HomeMy WebLinkAbout0295.095TO:
FROM:
"~';l" '.'-.-,:
,"-. -
. City of Palo Alto
City l\lanager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ClTI' MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning ud
Community EaviroDmea'
AGElIo'DA DATE: Sal .. If." IIID< n, 1995
November 13, 1995
CMR:19S:9S (REVISED)
SUBJECT:
BEQUEST
Comprehensive PIa. Update -Staff Recomm •• dotio •• Reprdi:lg
Coordi.ofrd Area Plan.
The Cooiprehcnsive Plan Advisory Commi!lee (CPAC) and the Planning Commission bave
recommeMed use of coorotnaled area plans IS • Comprehensive Plan implementation too!.
This sIaIf tqXlrt provides additional infOnnation "" the elements of coonrlllllled area plans,
as env!siooedbyCPAC, and identifies arns of the City when: staffdlsagree5 and agrees with
the Committee and Commission recommeadatiou. Staff identifies an approach lhat would
incorporale one (or possibly twa) area plans into the next phase of the Comprehensive Plan
Update process (pIepaIaOOo of the Draft Plan and Draft Enviromnenlallmpact Report). A"
updated sclreJuk is p<JVideli l4'hk:h maleate. that incorporation of all area pum into tire
Comprelre1lSfve Pia .• Uplfate pocers would liJcely pus" adoption uf Q new l'Ian into very late
J 997 or early 1998.
RECOMMENDADONS
The Comprehens1ve Plan Advisory C<!mmittee (CPAC) and the Planning Commissioo have
recommended lhat implemerrtation of the Con;prebensive PIan include • series of
coordinaled area plans, These area planning efforts would involve extensive public
participation in the creatioo of more d..-Ia!led land use plans than Iraditiooally used by the
City. The objective of an area planning process is 10 estate land use plans thaI are both
ae«pllbi. to the community and ecooomi.:any viable. In some circumstances, the !emlS
-area plan-and "Specific P'.m" bave been used interchangeably. Specific Plans are on
implementation kloI allowed under State law and would be one possible way of
implementing area plans. The details of implementing an a,ea plan would need 10 be
identified as pan oflhe area plan process.
rate] 013l
.'
saff recommends that:
L Coordinated area plans are DOl needed for Stanford 8bopping C"nter and t.'>e three
(Cbarlestoo, Alma. Edgewood) ~ighborbood centers.
2. A plan f«!he Stanford Me<f1COl Center area should be undertaken by S:" .. tford ...-p8rt
0(1110 "'ulkoil'O!ed 1995 96 if they reqtl"Sll6 '''P."d e:rpansiof: oflhe Medical Center"s
de\'e!opmeDt potential.
3.· The City sbouId acknowledge in the Cornprebenslve Plan that more delalled (lban
Ir8dltiooaI f« !he City) land use pIons are appropriate am! desired lOr:
Midtown;
Ca1if<lrnia-VentLlr. Area;
El Camino Real (from Curtner \0 Cbark.'lon);
-South of Forest Area (mclucfmg Palo Ah<J Medical Foundation laods~ and
the Dream T earn Area (lands 00 either side <>f University Circle wesl of the
railroad tracks).
4_ Staff he IiI eeted' ttl m. esti!alc and j ,port back bs the Cottneil ot1 t1~ ooJt Slid' timitt!
itupReatims Maft'JealSsigdK: Soasprcbel'l!iwe Pbm Update prtXelsto ine6lp6la1e imo
PiHIac HI;; de. eleptik."ftt &fa dtaft Piau; aft wea ptlm f« fIte CtdifenJiIl \Ccntw! area
etc., pc~ sttsd) lie&&wltled tt) Page !tfiH; [J Camill'O R:eal; the residentiai lihue
"""'" Dfbauko t """ t!oe roi1r""" baele>. If the ("cunei! '''is',,,, So p'.trSUl! an aren plan
as pori of the Compre/umsrve Flan Upti.;Jte, it is recommended thai the CaI-Ye7l1ura
area be the focus of the area plan and staff be aITeetea I<> retur" I<> Council with
Comprehensive Plan consultant contr"act amendments for the area pia" .. -ore and
agreem.enra wit~ major property owners regol"lrmg sharing the cost oft"", "'OI"t It.ffl
ree<>lmnemld !11ft! The Midtown area is being be studied separately, commencing
... ith a property owner-funded master site plan. Tbe approach taken is .. oold be more
property owner-driven than the areawide plan.
S. If the ColUlCiJ ... isks I<> pursue ao area planning approocl:, enher as part of or
separate ,om the Comprehensfve Plan Update, it is recommended that staff be
tltr€ctea 10 rel'Unl1o O:JW1Cil-..ri1.h an implementing IXdina.nce arul procedures.
mHCY IMPLICATIONS
The key policy issue is 10 wha! ext.:n1 should the City rely 00 traditional planning 2I1d zoning
approaches lOr areas where either die private markel has not functiooed particularly well in
past decadeli (e.g~ Midtown, neighborbood shopping centers, portions ofE! Camino Real)
or die City anticipates anJIor desires significaa! change (e.g, University nain StationVream
T earn area. Caf.romia-Ventura, Midt~ll). CP AC and !he Planning Coounissioo reconunend
::. c "
." ...... II: •
l " . ........ . . ~.", ..
lhat the City more actively interven<: in areas when change is desired. It is important \0
stress lila! !lie focus of area plans is !o facilitate and ... .anage pb)'sical change. As S'uch, the
product of an area planning effort should be both accep!able 10 the community !IJId
ecooomiwly feasiblej1;r boI1t ""priVate se<1Or and "" CiJy.
City inccrventiOO would involve both process and regulatO<)' prod,lCI considerations. The
CPAC-envisioned proceM for developing land llSe plans for desired cbange areas would
involve substantial public participation, organized in • structured problem·soIving .pproacll
prior !o formal City review by the Planning Coounission and City Coun<:iL The regulatory
produ<:t would most likely be ",ore detailed and visually oriented (i.e. 1hree <funensional
plans, """ gUjdelines and regulation.; rather thaD the traditiooa! mapped land use plan and
zoomg designations).
The rore. and obligations of the City Cooncil, City staff; <ftrectly affected property owners
and the genaaI public, including neighbors and other interested parties, would be different
with Coorolllllted area plans lhan wit!; either 1taditiooal Cit-j initiated land use planning
studies or developer initiated proposals. Roles and obligations include:
city CoonciI •
Estnbli.sh p-ocess and product parameters and apeclatioru incluamg guitl'mg
principles; "" Mluri of the public p-ocess; product specijicanons. including
plans, goik!eli.n<S and regulati<Jru; time j-arr.z; and a decision o. the exte'" of
puNic and priVate sector financing of"" area plan.
-Genera! willingness 10 look favorably upon proposed' change if Ibe proceM
yields general agreements amoog the major participants. "General
willingness" mea'" that Cooncil concerns and possible changes should focus
JllO(e 00 significant public policy issues than Ibe details of a proposal.
"General agreements" means that most participants are in agreement but
recognizes lila! 100 percent agreement is neither necessary nor appropriate.
-WillinglleSs 10 conunit City resources (dollars and staff time) 10 tile process.
Willingness 10 1aI<e the risk that • proactive planning effurt ",ay not succeed.
City staff-
Allocate time and effurt 10 administer consultant con1racts and 1he planning
process, incluamg undertaking technical worl<.
·<;"~ . . :---
. '", --,: .. ,.:.. ,,-:.' ; ...
-•• -J"
--~. --.. ~-.
o
.; Aoeept ~c ef net &i. in! m MCX:ri1l1 the I'roec!:! to", ard I pazticulw polie) er
pfi .. lieal le3b~. To l.t,e greatest ,xtenJ pos5Lcle. givelt planning, /egal-and
jis.:a/ constrai."", allow 1M ?VCfSJ "" s.'w:ipe tile policy and physicar resuitJ
.... ithour i111er:jecting ?tc<mceived stcJ! ob:ji!cliV ...
-Provide edueation and advice in !be planning process regarding urhan design
and ud>an planning cooceplS, area hlstcry, existing City pOOcies and
regulations, and technical considerations.
-l'lovide policy and technical a.hke r.gammg the oul<:ome 0{ the public
process 10 !he City Council and advisory bodies.
C<>mmercialloonresidential end other directly affected property OWDef'3 -
-City staff believes that property o .. ners woo stan<l1o gain from !he process
should be expected tl> financi'll] contnbute 10 !he cost of consuJtants.
Willingness 10 participate and cooperal< in roth !he planning process and the
results (DOting again 11 .. 1 creation 0{ economically v'.able results is • key
objective).
Public {neighbors and other interested parties}-
WiIfmgD<S' 10 participaIC and cooperate in an etrort 10 achieve positive n:suI!s.
-Willingness 10 ac:cepI ,,,,,,,Its if me process has been opec and fair and most
participants COOC!lr wim • set 0{ recommendations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARl:
CPAC recommends roordinated area plans fur Ibe following areas:
Midtown (CD Sections, pp. 33)
El Camino Real (CD Section, pp. 31)
California-Ventura Area (CD Sect;oo, pp. 14)
Dream Team Area (CD Section, pp. 12)
Stanford Medical Center (CD Section, pp. 12)
Sooth 0{ Forest Area (SOFA) (CD Se.."lioo, pp. 13)
Char1estoo 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 recoom~ !hat coordinated area plans are DOt needed fOr SwJOrd Shopping C"nter
IUId \he tbree (Cha.<1es1oa, Alma, Edgewood) neighbornood centers. Instead, <l\!I!l<:n shou~
be eocoural!ed 10 develop and share master plans fur the use and upgrading ofthesco sileS.
Planning for the Stanfool Medical Center should be included by Stanfurd as part of !he
B"tic1>aled"'lY..fUtw"e Medical Cenlerexpa.'lSioo ~Ie be !UbnJu",:l1i:lr Cit) Rn;'"
in 1995 96. Delane<! planning for \he Dream T earn .,. .. (i .• , University Avenue tram
Station area) can and should wait until after adoptioo of the Comprehensive "'.an.
Staff has identified rou:oflhe areas cited by CPAC for proactive planning as being of the
highest priority. These areas are Cal-Ventur1i, Midtown, Sooth El Camino Real from Curtner
10 Cbarlestoo. and SOF AlP AMP. Cal-Ventura and MidtOMl have a cle8l" need for attention
in the near future. SOf All' AMP is likely 10 need 10 receive attention sometime Bite. Ihc
'prill8 of ill 1996. whe!t "fier the City review proc= fOr P AMP's vrnan Lane project is
"'Iti<ip~ Ie lle completed. Soulll El Camino Real, while of significant roocem, has
somewhat less pressing issues than the other three areas.
A tey chanc!eristic oflhe four highest priority areas is the close retation3hlp ofre.idential
and l!ODteSidenlial!and. Staff concludes that any ar .. planning effort !hat does DOt involve
the neighborhood(.) early and often in the plan development process has a significantly
lower chance of CVetltual adoptk>o and success. Each of these areas ;nvolves <flfficult
pbysical and ecooomic issues, that should be addressed within. process that offers ongoing
Cf1lOI1uni\ies for an stakeholders 10 voice their needs and desi=, bear the needs and desires
of od>ers, and !--.am from teChnical experts the possibilities and consequences of various
c:ounes of action. Key resources in !his type of process include neutral process facilitation,
professional land use/design expertise. economic e><per'Jse. """ transportation and other
technical expertise. Q'f(/ / .. go/Iregu!olory ?ogrom consulta/km.
AdopIlon of the """ ('~hensive Plan is unlikely 10 occur until the fall '" "mter '* 1996
Itm summer 0.-earlyfaO of 1997. The combination of near-tenn property owner desires for
dir-'Ction and decisions and property owner and community desires for cbange lead stafflO
O'.oclude that it would be better 10 inco<po<ate plans for the Cal-Ventura area into Phase ill
of the ComprehenSive Plan Update process ("Le, preparation of. draft Plan; likely 10 begin
m September ! 99S} An area planning process aloog the lines envisioned by Cl' AC and the
Pk'nning Commission can be developed for the Cal-Ventura area, rocusing primarily 00 the
are" bounded by Page MiD Road, El Camino ReaI, the res;dential areas sooth ofL=hert and
the railroad tracks. May 23 and June 12. 1995 staff reports reg8l"ding Midtown propo<e •
sej!8l"ate planning approach for \he Midtown area. lhls wou~ result in at least a 3 10 4
monlh delay in ~, of the new C<:>mprebenyve Plan, but Il>e specific timing and process
details have yet to be worked out Wft.lc dela~ eftbe Plan ptLpSllltier1 awl adeption ptOOCSi!I
is:n6t desuable; ( .. Cd ks! ck:siftthie is either tiling te held e«addtes~ing the Cal Velltuta
"ate S or 31
j--"
"
. ~,------
If all tlTeQ plan is incorpoI'ated inJo Phase !l1. it is important to stress that titi9 e6~e1 abet. is
m..ed_ several critical assumptions:
-The cwn:nt Comprehensive Plan coosulting team and JCeyser Marston will he used,
J'lIlhe< than SlMting a new coosultant selection and contracting process.
Major property owners are willing I{) participate L" the p1annlng process.
-hy approva/ of a P AMF relocation plan includes both restrictions 00 what P A.W
can do with their current propertiel; and. rommitments 10 • future area plannmg
process suffid~lt to reassure PMIF's neighbors that they will DO! be placed in •
purely reactive jXlSmoo 10 • fut-Jre redevelopm.."!lt proposal.
Staffhas Mt begun 10 work ,dh the City's consultants 10 estimate the costs of doing an area
planning study eit,",r in4epentlently or as part of Phase III of the Comprebensive Plan
Update. .uvre. lias been s<nJghJ ji-om me major Ccmpreiumsive Plan consultants, TIu!
combination. of Q focmrafw. communfly design resource, economist and €lflJuonmental
impoc( fncTuQ/JIg /roflSponation nperffse, is li/rely 10 cost approximately S200/XJ() .. } 50, ()()().
1" addition,. kgaVregrJatory program assistance 10 the City Attorney', Qffice may be needed
If ruulerlake .. at a lime ",lie" City slaff reSOUTces are suhslarrlially committed (() otlu!r w:t,
" contrcct plaJmer 10 supplement City sloff would be necessary and wauld cost befllleelt
S50.()()() GM $7j,()()() for a JI).. 10 Jl .. month work perWd. As • matter of policy. staff
concludes that it is • reasonable City eJ<PeC!3tion that commercial property (lWDerS in the CaI
Ventura area, as wen as Ofner areas ruulerg<>ing area plans Mi<I\o • .., he expected to pay
some pen:entage of tbe consultant costs fur the area planning etrorts. Some other City costs
may be off>et b)' • <0>2 ."",wery mechanism related 10 future builomg permits.
Since tM June J 0 stoff report • ..,)5 preparelf. staff iJr con.nJlation »'uk C<>mprelo.ensive Plan
consv!!ant Daniel loco/ano has developed more tktaifed osperu of a~ OFea planning ejJcrt
GuUfmr PrWiples
Quality tksign consistent with City aM commwzity goals -
Alii area planning process Meds 10 be coruJucted l4IIthin the context of adopted land
lISe and 01,"" City goals aM policie •. Critical goor. aM policies shcu!d be idenlijied
Oy tM City Councif at tlie beginning oft,", area planning process. ThiJ gool and
po/'.cy ji-amework will be imporlont ilIfo<=ing tile rolJsequenJ work 0111,", area plait
Par,e' ofl]:
",.-" ... Ci, ... -_~.-.
,.-.
o ~~."
A maJor tk11U! ofCPAC. recofM".eruiaoo1lJ is creating better opportuniffesJi:»' a
physical and psycloo!og;.:al sense of community. ..(.'1)' area planning proces. is Q
critical f>J>POrlWlity 10 do thi3 both through public fm>oNe""n[ and the M!vT' of tOe
physical recommeruJatj(lf1!J. ExrensNe opportunities Ji:»' public """""e11''''111 through
worlsloops or other _chanisms is essential. An area planning proce ... will have a
great .. <ksigrl component lhan traa<tiona! City land .... plans. Desigrl and land ... ,.
neetb /0 be integrated 1O'ilh and compc;hole with existing residenrd and non
residential areas S1UT<>WIding the focJIs of I;';' area plall
Econom!e incenlives -
~ of the purposes of an area plrm is 10 facilitate desired physical change. To
OCCOI1lpifsh tht;t desire, the area plan ~.eetb 10 pro>ide eTllr"gh economic ince'l/ive Ji:»'
the priwIte .. clor /() proceed with developme,..1. l.i1rewise Ji:»' the public seclor, /her.
m!l.$/ be sufficient ossurance that development will proceed 10 warrant appropriate
inftaslnJcture investments. Implementation of arr area plan may span a consideraMe
time period. To help JacUitate imfrvidual investment tlecisiollS, 1M "sufis of an
<1pproved area plan r.eed 10 be structured so thai/hey are D rel,able basis Ji:»' bot,,'
private and public !eClOT Investment decisiollS.
DevelDprnenlje<lsibility-
The phyEical development concepts incorporated into an area plait have 10 be
supported ~ the """,ket in ortler for tM tlesired changes 10 oce-..,..
EfIVironmenlal quality and TevW -
The level of tlf!lIelopment incorporated inlo a. QTea plan should not ovt!n>'Mlm /he
,esource carrying capacity of both the immeall1te area and lhe broader CO",,"Wlity.
The e1!Vironmento/ ,,,,,lew dacumenI preparetlfor an area pla" should be structured
. Ie> foc(Iitafe subsequenJ imp/e11U!ntation of the area plell
Manage t1r£ area *" p'..Jblfc and privat€ imprcwement process 10 jOcilitate desired
c::hanges-
As noled before, an area pla,,ning proce .. is intended Ie> Jacilitate physical change.
For the priva~ seClor, land!<Se policies and implemerJation loOl.J need 10 be orie .. Jed
10 achieve the desired changes. flu, area ptan .Muld clearly ldenJify pub[;c and
private sector iJrvestmenJ expectations. The public seeW expectations need ID be
coruistenl wit" City operalfng ant! capilaf budget policies aruf resources.
Prov"oiIe opporllPlities for broad and focwsetl public participatIOn -
The area pia" effort needs Ie> pro,ide participation opportunities for all members of
the public .. ,ha believe they IIave a stau in the outcome and foc>tud participatio ..
opportunity for tOOse most arrectly impacted by tM pta.. StajJ efIVisiolls ,.,. of botlt
ope1l public _erings and"'orlshops alld a Working Group o/key property (1'''''''''',
-.-:.
·'
",' " ..
repre.!enlaliYes of affected groups (~.g .• neighborhood and business associations) and
me>nbe" of 1M broad" community (e.g, general public. {!nvirorunenJai commrmity.
CJra~r ofComno.erce).
Rrocess Parqmcte u
• Work "",ill In ~ done co ..... isrenl "'iI" a ti~ lir£fs<heduC.
[""grate lhe OTea plan inlo the Comprehensive Pkm
Pro",s. neetls 10 be responsive Jo If", neeill and constra;nls of property
0""""9, peopk CMng or working ill w sunowuling neighborhoods, and lhe
broader commrmity
• Work kJwcuds rn.£IXlmum CO"".mun~ agree-menJ but not require consensus
Commrmity iIIVolve_nJ and communication slwuld involve bath large
",orJing meeting., involving lhe active participation. of the general pul>lic and
a Working Group .,hose member. have both a recommenamg role 10 the City
and a communication and education rote 10 the community
The Working Group should ~ a represe"'alive group of slakeholrfers in the
~awte area and the broader public:
• Comprehenshle Plan 1.md I<U designations
Zoning designations -includes, if necessary. de>'e1opmenJ of new zoning Joolr
and amendment of existing regulations
General devefopmenJ standarill -design guidelines for the private and pul>lic
realms that j:x:IU <»I volume and placement of future deve/opmenJ al'.d
landscape expeclati<ms, Guidelines are _ inlended 10 be detailed buz1ding
specijU: designs
• Circulation pfarr.
Enviro,,",,"'tal G1Ia{ysis (assumed 10 be an 'mo[ronm£nral impact rep<Xt)
• List ofpublic investmenJs and reialedji'U111Cing pia ..
" -" : ;; ....
"-..,
.'
, .. ,-.... '
~ .
$lqfJlQznsu/tqnl Remwcer
be aJditi<Jn 10 Jtaf!resourceJ, needed consultanl reSC1Uces include:
Facuitat<N'
• Community Des[~
• [)evelopmenl-oriented ec()lt()mist
• Technical-environmental, trQ"'porIarion and perhaps other.
legaVreguJalory program consultation
TimeFTame
1M minimum lime fl£eded 10 have"" intensive puNic process a".d prepare a draft
kea Plan and draft ElR is lever. mol'llhs jolw..'e<i by three io four m<mlhs for
Plann;/lg Commission and City Councl1 r~.
A revised Comprehensive Plan Update lime line has bee" prepared If the OrJnCiI conclud£.
review qf an draft goals, palicies and program.! by the end qf January and aU Land Use Map
issues by tJ,e end if February, adoption of a new Comprehe1Ui>'e Plan could occur in lat.
<um1>JQ or early jiJU of 199 7. If an area pla1! is odtkd 10 the Pia" update poees., adoplion
of f1llRW Comprehensf>oe Pia" is unliuly 10 OCCUT before Q/ leaJt J 998.
Cit) ck: I eJcpmeftl e! area plalltJ '" ffi !'C!tHl i!l IS ) et tB be dekthtiaed couse:rtaflt eem.
IndMduaI area plans win address is.",," havmg positive and negative fiscal impacts 00 the
City. These impacts sboold be addressed in tile area planning process.
EIDJRONMENTAI, ASSESSMENT
At the current stage of the COOlprehensi"e Plan Update process, the Council is giving
direcfioo b: items 10 be lncorpxa!ed into. draft P'.an. future preparation and review of tile
Draft Comprehensive Plan, wil.' !J< without area plans., will be tile subject of an
euviroomental impad report.
Prepared 8;: Kenneth R. Schreiber
Nancy Maddox Lytle
James Eo. GIlliland
Department Head Review: ;{?,uud tfk,~k .
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER '"
DireclorofPlan.'1ingand
Community Environment
P~.ot)2
---.
/ -
-J"';., -.-.
"'-.-.
SIlBJECI': C"mpr.h •• sive PIa .. Update -Staff Recommendations Regarding
Coordillated Area PIJI ••
BFffiMMl'lID 4IIQNS
The Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) and the PIannlng Commission have
tecommenc!cd that implementation <>f the Comprehensive Plan include a series <>f
coonftnated Mea plans. These area planning efforts would involve extensive public
parti<:ipation in the creation of more detruled land use plans than tTaditionally used by the
City. Staff recommends that:
1. Coordinated area plans are no! needed fa: Stanf<>rd Shopping Center and the three
(Ow-leston, Alma, Edgewood) neighborhood centers.
2. A plan fa: !he Stanfoo:d Medic.al Cenler an:a sbouId be undertaken by Stanfa:d ~
ofihe onIieipftled 1995096 if dury r<qUeSt Ie e''I,,, .. d expG"..-ion of the Medical Center",
developmenl poIential
3. The City sllould aekncwJedge in the Comprehensive Plan that more detailed (than
traditional fa: !he City) land use plans are appropriate and desired b:
-Midtown;
-California-Ventura Area;
EI Camino Real (from Curtner kl Charleston);
Sooth of forest Area (mcluding Palo Aho Medical f oundatioo lands); and
-the Dream Team Area (lands on eitbet side <>fUniv=iIy Circle wC1;\ of the
,..ilroad \raCks).
4w Staff be keeled to ~.estigatc Bne! report Netc to the €otfttci! 8U t.'a.e ~ I!tftd 9t!'ling
implications e.famclltfing tk CJlnpieftensi.e Piau Update proee33 kI iBeotpcxate ift!e
Pbax HJ; tk.e1opmcm; ofa dtaft Plan. mares plttft for t1:<Jc CaHb:n:ia 'VCfttW& MUl
{ie. prift""J stud> ...... """"de<! '" rage Mill; EI Com;"" _I; the r.,idenlio! lancfo
"",,!II: "r """",be! I Oftd I!!e 1 Itt"' vBeI 1!'I!eb). If the Cour,cil ,.-ishes '" pUT sue an area
plan C3 part of the Comprehe""i1Ie Plan Update, it is Tecommended tlwI tJw Col
Yentura area &e t'"" focus of tJw area plan and staff he ,rIFected 10 ref',gn 10 Council
with Compreh2nsive Plan consultam contract amendmenJs for the area plan ,,;ore and
_of
":-"-->
o
agreements .,it" major property <'lA'n£rJ regarding sharing the cost of the work. JHo
,cec"",,,",ded 11101 The Midtown ar .. is being"" studied separately. coomtencing
.... ith a property owner-funded master site plan. The approach taken is ... ""'~ "" nxn
property owner-driven than the area\\ide pl""-
. S. If the Council willie. k> pursue a" area planning approach, ,itM' ". paT! of cr
separate from tile Comprehensf'" Pian Update. it is recolWYI<'nded that staff be
olTected 10 rel'UnJ to Ccwu:i1 wit.1t an implementing ortfina."1Ce and procedUl'es.
BACKGROUND
The City', approach to regulatiGg Ian<! use ar.d encoora~.ng desired design features has been
p.imariJy to rely 00 Comprebensive Plan policies and programs and zoning regulatioos 10
establish the expectations for developmenl Property own=!deve!opers are tlten encouraged
to work '",thin the bo,,' (i.c~ within the paratrlCI= set by the policies and regulatioos) with
the eXjlCClation that adequately-designed projects .. ill be approved by the appropriate City
body. There has been significant oppo5ition to • more active planning process that would
cstabHsIt more detaI1ed design and use exp<ctatioos and requirements for the property owner.
The city's approach has worked vet)' weD in the Downtown. Stanford Research Park and
much of the Sand Hill Corridor. especially the SOOpping C.enter. and reasonably well in the
CalilOmia Avenue commercial area. The appr03Cb has been less suc«ssfuJ for M"Jdtown,.
sections ofE! Camino Real. and the neighborbood shopping centers.
CPAC has recommended that the City engage in proactive planning (cooramated area plans)
for areas where the City wishes \0 see extensive pbysical upgraamg and change. It is vet)'
i:nportant to stress th!: aitkalllDderlyfug assumption that there are areas where \l-", City
Willits to see physi<:al upgrading. including likely redevelopment of some p<operties.
Proactive planning. as discussed in this report. is fundamentally about bow 10 rae ilitate
physical change. The k<ry objectjve is \0 identify land \l5C changes that are publidy (and thus
politically) acceptable and ecooomically viable. The resultirg physical change may. and
oftea WIll, involve more intense le1,'els of development than currently exist. Moce intense
development invvlves more usable floor area an<lIor changes in development perimeIers(e.g,
parldng ratios, height, sethacl<s, use restrictions). Thus proactive planning b:uses on areas
wbere CPAC and others believe that cwrent conditioos are a problem and continuation of
existing po!i..-;es and regulations does DOt encoorage the upgraamg that is desired.
C<xJrwnated are. plans, implemented waugh tecbni ques such as specific plans, pr~ise
plans. and more detailed zoning regulations, incluamg design requirements, offer the
opportunity 10 create a new 'box' of regulations witltin which developers could have a
relatively high chance of gaining approval of specific development proposals. Underlying
asaumpliorui behind area planning are lbat lbe City's zoning regulations do not offer
suflici<:nt flex>1>ility \0 induce substantial physical upgracfmg in areas experienci.og problems;
. -0_"
---:-~:> . . ,
.'
parcel and ownership patterns are often obstacles that need 10 be overcome in part by Cily
incentives and regulations; broadly based increases in zonlng !ler.ibility and development
J>O'=tiaI without ~ design expectations will DO! be accep!able 10 the residential
property Own<:n and occupants Iimg near problem areas; and creation of • new and
expanded 'box' of regulations will eocoorage new development. While there are some
wmmoo cbara<:leristics described later in this ,oport that app!y 10 the coocep! of proactive
planning. 1here is no tmiversal process thai can be applied 10 all areas. Each area fur which
change is desired will need 10 have. specific ~ created thai fits factors such as current
use and occupancy conditions, parcel size, conJi guration and "" ncrship patterns, the strength
of exi."ting property owner and QCCUpanl organizatioos and the hlstoty of development.
related activities in the area.
pQJ.lCY IMPUCATIOJl!S
The key policy issue is 10 wI:al extent should the Cily rely OIIlradiOOnal planning and zoning
awroacbes fur areas where either the private marl<eI bas not functioned particularly weD in
past dec3iies ( •. g~ Midtown, neighborhood shopping centers, portions of EI Camino Rea/)
or the City anticipates and/or d€sires significant change (e.g, Univenity Train Station/Dream
Team Bre8, CaIifomia-Ventu<a, Midtown). CPAC and the Planning Commission recommend
that the City more actively intervene in areas where cbange is desired.
City intervention would involve both process and regulatoty product considerations. The
CPAC-envisiooed process for developing land use plaIt. fur desired change areas would
involve substantial public fLe, nonresidential property owner.;, residential property owners,
~ renters, and oIIlcr interested members oCthe community) participation organized
in • structured problem-solving approaeh prior 10 lOnnal City review hy the Planning
Coounlssioo and City CounciL The regulatOQ product would m05llikely be more detaIled
and visually orieoIed {i.e, three cfllDensiooaJ plans, _ guidelines and regulal'ion.s rather Illan
the tndltiooal mapped land use plan and zoning designations).
The roles and obligations of each of the major participants in the land use planning and
dev<:loprnem process would include some changes under proactive planning as recommended
by CPAC and the PLmning Commission versus more traditional pr~. Roles and
obligations inelude:
City Council -
Establish proceS$ and product parameters and expectations. including guiding
principles; the noture oftJ:e puNk: process; product specificarions. including
plans, guidelines and regura/iolls; time ,arne; and a aecision on the exte"J of
puNk: and private seclor financing of the Grea pralf..
•
, "
General willingness 10 look r,,'orably upon proposed change if the process
yields generaJ agreements among the major pMtkipants, "General
willingness" means that Council concerns and possible changes should f(>CUS
more on signitkant public porJCy issues than Ibe deWls 0( • proposal.
"General agreements" m= that mosI participants are in agreement but
rerognius that 100 percent agreement is ceitbet" necessary no< appropriate.
-Willingness 10 commit City rescurces (do!lars and staff time) 10 the process.
-Willingness 10 Iak.the risk that • proactive pI.mUng.ffix1 may not succeed.
City staff-
-' AlIoca!e time and effort to adm1"lister consultant COOIr3<:Is and II,., plannlng
proce<s, inclod"mg undertaking tcchnkal work.
Aeeept 10lt ornct cfr:, ittg LA Jteeti1'lg the pr6Oe!S tmr.ltid. rmtticu1m peBe) or
pIo,.ieol reouIt. To the greatest extent pru ... 1>I., give. p/a1'.nir>g-!egol and
fiscal constraints, allow the process 10 shope the policy and plrysi<"a/ results
"'ithouJ inJerjecung preconceived staff obj,erN ...
Provide education and advice in the planning pf0<e5S regaramg urban design
and urban plannlng CO!l<:epIS. area bistory. existing City po!lcie< .. ,d
regulations. and 1echnic21 considerations.
-Provide policy and lechnkat edvice regarding the outcome 0( the pubrlC
process 10 the City Cooneil and advisory bodies.
Commercial/nonresidential and otl!er directly a.1fected property owners •
-City staff ber"",es that property "",nero who stand \0 gain from the process
should be e><pected 10 financially """albu!e 10 the COSIo( consultants,
Willingness 10 participate and cooperate in boIh the planning process and the
results (noting again tha! c'eation of econoniically viable results is a ley
objective).
Publk (neighbors and other interested parties)-
-Willingness 10 participate and cooperate in an ellOrt \0 ""move positive results.
-,---:------0. '. . "
. --. .f ---.
Willingness \0 accepI results if the process bas been open and Cair and most
participants COIICur with • set of =.rr.endations.
DlSCJISSJQN
IntrodIICtioo
The CPAC process concluded that for many areas of the Cit)·. more de1aiIed land use
planning is necessary than could be accommodated in the CPAC process. CPAC and the
Planning C<XIl!Ilission recommended tha: th. City undertakc proactive planning (i.c,
deveJos>meut of coordinated area plans) fur • lorge number of areas.
If the City is to W>dertske I proa<:tivc planning approach. questions need \0 be addressed.
including:
What areas should be focused on. r=gnizing mal <I<:ta1100 area p!a,ming is wstIy and
requires significan: staff time?
-Wbat should be the pub!i<: participation and 0Iha: procedura! aspectS and expec1l.tioos
0{ these studies?
Is !heR • need or desire \0 incc<porate one or lI1<lre oC these studies into the
Comprehensive Plan Update process. rather t/;an waiting unlI1 after adoption of the
new Plan?
-Are these studies \0 be funded entirely by the City 0< should. .t least in some areas,
~ ""'~ be encouraged or expected \0 financiany participate?
The IOlJowing material r.. (l(~anized in these sections:
-City starr. N{)\cmbeT 1994 Comments on CPAC Recommendations
General components 0{ an AIea Planning Program
-DEIal1ed Aspect.r of an Area Pian
Ahernatives \0 Area Planning as Envisiooed by CPAC
High PrioriIy Areas for Area Plans/Spe<: ial Land Use Studies
-The Possibility of !ntegrating One or Two AIe. Plans Into the Compreb.!nsive Plan
Update Process.
Pa,elSorll
--.-',
•
...... -; jO
~ -' ..
Q
city Starr, NQyember i m Comments on CPAC Regnnmendatioos
The fOllowing ~atioos on CPAC'. C<Jmmunity Design recommendatioos are from !he
November 7, 1994 staffrepor1 (CMR:496:94) th.t transll'Jtted staff comments on CPAC
rt.commendatioos:
"CPAC 's recommeIldations 10.-pro.cth'e pI.ansfprepalatioo of coo.-cfinaIed area
plans raise cri!ic.al policy issues. The City's approach 10 regulating land use
and encouraging desired design features has been primarily to rely on
Comprehensive Plan policies and programs and zorting regulations 10 establish
the expectations 10.-development. Property owners/developer> are !hen
encouraged 10 wock '"ithin !he bol<' (i.e., within the parameters set by tbe
poficies and regulations) with !he expectation that adequately--designed
projects will be 8pprOyed by !he appropriate City body _ There has been
signitkant oppositioo 10. more active planning process thaI would establish
more deta!led design and use expecta.tioos and requirements lOr tbe property
owner. The cil)"s apprDBCh bas worked very well in tbe Downtown. Stanford
Research Park and much oftbe Sand Hill Corridor, espedally tbe Shopping
Cen~, and reasonably weD in tbe Calif()(1li.Avenue commercial area. The
approach has been less suc<>ossfullOr Midtown, sectioos ofE! Camino Real.
and the neighborOOod shopping centers.
"The policy issue 10.-!he City is 10 what extent sl:ouId the Cit-j rely 00 tbe
traditional planning and zoning approach 10.-areas where the private madet
has 001 fun.::tioocd particularly wen in past decades, CPAC has recommended
that tbe City engage in proactive planning (coordinated area plans) lOr areas
where the CM) ,.-ishes 10 see extensiye physical upgrading and cbange,
Coordinated area plans (e'l!~ specitk plans, precise plans, more detailed
zoning regula:'''''-"",Iuding design requirements) offer the opportunity to
create. "e>< '"",-of regulations within "tich developers could have a
relatively high chance of approval Underlying assumptioos behind area
planning are thal the City', zoning regulations do not offer sufficient
f1exlbtlity to induce substantial physical upgrad'mg in areas eJ<periencing
problems; parcel and ownership patterns are OOstacles that can best be
overcome by Cii)' incentives and regulations; broadly based increases in
zoning f1exlbilit), and development potential without detaHed design
expectations ".-ill no( be acceptable 10 the residential pr"PCrt)I owners and
occupants IiYing ncar problem areas; and creation of a new and expanded
'box' ofregulalions wHI encourage new developmenL Properly done area
plans involve business and residential property owner.; and sufficient process
management, ptMlling. econorruc, and environmental rniew resources 10
attain an implementable set of plans. It is important to stress that area
-,
; .-
pliIIllling involves a slgnifi<:anl commitment of City resources (on the order of
$200,000 each); state law on specifi;: plans permits full rewvel)' oCthe City's
costs. Also, many ares planning eflOrts result in the needldcsire for
subotantially more cleIa11ed land me regulatiom than the City bas use<! in the
post, and City de<:isioo maker> should be prepared !O consider and impose a
greater regulatory burden.
~0Iher jurisd"lCtions report that PI .. ,. bave resulted in greater clarity and
simplicity !haD our cum:nI regulatioos. Fer e."""Ple, Specifi;: Plans which are
also zoning ordiDan<:es remove many pbysical inconsistencies between code
sectiom by r=quir'.ng the city 10 teChnically solve spatia] or design conflicts
and inronsistencies prior 10 adopting regulations and applying the resulting
ineoosistency 10 specific: areas. Rather than approving regulations in the
'abslnc!' !hat !ben don'l work, tbes< plans can streamline oo·e!opment.
"CPAC recommends coordinated area plans fOe the following areas:
"Midtown (CD Sedioos, pp. 33)
EI Camino IV..II! (CD Section, pp. 31)
california-Ventura area (CO Secti<m, PI" 14)
Dream Team area (CD Section, pp' 12)
Stanford MedkaI Center (CD Section, pp. 12)
Sooth of Foresl Area (SOf A)(CD Section, pp. 13)
Cbarlestoo Shopping Center (CD Section, pp. 36)
Alma PIm (CO Section, pp. 36)
Edgewood Plaza (CD Section, pp. 36)
Stanfonl Shopping Center (CD Section, pp. 24 and 25)
~Staff recorrunends that COOfdlnated area plans .Ie no( needed fOe Stanford
Shopping Center and the three (Charleston. Alma, F.dgewooc!) neighborlJood
centers. Instead, owners should be encouraged !O develop and share master
plans for the use and upgra<fmg 0( these siles.
"As DOted in the Business and &anomies section (pp. 16 and 17, Policy BE
ISA), initial expectations for SOFA are varied and hKely 10 be in conflict In
November 0(1993, the City Council <ftreeled!hat there be a planning charette
process for SOfA afler City Council ... '!loo on the Palo Aho Medical
Foundation's Uroan Lane redevelopment application. Unless the Council
adopts a policy to not consider doing coonfmated area plalllling aDd "' reiy
strictly 011 cooventional zoning approaches, the de<:isiOO as !O the best planning
process f.lr SOfA should em ... ge from Cooncil review oCthe planning cbarette
results.
o
"The use of a more detailed planning process for the Medical C<:nter assumes
1hZ! \he C;ty is ~ve to .dditiooaI development beyood the cu.-rent PubflC
Facilities ZOO< 1:1 floor area ratio. If tbe City is re«ptive. as recommended
by staff; !he preparation by Stanford of • Master Plan fur C;ty revie ....
modification Bnd approval would be appropriate. A cooofmated area plan as
envisiooed by CPAC for larger multi-parceVuse areas would not be necessary.
"The Dream Team area redevelopment hopes Bnd &,sires a.'"e linked to the
creation of a carefuUy planned Bnd integraled mulfi-use urnan environment
l'repatatioo 0{ a cooolinated area plan would be • logical eJdensi<>n 0{ the
process.
"Midt""", EI Camino ~l south of Page Mil~ and the Calif<lmia-V entura
area ace !he Ihree areas where either the private redevelopment process bas not
worked wen in !he 1980s (Midtown and signHkant sections of El Camino
Real) or. for Calif<xnia-Ventunl, the CPAC process bas klentified a signi ti<:ant
desire for pbysi<;&! cbange and Dpgrading. The issue for the Council is wbether
<bonge (assuming if is desireQ) is best fa.."ilitJlted by reliance on !he traditional
City zoning/private development proposaVCily review process approach oc
wbether desired change n<:eds • mure active intervention by the City.~
General Cmnpmwpts Man Area Plann in i PrOgram as Envisioned by CPAC
Area plmining effixfs, as envisiooed by CPAC. reflect widespread OlSCOOtenl, emerging
\h.."O\Igbout the naOOn. with lraditional planning and development prot...... There have
recently been • variety 0{ effom to find a w~ \0 develop l;;nd use plans, espe<ially for in!ill
development Bnd redevelopment of estabfished communities, that result in t>oth community
accep!ance Bnd ecooomicaJly viable deveJopment ",gulations. In ""iewing the literature on
successful infill and redevelopment efforts, some cornmoo process c1larac1eristics have been
identified. The fi>IIowing observations reflect t>oth the emerging nationwide trends Bnd staff
observations about Palo Alto's trllditiooal planning process.
PubflC Participation -There are signiti<:ant community support and procedural reasons
for having a muck more broadly based public paruciJlafun process than has been
historica1ly used. The traditiooal process would have City staff, perbaps with
consultant assistance. prepare • proposed one-dimensi<>na! land use plan. Plan
preparation might involve a sman advisory group and one or mc<e public meetings
intended 10 gain C<JIIlI1lunity sentiment. The draft plan would be sent 10 the P1anrJng
Commission Bnd thea 00 10 the City Council. Public debate would k>cus 00 pro and
con rea...1ioos 10 the draft plan and take the bm primarily 0{ limited time speake,
presentAtions and Iette .... At the coodusion oflhe process, there almost always would
be • sense of winners and losers.
P'.pl!1of32
",.
. -.. /.
-, ·-"
. -.
A pIJblk participatioo IIJlIlrOIi"b that is emerging nationwide and which found strong
.upport within Cl'AC would focus 011 • p-ocess open to a wide range of
~stakehold=' representing property owners and an other elements of the communlly
with coocerns about the particular issues. A neutral (aeililato< and design
professional(s) would manage an extensive public process of worksbops and
meetings. during which an affected parties could pre=!! their views, Ie.am the .iews
of others and engage in structured behavior blended to seek compromises thai are
physically and f.nanciaDy workable and acc<pIable development solutions. The
CPAC one-day workshops were mini-vmions 0{ thi. proces,,-An actual process
would be Jooger and more detailed, ",jth the goal 0{ genet'!lting • widely Sl1ppOfIed,
ccooomically feasible land use plan. with a prealCtab!e physical development
C>UIcooJe, along "'ith related implementation 1ooIs. The traditional Planning
Comrtrlssion and City Council public bearing process would focus on !he land IlSC
plan and developm<:nt standMds that. if the process is successful, a!ready has
significant community, includ'tng property 0"'1]"", support. In many 0{ t!t=
processes, the active involvement o{some Commissioners and Council Members is
provided fOr in !he plan development process.
Neu!il!! Process Faplita!oc -In complex and highly charged public process situalioos,
it is impossible b-staff to combine the roles ofledmicaJ resource and policy advisor
to the Commissioo and Council with being. neutral meeting and process facilitator.
This is a lesson that City staff learned in the 1970s and 1980s. Complicated and
emo!iooal land use~ted public meetings are far r:lO<e h1:ely 10 be successful if
organized and run by someone with proCessional training in meeting/process
faciL'tation and no stake in the outcome.
ptor"'<jma! Land! ke!pesji"'~esources -To make t!t= planning efforts successful,
there needs to be !he involvement 0{ creative design professiooal(s) with the ability
10 illustrate and commwlicale solutions. Participants and observes of community
based planning .trorts stress that when community members can see, in clear visuaI
form, ODd Iben discuss, what is being proposed. there is a much better chance 10
transcend !he NIMBY concerns that plague so meny proposed development. and
especially infiII and redevelopment, ctlbrts. An important assumption is thid three
dimensional illustration 0{ ~ land use regulations is more effective than tlle
traditional Ia."!d use map.
Economic Analysis Expertise -Resolution o{multip!e parcel (i.e, areawide) land use
issues inb=ntIy involves ecooomics and numerous aspe<.1s 0{ potential development
feasibility or infeasibility. In the 1970s and much of the 198Os, Palo Alto's planning
processes contained relatively little and oftentime no ecocomic expertise. In the far
more competitive environmeu.t 0{ the 199Os, the ecooomi<; feasibility 0{ proposed lane
use plans is critical if implementation is desired, especially in the re3300ably!leal
-..
: / ;
I
r;
~,' -.
o
future. The previou.,ly described public process needs 10 have available a neutral and
highly creditable cconomisl This is another role Iba! City stat!; ":0 if the expertise
were &vai10ble, <an DOt fill.
Icchnjql ReSQI!fce< -!l! order 10 be adopted, the product of an area study needs 10
hove an appropriate envirorunc:ntal review. For larger areas wilh complex issues. the
enviror:mental ~ will probI!bly be an EIR. For both the public plan development
process and the subsequent environmental docwntmtarioo, staff resources will n-..ed
10 be supplemented by JechnicaJ resources 001 ovanoble within C~y staff. The type
of outside expertise needed wiU vary, depemfmg 011 the issues iovvlved with •
particular area. In nearly all, if DOl all, cases, additiooal re-..ources will be needed for
traffic modc:ling and forecasting. visual simulation and anaI)'sis. s;te planning and
c!esign review, and assisting staff in preparing the environmenJal =iew documents.
~, techniCQ[ resoUl"U would be assistance 10 tM City Altor1l£Y 's Office ill the
a",*su o:f issue. and de-velopment of ,egufatvry Iool.r.
There is no ooe ~ way 10 <:oostrucl the detruls of an area plan.'ling process. Factors
individual 10 an area will inlluen<:e the spec: ilks of the process. for example:
Parcel ownership patt=s may mean thai ooe or ... erallarger properties become I
key rocus for an area or the process may need 10 find • way 10 establish cooperation
omoog • varied group of smaller property owners.
-The objectives 0{ key property owners can vary from protecting long-standing fiunily
<:oosideratioos 10 deveIoperrmves1(l{-based objWives of sale and capilal gain..
The bis'.ory of a particular area, both in Ienns of internal (OdorS and relationship 10
the City. will be an important consideration.
-The extent 10 which the City is looked 10 for finan<:ial and physical iovolvement can
vary subsiantially.
If area planning is 10 be undertaken, • specific process ",iU need 10 be identified for each
area. ldeutifica600 of1he process would most h"kely be undertaken by. combination oflhc
person who would fac;t;tate the public process and C~ staff; .. itb recommeDdations
reviewed and approved by the Council.
A major .. ollime-wnsuming City staff activity is l1le consultant hiring (developing request
for proposal and worT< s<<>pe. selecting the consultanls, preparing conJracts) and consultant
won: management (I.e, conttact administtation) effort. It is fairly I)picallo require 50 10
200 hours of staff lime over a ""'" moolh period 10 COOlplete the City consultant selection
and hiring process. Coord"matioo and management of • cOIlSu1tant contract and refated
raze 2C1 or 32
•
-'-'~
administrntivc work CIIIl C<>nSWDC HI 10 50 percent of. staff person's time per week,
de;>ending on \he complexity 0( the <ootract. Wrth wrnp1ex orea planning effOrts often
involving m<R than ODe consultant contra<1, • sigrjfican( part of !he IV811.blc City resoo=s
eM be coosumed in managing tlte needed experts.
The complexity of the process described aoo"e is why staff; after consultation with people
who have undertaken these processes. incfu:ated that area plllllning effOrts can cost on tlte
order of $200,000 or more and take 18 mootlts to complete. Assuming different consultant
Ieanls, underIaIdng more than ODe of these effOrts at • time would be very difficult within
cxisl1ng City staff resources. Using the same <:OOSUItanlS wod:ing under one contract could
mean that two areas could be addressed at one time.
Area planning, as so:( for1l> in CPAC', Community Design recommendations, irnp~ major
area study .fb1s after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. lbe City would designate
certain areas fo< future study in tlte Comprehensive PlIIIl while maintaining the existing land
use designations until \he study was comp!ele. As part <>f or after adoption <>f the
Comprehensive PIBn, !be City Cooncil would delermine priorities and timing fur future study
areas and the !ype <>f planning process desired.
Delgi1ed 4meCl$ Q{an Mea Plqrt
II< late summer and early fau of J 995, City staff. in consultatkm with Comprehe1lSfve Pltm
procesa C01lSWtanJ Daniel/ocojano, a1SC1iSsed more detailed ~c!s of on area pla1lJling
effort These details are in the falkTwing disclission of Guiding Principles, Process
Pa;-.meter .. Produc/ Specificatftms, StafflConsultant Resources and Time Frame. These
parameters and erpectatkms are criticailo establuhing an area planning process. A key
role for the City Council Ls ."tting !hfJ; j-ameworl in place.
• Quality design consiJitent "'ilh City and community goals -
AI< area planning process neetIs ta be canJucted ,,'ithin the con/ext of aJopu:d /and
t= and other City goals and palides. Olrica! goals and policies .IIould he idenlijied
by the City Dnmcil at the beginning of the area planning proce.s" This gool J1uJ
polJq j-ameworl will he imporlant in jxusing the subsequent ,..",1 on the area pItm
A IrUIjOt' the"", ofCFAC's recommendations is creating better OfJPO'tunW .. sfor a
physical and psychological sense of community. A1I)I area planning process is a
critical oppot'fWtify to do this both through public Involvement and the noMe of the
phy#cal recammeruJarions. Extensive oppot'tunitics for public invoIvenwnt through
VJorl:shops or Olhzr mechanisms is essen/ial All (JI'ea planning process ..,illlurve a
,
> ...
," ---
-~ " .. . .
o
greater design componenJ thaft traditional City land _ plans. De sign and Iand .... e
needs 10 be ;megrmed wirh and compatible witn exist'.ng residential and M"
residenJil1l areas surrOUlUf"mg tke jixIJ.r ofrke area plaft
• £Conomic incentives-
One of Ike purpose. of an area pin. is 10 faci1itale desired physical c!range. To
oe"""'JXlS~ that desire, Ike area plan needs 10 provitk '1WUg~ <conomie incentivep
the prfwzte sector to proceedwith develnfm'.ent. Li1ewisefor tke public sec!<N'. there
musl be suJ!icrent QSs!U'(J71Ce that del;elopm<nt --"it proceed 10 WarTant appropriale
infrastructure invesl11Uma. lmplemenJation of an area plan 1!Ii1)I span a considerable
tfme period To kelp focHt/ate ind'rvidual investment decisio,..s, tke result. of all
approved area ptan need '" be structured.o thaI tFu!y are Q reliable basis p both
private and public seclor irrvesmumt decisionJ.
DevelopmentjeaJibility -
The physical development concep!s incO<"parated irJQ G1\ area plan have to be
supported by Ike markel in order p Ike desired chong .. to occur.
Environmemal quality and revfew -
The level of development incorporated inJo aft area plan should not o>'erwhe"" Ike
resource carrying capacily of both tke immediate area and the broader community.
The emtironmental 'I!'>;ew docrunent prepared p an aTea pia •• hould be structured
'" facilitale subsequent implemenJatia" of Ike area plan.
• Mtmage Ike area', public and private imprcwemelll procer> 10 facilitate desired
chong .. --
k noted fJejix" an area praMing process is wended '" facililale pltysieal change.
For Ike prfwzte sector, land lISe policreJ and implemenJation Iools Med to be orfemed
10 oem""e the desired changes. The area plan should clearly identify public and
private $eelOf' investmenl expectations. 1M public sector expeclatkms need 10 be
consistent >rill, City operating and capital hudget polieie. and resources.
PruvitJe oppoFlwlilies for broaa and jixlJ.red public partieipatian -
The or"", plan efforl needs SO proviae partieipati<m opporfWlilies p aO members of
the pub!k ... ho believe they have Q stau in lhe outcome and fa<:l/Sed participalion
opportunity p those most aITecoy impacted by tke pla/l. Slaff emtisions .... of both
open public meetings and workshops and a WorCing Group of I:ey property O"''ner>,
representatives of affected groups (e.g, neighborhi;od and business associations) and
m£mbeTJ ofl~.e broader commlD!Ity (e.g .. genual public, environmental community.
Chamber of Commerce).
Proceq Pt1Tamcrers
. , -
-' ... < .... -
. '.
Tlu!follOllli1lg proces.r parameterl represen1 some aspects <>It he Guiding Prindp!es a.g well
as the concern that the land lISe planningprocesJCan tau an extensive (imOU!fr <>Iii"'" and
effi>n. C<mtaining lhe proce .. within a reasofU1h1e (a.nd C.ouncil established) Iil1JI! /ine and
stating that IN puUic proces.J does /'101 have It> achieve unf,ersai agreeme".! (1 .•. consel1$US)
are imponallL
• W /Xl rre~tIs 10 be done consistent with a time liM/schedule.
• lrtJegrate the area plan inJo the Comprehensive i'im1.
• Process "".tIs 10 be r.,poruive '" the needs and C01!Strain(.f ofproperty 0""""',
people living 01' worling iJf the surrourrding neighborhoods, and the broader
CGIPIImDIily.
•
•
Work IO"rI1ards maximwn community ogreemenlltuJ /WI require consel1SUS.
CommWlity involvement and communication sl-.cuJd involve both large working
muting. involving the active participation OJ the general public and a Working
Group ",Tws. members have bot" a recommending role to tlte City and
co"..munfcation and eo'ucatforr ,ole'" the community.
The Wwting Group sTwuld he Q represent,tive group of stateTwlders m the
immeolOte area and the broade, public.
The area plaMing process is inJended 10 be specific. Establishmenl of general rufes and
expectations ... ith the details 10 be worted out later "'GuM not be regarded as Q successfol
planning proceSl. The following prt><f..ACI specifications have heell Ufentijkd:
• Comprelterulve Plan land IISI! designations
Zoning designations -includes, if necessary, developmenl of new zoning tools and
a"",ndment of a/sting regulations
• Generol devetopment Jtandards -Design goiddines for the private and public realms
that fxws on volume and placeme'" of future devetopmenl and landscape
expectations. Guidelir.es are _ wended 10 be detarTed bUilomg-specific designs.
• Circulation plan
:<--" ,
.' -'
, "
.~ ::~
<.-> :::""-
o
EnvironmJ!rUal analysis (asslDflea /0 be a. envu-onmerUal impact report)
• List of public if;vestm£nts aNi related financing plan
St4fJ1Qmsultarrl BeyJlgcu
~ preceding parI of the Jrme 10 CUR, ·Co"".ponents of an Area Planning Program as
Envisioned by CPAC' tIe.uibu in more detail the resow-ces needed in adtlltion to City stqff.
for an area plarL ~ consultanl resou'ces include,·
Process focilitalor
• CommlUlilylland use design expertise
• DevelopmenJ-orienJed economist
Tecllnical resources for the e11Vironmenlal revie><'
Legallregulatory program consultation
Time Frame
Staff concludes thDt for many Teasons, 0 sherrer mort cOI1c£ntratea area plan process is
better t!IJm "" extended proceu. A.J noted before, the process should include OfJpOI'tlUlftie.
for the general public /0 participate as ... ell as use of a Working Group. A minimum time
,ame. Fa'" the point where consultants are hired and the Worting Group is appointed.
would include jOur mont/u of Working Group and public meetfngs. tlvee addjrional months
for compleoon of the Draft Area Nan aNi Draft £Ill. aNi tlve. /0 Jour months for public
rellieVI of the EIR aNi Planning Commission and City COIUlCiJ hearings and action on the
draft Area Plml During the four montlu of Working Group aNi public meetings, it is
e>rvisioned that there ,,'ould be eight evening Working Croup meelings aNi two Saturday
public worhhops, AlI Working GrolJjJ meetings would be open to t~'" public but
porticipation wouldjocus 011 Working Group members, One or more addmonal Working
Croup meeting. would [jk,,1y occur during preparation of the <!raft hea Plan.
Al1ematjyes to Area Pfannj0i' P:i Envisioned by cpAC
A variety of alternatives exist 10 develop and process land use plans. Thr .. alternatives 10
area plannlng include:
J, Staff-d'lrected planning study. using traditional land use <Je,,;gnatioos,
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map amendments and related Plan
policies, programs and text, and zoning ordinance amendments, along
with other implementation tools,
Process: S!2ff-led efl\xf. either with or willlout • citizens tOOlInittee, resulting
in • set of proposed Land Use Plan Map designations, related Plan
policies, program arnl text, ."d implementation tools. The proposed
City aetioos would be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior 10
City C<>uncil tOOSider&tion.
2. Stalf-direcled effol1lo develop one-day wod<sbop resufu; (CPAC or similar pr<>ceSS)
into Comprehensive Plan amendments and related implementation Iools.
Product
Process:
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map and other graphlc
illustrations, related Plan polkies, programs and text, and
implementation tools.
Similar 10 process number ODe, ... '11h • range of potential actions.
). Property owner-led effol1lo develop a land use plannir,g approach for the area.
Process:
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map and other graphic illustrations
and related Plan policies, prognms and 1el<1 {and possibly
implementation tools).
Have • group of property owners take the kad in obtaining Ihe
expertise and cooducting • commwrlty participation process with !he
objective of identifying propo5Cd land use planning pollcies for the
area. In the immediate future, • proposal could receive an initial review
by \be Planning Commission and City C<>uncillo determine whether it
should be reviewed in the Comprehensive Plan', Draft ElR (){ subject
\0 a separate environmental review.
ffillb I'rjqri\:f Areas for Area Plaps'Sprsjal Land UK Studies
Staff concludes that if the city is 10 nndertake de:ailed area planning, the fuIl<>wing areas
should have the highest priority:
California-Ventura
SOF AlMedicaI Foundation
South EI Camino Real (from Curtner 10 Otar1estoo)
A fourth high priority ar •• is Midtown. Jt;' I" "J'6 .. d lhOll,~te" It; .me I" .. ea "I"'eiik
eicWtlShG:c:; be ibds..HfttaB~ ltutJied; The Midt~n area is being studied scparate1y~ with
Ihe initial involvemeol of. working group representing all stakeholder. but !la, dig M.
ma _ et sal pllttieipatier( ~ 'lite f.ot mal Cit, fe. n p!ee:cs! .Ji:>c:l4Sfng on a property owner
funded 1IUISf£, ,it. pla,,-
" ;
•
Regarding these lOur areas, initial process and product observations include;
-Cal-Ventura:
Hewlett Pac\:ard's current clos,:,!! tim¢ for 395 Pag¢ Mill Road is Octobe"
late 1995.
-H-P will likely be IooIdng for I r.use decision in 1996 or early 1997.
Two major property owners (WSJ and H-P) are critical and also coold help
fund an area pla!lIlln8 effort.
-N" mailer wbat the Council dee~ regarding Maximart commercial use
extc:nsioo, ne-.... term "-"" Ioag term complicated land use issues need 10 be
addressed.
-Midtown.
Need cooperation amoog and buy-in Ii-om ley commen:ial propeny owners.
-City staff. rec:entJy p«lIlO5<d approach for worong with the ()wners of
rommercial property in !be Midtown core area (CMR:255:'lS, May 22, 1995)
is an a,1temative way ofaddr¢ssing Midtown's issue>.
-Th. City should be an active player, in addition 10 being. neutral resource,
primarilybe<:ause of the City-owned parUng lot.
-Community and City desire \0 see cbang¢ occur may 00( be c:oosistent with
waffing until after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted 10 undertake City action.
SOfA'PAMF.
-One neigbbo<bood organization is developing. ·plan" for the area (or •
portion of the area).
One-day workshop promised by City Council 10 be held .fter P AMP
relocation proposal decision.
-Need 10 mainlain decision 10 separate redevelopment planning fi-om P AMP
celocatioo E!R(currenl IaJ'ge\ date for Council coosidecation o{PAMP E!R is
!of", elo'Al'dl.knuary lJ, 199~
, ,--,
~:.~." -,-.-:
... -.
U!!lesolved ques60n is bow \0 !real in th. Comprehensive Plan and whether
redevelopment planning can or should be delayed until afler Plan is adopled.
-South EI Camino Real (from Curtner Avenue to Charleston Road)
-No dominant property owncr(s).
Gradual pace of change.
-Area with the most difficulr long term parcel size isSUd.
Of the four areas, this is the lowest priority because the pressure or
immecIialelnear term major Iar.d use decisions is the lowest of the four areas.
In summary, numerous arguments can be made regarding the priority of each area. &>.iett
Pack.ard's II!\JlOUI\Ced closing of 395 Page Mill Road, DOW sched>Jled for Oetolla late 1995,
and wbatew:r decision com .. ouI of the former MiOOman site amortization exten.ion issue
argue for ghiog highest priority 10 the Californla-Yentun ,,"re. (and especially the area
bounded by Page Mill. EI CaminO Rca!, the railroad lracks and the nonresidential area south
of Lambert). MidIowD is alegitimale community planning Conttnl and existing cooditions
represonI ~good argumem for lhaI area being ofbigbestpriority, but an initial revitalization
is under way_ AssumingPAMF gains approwl of the proposed Urban Lanecarnpus a."ldthey
decide \0 relocate, reuse cfthe existing Mecf",a1 Foundation site ",ill re.ok in the need for
• redevelopmellt planning process that should also include addressing land lISe issues roo: the
area west '" AImJI Street. EI Camino Real has been of Iongslancfmg concern, and there
would he SIrong community support roo: making this area the highesl priority.
The Possjhility oflnteerntin'l One or Two Area Plans Jn1Q 1be C..orpprehensjye PIan Update
l'm!;m
CPAC anticipated tbat area plans would be undertaken by the City after adoption of tile
C<lrnprehensM: Plan. Under the ""rent timing of the Plan update, it is unlikely that a new
Plan .. ill he adop!ed bem late 1996 "" earl) Slim"''' or early fall cf 1997. lbis schedule
is based 011 the llS>1lIDption that by ~ January the Q>uncil will have finished e_gII t>l
tile current PIlose n review \0 allow staff to start the Draft Plan preparation process and
CoUncil review efland Use Map issues will ~onclu:le by tlu! end of F.hroary. Preparation
cfthe Draft Plan and Draft FIR is anti<:ipated to take six months. If. Draft PI .. , and related
EIR is a.·.ilabl~ roo: pubIk review starting in ~August 1996, the pubIk review schedule
is tikely \0 go into 1.1.1996 mid /997. lIthe eo..mcil wisI'.es to then proceed with an ar~.
plan, consultant selection wOO< would start in emIy late 1997 (at the earliest).
, .
'. .
.. " ~
Staffhas reviewed the issue resulting from Ibe argument that addressing at least ",,'cral of
the likely high-priority study ",-.:as shouldn't wait until after the Comprebensivo Plan is
adopted. A near,!mn soIutioo !bat staff identified is 10 bulld oolhe existi.,g Cornpreheru;i~e
Plan an<! O!h..-coosu/tanI: contracts (Moore, lacofano, GoltslIlM, Inc. lOr process fao1itation,
Celtboqle and Associates lOr sil< planning and design, Brady and Associates lOr
environme.ta1 w.iew. Camhridge Systemati<:s lOr tnmsportation analysis, and Keyser
MarstoQ lOr economio analysis) and develop one or two area plans th81 would be
incorponIted into \he Comprebensive Plan.
If ODe Q£ two area plaus were developed as part of preparing \he draft Plan, staff coocludc>
1ha11h. schedule for aOOptioo of the Comprehensive Plan would be delayed a minimum of
310 4 months. If the City Council is inlcres!<d in this approach, \he dewls of integrating \he
Comprehensive Plan Updal< scm.lu1e with area planning e!furts need 10 be QlSCussed and
refined with the City'$ Compcehensive Plan prooois coosuTtant (Daniel Jacofana) before
eventual approval by the City Cooneil. Stslf """ _ cle\ cloped • ceo! ""i",ore 1« llIi.
"I'JA DOell; l>u! !he .. e. k !betIld 00" Ie" !!wi • """Mi olen. Pleee... Staff concludesr1uH the
cost of <111 area planning poees. will >WI be significanl/y hwer if incorporated into the
Cornprehe..,ive Plan Updale.
Idto@te& issue tNtt ffaffy,et!klnccd to exptBre is the extent ks which iaiCOl~ 6(ert, of
Me area plans iafe .b, M;'ft :Ph !: 6C the Platt 1fPC!U1:e €lOttie! lftetttdc: tic, ckspwcm of
implemematieft tco1s.: lftmesc teob me iltA devde~d: 13 pfttt of the AM update; 1ft~ NtUft
-..orir: ,Sbtf$l¥ould m. oh e the me ofpreKssiOlwJ aststauee.
Cqnclusjon
The Introduction identified four questions reganfmg proactive planning.
-What areas should be fO.,"UOed 00, recognizing IhaI deIalled area planning is costly and
requires significant staff time?
Staffhas identified bJr of the areas cited by CPAC for proac1ive planning as
being of the highest priority, These areas are CaI-Ventura, VJdtown, South EI
Camino Real from Curtner kl Cbarlestoo, and SOl' AlP AMF _ Cal-Ventura and
MidtolOn have a dear .eed for atteotion in the near future. The planning
approach lOr Midtown is ptoposed Ie be moYingforward as a hybrid process.
involving elements of area plJlnning and more traditional City land usc studies.
SOF AlP AMF is likely 10 need 10 receive atlentioo some time a!Iet arc !Pf ing
..tin 1996 01" 1997. wire!! after the City review process for PAMF'. maD
Lane project is anbeipah0610 be completed. South EI Camino Real, wbrle of
significant coocem, has somewhat less prelising issues 1I>an the nther three
areas.
CMiU9S:9S (Rcv_11Il3l9<)
, .
<.-~-
,. ,"
• I.
".' , •
, .
-...:-/
<.
-What sboold be !he pul>& porticipatk>n and other procclural aspects and expectations
"fthese studies?
A ley characterislk of!he fOur highest priority areas is the c:ose relationship
of residential and nooresidentialland Staff cone Judes that any area planning
e&rt that does nol involve the nclghborbood(') early and often in the plan
development process has • signifi<:antly lower chance of eventual adoption and
success. Each of these &IUs in"""es d"tflkult physical and ecOOOOl.;: issues
thai should be addressed .. ithin • process thai offers ongoing opportunities b
all stakeholders 10 voi-~ their needs and desires, heOr the needs and desires of
o!hers, and learn from technical experts the possibilities and consequences of
various coun;es of oction. Key resources in this type of process include neutral
process facilita6on., profes,iotl3l land nseldesign. expertise. ecooomk
expertise, and !r1UISp<lrtatio and other technical expertise.
Is there • need 01" desire to incorpo<ate ooc 01" more of these studies into !he
Comprehensive Plan Update process, nther than waiting until after adoption of the
new Plan?
Adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan is unlikely 10 occur until Ibe fall er
wimer 1ate summer or earlyfoll 0/19961997. The coilrMnatien oCaear ltiM
PfePe' t) C »!lea «sires for dU'eetion: and deeisicw alit! pt~ 6 ~mer Imcf
COE m .• Hfti" desi! Cl :tot chef,!' Jeed mtfi'16 emeJt!tIe that it .. etdd be better to
incotpo;:alx:: pluta &w 1he Ce! 'leftt'dfl: area hito pt1fl3(: m of~ Cel!iptehemi ,e
Plan utll!ele process fee ... ptcpmatioft of. draB PIw:t~ ltkc.l.., te be!irr itt
&pte,"",< I99S). A.~ area planning process along the line. envisioned by
CPAC and the Planning Commission c-an be de-/eloped b the Cal-Ventura
area. IDcusing primarily on the area bounded by Page Io.mI Road, E1 Cammo
Real, the residential areas south of Lambert and the railroad tracks. May 23
and June J 2, 1995 sta..ff reports propose a sepa. ... te planning approach b the
Midtown area.. WIHIe deJa) cftitc AWl pzcpmati6a MId ~ process L!lOt
desirable; C fen Jess dcsL af,fe i3 either ~ iag to ho!d &If cddtaring these arClS
tmtiI after the Pltm is adepted et b)mg Ie incorporate a quick ~h'1 b3e fiK ihte
Phase HI of tfte Plat. Bl'dste f'locc:JS:
If an area plan .. irlcorporated info Phc;.e III of the Comprehensive Pia"
tpOOte, it is important to stress tft8 this eoUCMJiUd is {,ft:~d MJ se-... eral critical
assumptions:
-The ctii"reIlt COmprehensive Plan COilSillting team and Keyser Marston
will be used, rather than starting • Dew consultant selection and
contracting process.
P.IIt'~ 0132
Majoc property owners are willing 10 participate in the planning
process.
-Any appro,,.a1 of a P AMF relocation pIa., includes restrictions on what
P AMF can do will> their cum:n1 properties and COI!lIIUtments 10 • future
:>rea planningproces.s su.ffidenllo reassure P AMF'. neighbors that they
,.iIl not b< placed in a reaotive posjtioo 10 a future redevelopment
proposal.
Wit" preparation of /he Dfaft Comprehensfve Pla~ and Dfaft E1R
""likely '" starl1H:fore Ihe end of January 1996 • .rc.jJ has reassessed
thl! time line for completion of rhz Ccmprehensive Plan Update. Our
,evised time line QJsumes tJwl W Ctr.P1Cil f.nishes review of Ihe six
policy arefJ.J (i .•. Busines. and EciJIlO"'ics. Housing. Traruporl4tion,
Natural EnvironmenJ, Community Desig>! ant! Governance and
CcmmWlity Services) by tJ-.e end of January and finish". revfl!w of
potenJiolland Use Map change. by thl! end of FelJruary. With l/Iose
assumptions. W Plan !ipdate time line ",ould 1H::
Staff and consultaw prepare Drcft Pia" and Draft DR -
Febl'uory /0 :fugll.>~ 1996.
DirtrWutkJn of Draft ilocvments -August. 1996.
Publk:. Board and Commissio.~ reviews -Septem1H:r 10
Decem1H:r. 1996.
• City Council Tnfew. Municipal Code-requfred Planning
Ccmmission ,,,few ofCcuncil-proposeJ changes and Council
jinoJ r~' and adoption -January 10 late summer or early foil.
1997.
Incorporation of an area plan into thl! Plan update would add three 10
four months /0 thl! Pian !pdate JChedule ..,ith Cmmcil adopt;on of thl!
,...., Plall unlikely to occur before Ihe end of J 997. :f critical part of
W longer schedule is the integration of 1M draft area plan into the
Drcft EIR i Trafl.Spor/ation analysis of lhe new Comprehensive PiafL
Are these studies \0 be funded entirely by the Cgy oc should, at least in scene areas,
property owners be encouraged or expected to financially JlarticiJlato?
CM)t,295:95 (Rnhe4 11II)I95J
" '-.--
~ ," ---,
Q\
\:.9
Staff has _ begun '" estimale the costs of doing an area planning study,
either independently or as part of Phase m of the Compreber.sive Plan
Update, .';dvice 1It1J Melt sough! from W moJor c"mpreMnstve PI<m
C01lJu[tant< 1M combinDtion of" Jx11itator, community desiJPI resource,
eccmomi3t, environmental ~ including UIJJ'.sportatior. expertise, is likely
/Q cost appro"imate/y S200J)()Q·]50, ()(J(). I. addiool1, fegaVregulatory
program assistance Ie the City AttornL)'" Office may be rJ!eded If undertake"
at" _ when City staff reS<IUTCes are <ubstanIially committed Ia o(Mr wort.
a contract planr.er Ia supplement City staff ,",owd be lteCtsS(JFY and ,,'()wd cost
berwun S5(),{)()() and $75,()(J().fora II).. to J].m<»:/h worlperiod. As. matter
of policy, staff wocludes that it is • reasonable City expectation that
commercial property owners in the Cal-Ventura area. as wen as Mid"",,,
other areas undergoing area plans, be expected to pay some significa,<t
percentage of the consultant costs fur the area planning efforts. Some otber
City costs may be otrs..t by a cost recovery mechanism telated to future
building permit".
"flIe conclusion of staffs comments on the CPAC Community Design section quoted near
the beginning or this analysis is that:
TIle issue fur the Council is v.1lelher change {assuming that it is desired) is oo.t
facilitated by reliance 011 the traditional City zooingfprivate development
proposaliC"lty review process approach or whether desired change needs •
more active intervention by the City.
Staff wocludes Iha! a more active intervention by the City is appropriate and elements oftha!
intervention have been described. The: above issue sbouId be the starting point and key b:us
fur City Council cons'.deration of potential area plans.
ALIERNATD'ES
The primary alternatives (whkb are not m .. 'tUally exclusive) 10 the area planning approach
are:
-Direct staff aDd !be Planning Commission 10 develop land use recommendatioos fur
all areas of the City fur consideration in future Cornmi>sion and City Council
Comprehensive Plan publK: bearings.
-Where appropriate, designate in the Comprebensive Plan areas for future land use
study,and
'ace)l 0132
, , ;'":';" ..
" .
. : ,-
--:
Review prop<>Sed land use ~ru.z;ges clevelope.1 by individual and groups ofproperty
0WIlCfS, "ilb or without community invo!vemen~ as part of Comprehensive Plan and
zooing amendment applications.
fiSCAL IMPACT
€i., de. eloptbClit of Mea plMtS ",ill fe.nd," in as ) et to be dcteIlMillcc! eea5uklmt costs::
Individual area plans willaddrcs. issues l".aving positive and neg.tive fuca) impacts on the
CiI)'. These impacts shoold be addressed in the area planning process.
ENYJBQNMJ:NTAL Ass[SSMENT
At the current stage of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, the Council is giving
dire<:tioo for items 10 be incorporated into • draft Plan. Flflw1: preparation and review of the
Draft Comprehensive Plan, v.;'.h or without area plans, will be the subject cf an
enviroomental impact report.
STEPS FOU.OWlNG APPROVAL
The next stage ollhe Comprehensive Plan UpdaIe process is Phase Ill, I'reparl!tion of. Draft
Comprehensive Plan and Draft EIR. Iflhe Cooneil wishes 10 consider further Ihe possibility
of inCO<p<J<ating ooe <l< two area plans into Phase HI. staff will ret"'" 10 Ihe Council with
further inbmation 00 eQSls and timing implications.
ATIACHMENTSiEXBIBITS
There are 00 att~ 10 this staff report.
. «: ArctilIeduraI Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Planning Commission
CPAC
Paee32 0132
. --.
" .. ~.
~ ··i·~:·. :.
.' T; -.' '".~-
-
CITY Of PALO At TO
Memonndwn
TO: City Council Members
SUBJECT: Cooofmated Area Plans
November 9, 1995
The issue of underWdng coordinated area plans is relevant CO<" boll> !he Council's
eoosiderafioo ofagcnda item iI& 00 the November 13, 1995 agenda and consi<lenltion oflhe
Governance goals, poIlcies and programs as part of the Comprebcnsive Plan Update ~
In June. ,;taft" provided the Co<mciI with • staff report on Area Plans (CMR:295:95. 1une 10.
1995). In the iolaVcnir!g mooths, staffhas continued 10 anaIyu the area plaru!illg topic, In
presentiIlg updated information Ie !he Council, the clearest means of communication was
det<;nnlned 10 be !he attached update of the June 10 staff report. New infOOnatioo is in italics
and superseded inbmation bas been retained with s1ril:eouts adde<I.
Respe<:tfully submiUed,
~-e~
KENNETH R.. SCHREIBER
Direclo< of PIannin& and
Community Environment
cc, Architectunll Review Board
Planning Commission
Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committe<:
WSJ Properties (Boyd Smith, Jack Wbc.atley)
Hew\et1-Packard (Doug Alms, Marcel Cooen)
8