The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0175.094HON<JWllE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto. California SELECTION OF CCHUlITY OCSIGII ~HOP STUlY AREAS: CCH'REHENSIVE PlAN ADVISORY ClH4!TTEE (CPAC) RECQIt£NlEll STUlY AR£AS Fal TlREE COi'HJNITY ,'J£SIG/I I«lRJ(SHOI'S Members of the Council: REPORT IN BRIEF This report presents to Council. for their endorsement or modification. the CPAC's recoomended stucfy a~eas for the three hands-OI1 Coomunity Design IIo!i:shops scheduled during Phase II of the ~rehensive Plan process. At the February Ii. 1994. CPAC meeting. the CPAC recoomended that U:e follOWing three areas be studied in the community workshops: 1) Midtown [Area 16 0fI the attached mapJ; 2) South of Forest Avenue including c"rrent Palo Alto Medical Foundatioo Sites (SOfNPAMF) [Area 113]: and 3) Section of £1 Camino Real including El Camino Way thangle [Area flOJ. The staff recOf1lTlendatiOfl is cOfIsistent 'o'ith CPAC for two of the study areas, recoomending in the third case that the area 1ncluding the Fry's/395 Page Hill Road He.llett-Packard sltes [Area 111] be studied in place of the SOfAJPPI'IF stucfy area. The stU<\)' area selectiOfl was based 011 the criteria listed in Attachment A from sites shown 011 Exhibit 1. (See Attachment A: Memorandum dated February 3, 1994; Exhibit 1: Map ShOWing Potential and Rec!Jll1lE!nded StU<\)' Areas.) Background On November 8, 1994. City Council adopted an expanded Comprehensive Plan worlc program to inclu:le a Community Form. Character Element and a Governance Element. That expanded program includes three hands-on coomunity design ""rkshops. "'ere prototypical land use and design issues identified by CPAC 'o'ill be tested 1n t..:>-and three-diRensional studies by CPAC members, interested citizens. professional volunteers and other stakeholders under the direction of the design consultant. A proposed fourth design IoOrkshop was changed by Clty Council to focus instead on cit yon de transportation iSSues. The objel~ives of the workshops include evaluation of planning concepts identified in CPAC's Phase II IoOrk and. especially if a particular planning concept receives strong cOOlllunity support. development of area specific planning pol icies and programs for the new Comprehensive Plan. CI1IU75:94 P: \C!4:\SlDYSITE.OiI. ~ .. ----- 2124/94 1 .~. ",-" , ' ' .. :-:: S:. -" ~ -. • At the January 20, 1994. CPAC meeting, CPAC metTtlers identified areas in the City ...nere they expected significant change may occur .l thin the next 15 years, Around each of these CPAC id€)lltified chanye are~s, staff del ineated a potential stL~y area of manageahle size that could be the subject of a community design workshop, At the February 3. 1994. CPAC neeting. CPAC members were presented .nth a map showing the identified 14 potential study areas and an attached memo frem staff. suggesting criteria for selectlng three Io<lrkshop study areas and mdicating loIlich three areas staff would recOl1ID2fid, The proposed selection criteria were: 1) t.'le area presents opportunlties for redevelopment or improvement: 2) the area embodies problems/elements and potential solutions that are applicable to other areas of the City: and 3) the ared can be addressed in a ooe-day Iofjr',shop, Staff recoomended that no sites be chosen t.~at have current development proposals in process or are the subject of a separate study 0(\0/ undeNdY, CPAC members were aSked to conSider their choices before the february 17 CPAC meeting and to come to that meeting prepared to discuss the varlOUS options. as well as to recommend to City Council three study areas for the community design workshops. SelectiO!l of the Recgmencled Three Study AreaS At their February 17 meeting. CPAC dlSCUSSed toe various potential study areas, including a discussion .nth the City Attorney regarding possible legal coopl icatioos if the '!!:FA/PM area -.ere selected [see Attachment 8J. heard C<lI1Ia'lts fran the general public, and then voted for thei r preferred study areas . .n~h eaCh CPAC mentJer casting votes for three different areas_ The vote was as follows . .nth the three areas marked by an asterlsk being recannended for study at the COOJ1Ulity I«)r<shops: Area 6 Area 3 Area 10 Area 5 Area 11 Area 14 *MidtCWl *SOfAfPAHf *El Camino Reali Ei Camino 'ay Ed~od Pla" fry·siHewlett·Packard Hyatt Rickeysl El Camino Real 29 21 15 13 12 1 At the City CounCil meeting, the CPAC Process Management Committee (PHCj onll explain the reasons CPAC selected tt~se three study areas. ClR175:94 P:\CHR\STDYSITf.CMR 2124/94 2 , The City Attorney advi les that thE C()(T[)rehensive PI an cannot be amended ..t1ile the Develorxnent Agreement w,th the Palo Alto Medlcal Foundation (PM) relMins in force. Moreover. fnxll both a legal and planning viewpoint. consideration of Area 3 would significally complicate the forthcOOing Envi ronmental lrrpact Report for PM· s proposed relocation to the area south of the railroad trac~s betWP.en Holiday Inn and To.<1 and Country Village. Accordingly. staff does nat support the (PAC recommendation to study the SOFAiPAMF area at this time. Based on the study area selection criteri •. staff reccmnends instead study Area 11 that includes the Fry·s and Hewl~tt-Pac.ard Sites and adjacent areas. including the California Avenue train station. The design consulta"t. Peter Cal thorpe. has advised that. ""thin reasoo. relatively complex study sites are JTK)f'e productive than sing;e-issue s1tes. presenting c3 richer mix of issues end solutions and greater applicability to other parts of t<Jofl. For this reasor .. staff believes the rry·s/Hewlett-Packard study area is preferable to the Edge.ood Plaza study area . ..t1ich received Similar but slightly higher support from CPAC. Communitv De'ian Wortsh0Q5 The three Communlty design worts hops are .cheduled to occur on Saturday and Sunday. April 23 and 24. and on Saturday. May 14. with the cOOllllJnity transportation IOlrkshop to occur on Sunday. May 15. The workshops will begin at 10:00 a.m. and end at 5:00 p.m. Each of the three design w:lrkshops will begin with roorning presentations by identified sta.eholders and an opportunity for members of the publi~ to comment. In the afternoon. groups of partiCipants will work at separate tables provided witll spec,.) materials to e.1able them to develop land use and design concepts and solutions for the study area. At the end of tlle day. the groups will share the results of their work. After each of the design worksh(~s. the design consultant. Caltharp!' AsSOCiates. will synthesize the information from the wor. groups and produce plans illustrating the planning and design ideas developed in the w:lr.shop. In any study a rea ..t1ere strong cC>"!JlUnity s uppert for a pI anni og COllCept emerges. the pl ans could form tr,e baSls for poliCies and programs in the new Comprehensive Plan and subsequent implementation through techniques sueil as a SpeciflC PI an. In study areas ""ere no general consensus is developed. the plans will serve to explore and clarify the range of issues affecting future planning and development in the area. Peter Cal thorpe will present plans and written slJllnaries of the results of all three design ""r,shops to the CPAC at thei r June 16 meeting. OtU75:94 p:\~\SmYSITE_~ 2/24/94 3 RecqJlnendat j on Staff recoomends that t~e Clty Counci 1 endorse the folla..ing boG of the three stuQy areas selected by C~AC for stuQy at the COO'IIMlity cEslgn \OiOrkshops: 1) Area 6 . MidtQ\oll: 2) Area 10 • El C,mino Reill f El Ctmino Way Triangle, Staff further recoomends that the City Council endorse study Area 11. as the third stuQy area to be addressed in the coommity desigr. \OiOf'i:.shops. Respectfully sutJnitted. ~..t.-U-R· ~i<. KENNETH R. SCIfU: IBER Director of Planning and Commun1ty En,ironment ~~:~ City Manager Attachment: Attachment A: February 3. 1994 Memorandum and ~ap Attachnent B: January 4, 1994 Memorandum frem Ariel Calonne, C1ty Attorney cc: CPAC Planning Comm1ssion lkliversity Park Neighborhood Association Hoover Pari:. Neighborhood AssociatiOO Suzanne Shields 2/24/94 4 < ATTACHMENT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITfEE To: From: .. February 3, 1994 CPAC Pllinnlng Staff Calthorpe A.s..<oeiates MEMORANDUM 1111' j .. Subject: Site Selection for CO!llIIluniIY Design Worksbops The attacbed map shows the change areas idelllifled by the CPAC. Based 0" these areas, staff has 0IIllined potential study sit"'. At the CP AC meeting on February 17, 1994, the CPAC will cboose three of these areas for study at the three Community Dceign Workshops. (These workshops are now scheduled 10 occur on April 23 and 24, and May 14, 1994.) The CPAC's selection will be forwarded to the City Council for their appoval of the sites at the Council meeting of February 28, 1994. To select • site the following criteria should be used: • R""rtiness for Change • Good DcmODStration Site • Manageable Size Area presenting opportunities for redevelopment or improvemenL Area that embodies problems/elements and potential solutions that are applicable to other areas of the city. Area tbal can be addressed in • one-<iay workshop. Staff recommends that 00 siles be CbooeD that have current development proposals in process or are the subject of a separate study now underway, (i.e. Dream Team Study Area). Staff also recommends that Areas I, 2, 3, 4, 12, and 14 {"highlighted in pink) be excluded from consideration. ,'I:" PAGE TWO SIte SeIedion • Community Design Worksbop February 3, 1994 Of ~ mnajojDg sites, the conrultants and staff consider Areas 6, 10 and 11 (highlighted in greeIl) 10 best meet the sele<.1ioll criten. and recommends thai. these sites be selected for study at the workshops. TIle finaj recommendation is up to the CPAC. Please come prepared on February 17th to work with Peter Calthorpe in making this recommendation. Attachments: Map of Potential Change Areas (p: \CP\wkspste .mem) File: Comnnmity Design Background l ~ til c::::J o 2.000"'1' 40aOf'T L_ I -' t.tHlIHI .i Chnnv NeIlS m.:Wltitied by CPAC Pntenti.a.l Study Artas [or DWgn Wor ... .shopi tdmtifi~ b,. titB.ff. I. Slanfani WCltlSlanfurd Shoppml CenltrJSiIlId tlill Roidl Stllflford Mtdir.;tj Center 2. Inltt1nudal Tl'l!lIsir Sla(ionlUrb.-, Lane 3. 50IiAIPAMF lhflll 4. 5. 6, 7, 8, 9. 10. lL Downtown Nonh Infill Edgewood SiIopping Cer:ler Midtown Wtsl Bayshore Indl.imJallEHl }window CilcldEast BaYlhorr Indl1~lriH1 San Al".tonill Road lrulWlria\ Charie$/{1D Ct".I~rISpangltr SchooUCulJbo:rlr:y EI Camino Rtal COrrid.orlE1 Cimino Way TriLlgle Hewlett PickarJ, Fry". l.. P1I1.Iting Ind Co.mr,. Parkin.\! Lul Sil!!" Al.t:rt.a COlTidoT/AIIlllI. Shopping Center Stanford Rt~Mr,h FllkIPlgt Mill kvld·El CAmino Rul C(Jmer CiIIllllwRnl RECOMMENDED STUDY AREAS STUDY AREAS ~ECO~~[ND[D BY CPAC 13, IG, ,10 STUDY ARfAS RE.COJll!r"[ND[D BY STAfF; 11'11, J?6. inO i } • "'-.'_.: :j ....... ,/" --, ATIACHMENT B f------------------------------------------------~ FkOM CITY ATIORNEY January 4, 1994 COMPREHENS IVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMl TTEE Palo ~tOI Cdlifornia RE: Site Specific Planuing Activiti.es Dear CPA': Members: I indirectly received a copy of a November 21/ 1993. letter from Ms~ Jeanne Moulton regarding CPAC's upcoming site specific Phase II efforts~ MS. Moulton's letter says: ·We have been told that some arcane legal consideration would keep this area from being selected as a site. 4 • • [referring to the South of Forest Avenue neiqhborhoodj ~ ~ . Please don' t let a legal concern that no layperson has been able to explain convincingly become a pretext for setting us aside.- I thought it appropriate that this office respond. I do not know each "legal-consideration described to CPAC by staff with respect to this issuo:. The main concern c'[ this office is simple. The City Council promised not to change tbe Comprehensive Plan designation on the PAMF dOwntOWll site. The promise tak.es shape in a development agreement. The dev-elopment agreement. EIR, and underlying planning decisions have been upheld by both the trial court and court of appeal. In short, the City is not currently in a position to change the Comprehensive Plan deSignation on the PAMF downtow"fl site. We are aware that PAMF is preparing to seek land use and other entitlements to relocate its existing facilities. We are also aware of <and indeed quite sencitive to) the desire of SOPA/University Park neighborhood residents to playa significant role in planning decisions which could affect their quality of life and the des it_ability ot their property. The best information now available to us suggests that the City will not be in a legal position to modify the existing PAMF downtown site Comprehensive Plan desi~~tion within a time fr~~e that is consistent with CPAC's ~10)1aeOOSIQJ5 CO"~ COMPREHE[>ISIVE PLAN ADVISORY COf-lMITIEE Januar"I -4 r 1 ~ 9 4. Page 2 RE: Site Snecjfic Planning Activities activities. On the other hand, it would be lawful and ev-en advisable (for reasons beyo~d the scope of this note) for the City to commit to a site specific ge~Jivalent~ planning process for the SOFA/University park ar~a in connection with any PAMF effort to relocate to another area. I hope the foregoing information is useful. The seE".mingly hostile tone of Ms. Moulton's let.ter ("arcane"' legal "pretext·) compels n".e to offer a reminder to CPAC on the role o.t my office~ We provide legal advice on what can or cannot be done, not whether it should be done. My job description does oot include creating pretextual legal reasons for city decisions. I was understan6ably pleased that we successfully represe1J.ted the Council' B PAMP policy decisions both during administrative h~arings and in court. But please rest assured that we remain personally committed and ethically bour.d to do everything in our power to assure that any fut.ure PAMF-related land us'=! decisions are both lawful and inclusive. APC:lac cc: MS. Jear~e Moult~n City Council June Fleming. City Manager Resp~~~ 4:(~ CALONNE City Attorney Bernie Strojny, Assistant City Manager Ke~ Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment Nancy Lytle, Chief Planning Official HOWJ *' OO.5UllS