implies major
area study efforts after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The City would designate
certain areas for future study in the Comprehensive Plan while maintaining the existing land
use designations until the study was complete. As part of or after adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan, the City Council would determine priorities and timing for future study
areas and the type of planning process desired.
Detailed Aspects of an Area Plan
In late summer and early fall of 1995, City staff, in consultation with Comprehensive Plan
process consultant Daniel Iacofano, discussed more detailed aspects of an area planning
effort. These details are in the following discussion of Guiding Principles, Process
Parameters, Product Specifications, Staff/Consultant Resources and Time Frame. These
parameters and expectations are critical to establishing an area planning process. A key
role for the City Council is setting this framework in place.
Guiding Principles
Quality design consistent with City and community goals --
An area planning process needs to be conducted within the context of adopted land
use and other City goals and policies. Critical goals and policies should be identified
by the City Council at the beginning of the area planning process. This goal and
policy framework will be important in focusing the subsequent work on the area plan.
A major theme of CPAC’s recommendations & creating better opportunities for a
physical and psychological sense of community. Any area planning process is a
critical opportunity to do this both through public involvement and the nature of the
physical recommendations. Extensive opportunities for public involvement through
workshops or other mechanisms is essent~tl. An area planningprocess will have a
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95) Page 21 of 32
greater design component than traditional City land use plans.
needs to be integrated with and compatible with existing
residential areas surrounding the focus of the area plan.
Design and land use
residential and non-
Economic incentives --
One of the purposes of an area plan is to facilitate desired physical change. To
accomplish that desire, the area plan needs to provide enough economic incentive for
the private sector to proceed with development. Likewise for the public sector, there
must be sufficient assurance that development will proceed to warrant appropriate
infrastructure investments. Implementation of an area plan may span a considerable
time period To help facilitate individual investment decisions, the results of an
approved area plan need to be structured so that they are a reliable basis for both
private and public sector investment decisions.
Development feasibility --
The physical development concepts incorporated into an area plan have to be
supported by the market in order for the desired changes to occur.
Environmental quality and review --
The level of development incorporated into an area plan should not overwhelm the
resource car~, ing capacity of both the immediate area and the broader community.
The environmental review document prepared for an area plan should be structured
to facilitate subsequent implementation of the area plan.
Manage the area’s public and private improvement process to facilitate desired
changes --
As noted before, an area planning process is intended to facilitate ph.vsical change.
For the private sector, land use policies and implementation tools need to be oriented
to achieve the desired changes. The area plan should clearly identify public and
private sector investment expectations. The public sector expectations need to be
consistent with City operating and capital budget policies and resources.
Provide opportunities for broad and focused public participation --
The area plan effort needs to provide participation opportunities for all members of
the public who believe they have a stake in the outcome and focused participation
opportunity for those most directly impacted by the plan. Staff envisions use of both
open public meetings and workshops and a Working Group of key property owners,
representatives of affected groups (e.g., neighborhood and business associations) and
members of the broader community (e.g., general public, environmental community,
Chamber of Commerce).
Process Parameters
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 22 of 32
The following process parameters represent some aspects of the Guiding Principles as well
as the concern that the land use planning process can take an extensive amount of time and
effort. Containing the process within a reasonable (and Council established) time line and
stating that the public process does not have to achieve universal agreement (i.e. consensus)
are important.
Work needs to be done consistent with a time line/schedule.
Integrate the area plan into the Comprehensive Plan.
Process needs to be responsive to the needs and constraints of property owners,
people living or working in the surrounding neighborhoods, and the broader
community.
Work towards maximum community agreement but not require consensus.
Community involvement and communication should involve both large working
meetings involving the active participation of the general public and a Working
Group whose members have both a recommending role to the City and
communication and education role to the community.
The Working Group should be a representative group of stakeholders in the
immediate area and the broader public.
Product Specifications
The area planning process is intended to be specific. Establishment of general rules and
expectations with the details to be worked out later would not be regarded as a successful
planning process. The followingproduct specifications have been identified:
Comprehensive Plan land use designations
Zoning designations - includes, if necessary, development of new zoning tools and
amendment of existing regulations
General development standards - Design guidelines for the private and public realms
that focus on volume and placement of future development and landscape
expectations. Guidelines are not intended to be detailed building-specific designs.
Circulation plan
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95) Page 23 of 32
¯Environmental analysis (assumed to be an environmental impact report)
°List of public investments and relatedfinancing plan
Sta_ff!Consultant Resources
The preceding part of the June 10 CMR, "Components o fan Area Planning Program as
Envisioned by CPA C" describes in more detail the resources needed in addition to City staff
for an area plan. The consultant resources include."
o
o
o
o
o
Process facilitator
Community/land use design expertise
Development-oriented economist
Technical resources for the environmental review
Legal/regulatory program consultation
Time Frame
Staff concludes that for many reasons, a shorter more concentrated area plan process is
better than an extended process. As noted before, the process should include opportunities
for the general public to participate as well as use of a Working Group. A minimum time
frame, from the point where consultants are hired and the Working Group is appointed,
would include four months of Working Group and public meetings, three additional months
for completion of the Dra3q Area Plan and Drafi EIR and three to four months for public
review of the EIR and Planning Commission and City Council hearings and action on the
draf~ Area Plan. During the four months of Working Group and public meetings, it is
envisioned that there would be eight evening Working Group meetings and two Saturday
public workshops. All Working Group meetings would be open to the public but
participation would focus on Working Group members. One or more additional Working
Group meetings would likely occur during preparation of the draj2 Area Plan.
Alternatives to Area Planning as Envisioned by CPAC
A variety of alternatives exist to develop and process land use plans. Three alternatives to
area planning include:
Staff-directed planning study, using traditional land use designations.
Product:Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map amendments and related Plan
policies, programs and text, and zoning ordinance amendments, along
with other implementation tools.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 24 of 32
Process:Staff-led effort, either with or without a citizens committee, resulting
in a set of proposed Land Use Plan Map designations, related Plan
policies, program and text, and implementation tools. The proposed
City actions would be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to
City Council consideration.
Staff-directed effort to develop one-day workshop results (CPAC or similar process)
into Comprehensive Plan amendments and related implementation tools.
Product:Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map and other graphic
illustrations, related Plan policies, programs and text, and
implementation tools.
o
Process:Similar to process number one, with a range of potential actions.
Property owner-led effort to develop a land use planning approach for the area.
Product:Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map and other graphic illustrations
and related Plan policies, programs and text (and possibly
implementation tools).
Process:Have a group of property owners take the lead in obtaining the
expertise and conducting a community participation process with the
objective of identifying proposed land use planning policies for the
area. In the immediate future, a proposal could receive an initial review
by the Planning Commission and City Council to determine whether it
should be reviewed in the Comprehensive Plan’s Draft EIR or subject
to a separate environmental review.
High Priority. Areas for Area Plans/Special Land Use Studies
Staff concludes that if the City is to undertake detailed area planning, the following areas
should have the highest priority:
California-Ventura
SOFA/Medical Foundation
South El Camino Real (from Curtner to Charleston)
A fourth high priority area is Midtown. T. ¯ ........~ .~._. ~,,:.~ .......~ ........, .....:~
~-~.-~*~, ~ ~.-.**----~ ~,~., ~e Midt0~ E~a is b~ing studied s~paEat~ly, with
the initial involvement of a working goup representing all stakeholders but "--’:--
.~,~: ,~,~, proccas cus on aproper owner-funded master site plan.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95) Page 25 of 32
Regarding these four areas, initial process and product observations include:
Cal-Ventura:
Hewlett Packard’s current closing time for 395 Page Mill Road is Octobcr,
late 1995.
H-P will likely be looking for a reuse decision in 1996 or early 1997.
Two major property, owners (WSJ and H-P) are critical and also could help
fund an area planning effort.
No matter what the Council decides regarding Maximart commercial use
extension, near term and long term complicated land use issues need to be
addressed.
Midtown.
Need cooperation among and buy-in from key commercial property owners.
Cib’ staff’s recently proposed approach for working with the owners of
commercial property in the Midtown core area (CMR:255:95, May 22, 1995)
is an alternative way of addressing Midtown’s issues.
The Ci~~ should be an active player, in addition to being a neutral resource,
primarily because of the City-owned parking lot.
Community and City desire to see change occur may not be consistent with
waiting until after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted to undertake City action.
SOFA/PAMF.
One neighborhood organization is developing a "plan" for the area (or a
portion of the area).
One-day workshop promised by City. Council to be held after PA_MF
relocation proposal decision.
Need to maintain decision to separate redevelopment planning from PAMF
relocation EIR (current target date for Council consideration of PAMF EIR is
~ January 22, 1996).
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 26 of 32
Unresolved question is how to treat in the Comprehensive Plan and whether
redevelopment planning can or should be delayed until after Plan is adopted.
South E1 Camino Real (from Curmer Avenue to Charleston Road)
No dominant property owner(s).
Gradual pace of change.
Area with the most difficult long term parcel size issues.
Of the four areas, this is the lowest priority because the pressure of
immediate/near term major land use decisions is the lowest of the four areas.
In summary, numerous arguments can be made regarding the priority of each area. Hewlett-
Packard’s announced closing of 395 Page Mill Road, now scheduled for Octc~bcr late 1995,
and whatever decision comes out of the former Maximart site amortization extension issue
argue for giving highest priority to the California-Ventura area (and especially the area
bounded by Page Mill, E1 Camino Real, the railroad tracks and the nonresidential area south
of Lambert). Midtown is a legitimate community planning concern and existing conditions
represent a good argument for that area being of highest priority, but an initial revitalization
is under way. Assuming PAMF gains approval of the proposed Urban Lane campus and they
decide to relocate, reuse of the existing Medical Foundation site will result in the need for
a redevelopment planning process that should also include addressing land use issues for the
area west to Alma Street. E1 Camino Real has been of longstanding concern, and there
would be strong community support for making this area the highest priority.
The Possibility.. of Integrating One or Two Area Plans Into the Comprehensive Plan Update
Process
CPAC anticipated that area plans would be undertaken by the City after adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan. Under the current timing of the Plan update, it is unlikely that a new
Plan will be adopted before latelJJ,,’~ ,,, ..... ,.,,l:"" summer or early fall of 1997. This schedule
is based on the assumption that by A-ttg~ January the Council will have finished ~" .... " ~
the current Phase II review to allow staff to start the Draft Plan preparation process and
Council review of Land Use Map issues will conclude by the end of February. Preparation
of the Draft Plan and Draft EIR is anticipated to take six months. Ifa Draft Plan and related
EIR is available for public review starting in March-August 1996, the public review schedule
is likely to go into latc 1996 mid 1997. If the Council wishes to then proceed with an area
plan, consultant selection work would start in ea~ late 1997 (at the earliest)..
C1VIR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 27 of 32
Staff has reviewed the issue resulting from the argument that addressing at least several of
the likely high-priority study areas shouldn’t wait until after the Comprehensive Plan is
adopted. A near-term solution that staff identified is to build on the existing Comprehensive
Plan and other consultant contracts (Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. for process facilitation,
Calthorpe and Associates for site planning and design, Brady and Associates for
environmental review, Cambridge Systematics for transportation analysis, and Keyser
Marston for economic analysis) and develop one or two area plans that would be
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
If one or two area plans were developed as part of preparing the draft Plan, staff concludes
that the schedule for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan would be delayed a minimum of
3 to 4 months. If the City Council is interested in this approach, the details of integrating the
Comprehensive Plan Update schedule with area planning efforts need to be discussed and
refined with the City’s Comprehensive Plan process consultant (Daniel Iacofano) before
1 pp lbyth CityC ileventua a rova e ounc
Staff t de that th
cost of an area planning process will not be significantly lower if incorporated into the
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Conclusion
The Introduction identified four questions regarding proactive planning.
What areas should be focused on, recognizing that detailed area planning is costly and
requires significant staff time?
Staff has identified four of the areas cited by CPAC for proactive planning as
being of the highest priority. These areas are Cal-Ventura, Midtown, South E1
Camino Real from Curmer to Charleston, and SOFA!PAMF. Cal-Ventura and
Midtown have a clear need for attention in the near future. The planning
approach for Midtown isv,~’v~,o,.,~ ÷~,~ ~.~,~ moving forward as a hybrid process,
involving elements of area planning and more traditional City land use studies.
SOFA!P MF is likely to need to receive attention some time m%vth-e-spri~
of- in 1996 or 1997, whert after the City review process for PAMF’s Urban
Lane project is ~-’: ~: ....~ ÷ ~,~,-,.~p,~,.~, ~, be. completed. South E1 Camino Real, while of
significant concern, has somewhat less pressing issues than the other three
areas.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 28 of 32
What should be the public participation and other procedural aspects and expectations
of these studies?
A key characteristic of the four highest priority areas is the close relationship
of residential and nonresidential land. Staff concludes that any area planning
effort that does not involve the neighborhood(s) early and often in the plan
development process has a significantly lower chance of eventual adoption and
success. Each of these areas involves difficult physical and economic issues
that should be addressed within a process that offers ongoing opportunities for
all stakeholders to voice their needs and desires, hear the needs and desires of
others, and learn from technical experts the possibilities and consequences of
various courses of action. Key resources in this type of process include neutral
process facilitation, professional land use/design expertise, economic
expertise, and transportation and other technical expertise.
Is there a need or desire to incorporate one or more of these studies into the
Comprehensive Plan Update process, rather than waiting until after adoption of the
new Plan?
Adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan is unlikely to occur until *~ ~ ~^"
w-irtter late summer or early fall of-1-996 1997.
~-- I ~:~ ~.,). ~ ~ea plying process along ~e lines envisioned by
CPAC ~d thc Pla~ing Co~ission c~ be developed for ~e Cal-Venmra
area. f~using primarily on the ~ea bounded by Page Mill Road, E1 C~ino
Real. the residential ~eas sou~ ofLambe~ ~d ~e railroad ~acks. May 23
and June 12. 1995 staffrepo~s propose a sep~ate plying approach for ~e
If an area plan is incorporated into Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan
Update, it is important tostress ÷~’"~,,~,~,~,,.z,~,~,,on several critical
assumptions:
The current Comprehensive Plan consulting team and Keyser Marston
will be used, rather than starting a new consultant selection and
contracting process.
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95) Page 29 of 32
Major property owners are willing to participate in the planning
process.
Any approval of a PAMF relocation plan includes restrictions on what
PAMF can do with their current properties and commitments to a future
area planning process sufficient to reassure PAMF’s neighbors that they
will not be placed in a reactive position to a future redevelopment
proposal.
With preparation of the Draft Comprehensive Plan and Draft EIR
unlikely to start before the end of January 1996, staff has reassessed
the time line for completion of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Our
revised time line assumes that the Council finishes review of the six
policy areas (i. e. Business and Economics, "Housing, Transportation,
Natural Environment, Community Design and Governance and
Community Services) by the end of January and finishes review of
potential Land Use Map changes by the end of February. With those
assumptions, the Plan update time line would be.
Staff and consultants prepare Dr@ Plan and Dr@ EIR -
February to August, 1996.
Distribution of Draft documents - August, 1996.
Public, Board and Commission reviews -September to
December, 1996.
City Council review, Municipal Code-required Planning
Commission review of Council-proposed changes and Council
final review and adoption - January to late summer or early fall,
1997.
Incorporation of an area plan into the Plan update would add three to
four months to the Plan update schedule with Council adoption of the
new Plan unlikely to occur before the end of 1997. A critical part of
the longer schedule is the integration of the draft area plan into the
Draft EIR’s Transportation analysis of the new Comprehensive Plan.
Are these studies to be funded entirely by the City or should, at least in some areas,
property owners be encouraged or expected to financially participate?
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 30 of 32
Staff has rto~ begun to estimate the costs of doing an area planning study,
either independently or as part of Phase III of the Comprehensive Plan
Update. Advice has been sought from the major Comprehensive Plan
consultants. The combination of a facilitator, community design resource,
economist, environmental impact, including transportation expertise, is likely
to cost approximately $200,000-250,000. In addition, legal/regulatory
program assistance to the City Attorney’s Office may be needed. If undertaken
at a time when City staff resources are substantially committed to other work,
a contractplanner to supplement City staffwould be necessary and would cost
between $50,000 and $75,000 for a 10- to 12-month workperiod. As a matter
of policy, staff concludes that it is a reasonable City expectation that
commercial property owners in the Cal-Ventura area, as well as Midtc, wn
other areas undergoing area plans, be expected to pay some significant
percentage of the consultant costs for the area planning efforts. Some other
City costs may be offset by a cost recovery mechanism related to future
building permits.
The conclusion of staff’s comments on the CPAC Community Design section quoted near
the beginning of this analysis is that:
The issue for the Council is whether change (assuming that it is desired) is best
facilitated by reliance on the traditional City zoning/private development
proposal/City review process approach or whether desired change needs a
more active intervention by the City.
Staff concludes that a more active intervention by the City is appropriate and elements of that
intervention have been described. The above issue should be the starting point and key focus
for City Council consideration of potential area plans.
ALTERNATIVES
The primary alternatives (which are not mutually exclusive) to the area planning approach
are:
Direct staff and the Planning Commission to develop land use recommendations for
all areas of the City for consideration in future Commission and City Council
Comprehensive Plan public hearings,
Where appropriate, designate in the Comprehensive Plan areas for future land use
study, and
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 31 of 32
Review proposed land use changes developed by individual and groups of property
owners, with or without community involvement, as part of Comprehensive Plan and
zoning amendment applications.
FISCAL IMPACT
Individual area plans will address issues having positive and negative fiscal impacts on the
City. These impacts should be addressed in the area planning process.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
At the current stage of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, the Council is giving
direction for items to be incorporated into a draft Plan. Future preparation and review of the
Draft Comprehensive Plan, with or without area plans, will be the subject of an
environmental impact report.
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAl,
The next stage of the Comprehensive Plan Update process is Phase III, Preparation of a Draft
Comprehensive Plan and Draft EIR. If the Council wishes to consider further the possibility
of incorporating one or two area plans into Phase III, staff will return to the Council with
further information on costs and timing implications.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
There are no attachments to this staff report.
cc:Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Planning Commission
CPAC
CMR:295:95 (Revised 11/13/95)Page 32 of 32