Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-15 City CouncilTO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER October 15, 1997 RESPONSE TO DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment CMR:433:97 COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION-RECOMMENDED 1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the Council direct staffto: 1) revise the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to exclude references to the Greenmeadow neighborhood as needing additional neighborhood park land and 2) add the phrase "with the increased FAR to be used predominantly for residential purposes" to the definition of Mixed Use on Page L-10. BACKGROUND At the City Council meeting of September 29, 1997, Council Members raised several questions regarding the Planning Commission-recommended 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and the accompanying Environmental Impact Report. This CMR provides responses to those ~ inquiries. DISCUSSION Following are Council Member questions and staff responses on the Planning. Commission- recommended Comprehensive Plan. The questions have been paraphrased. Ronald McDonald House: Is the City taking irrevocable actions that would limit the expansion of Ronald McDonald House? The 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan does not alter the boundaries of the Open Space land adjacent to Ronald Mc Donald House as it exists in the current Comprehensive Plan or as shown on the approved Sand Hill Corridor Project Plans. An expansion of Ronald McDonald House (the House) was approved in 1989 and later constructed. At that time, the House essentially was developed to its full potential, primarily based on zoning limits on site coverage and parking. Any further notable expansion of the House would require a Comprehensive Plan land use change for a portion of the adjacent Open Space area, as well as Stanford approval to move the lease line. CMR:~33:97 Page 1 of 8 Commercial Hotel Overlay Land Use Designation: What would be required to approve a hotel project if a the Hotel Overlay Land Use designation is added to a site? Application of the Commercial Hotel Overlay Land Use designation does not guarantee that a hotel would be approved on a site, but does provide a policy statement of what is acceptable. Approval of a hotel project on a site would require adding the zoning designation of Hotel Combining District or approval of a Planned Community zone. In either case, the proposal would be subject to the City’s development review process. The Planning Commission-recommended Comprehensive Plan proposes that the Commercial Hotel Overlay Land Use designation allow a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) up to 1.5; however, the Hotel Combining Zone District has a maximum FAR of 0.6. Any proposed project greater than 0.6 FAR would require a Planned Community Zone or a change in the Hotel Combining Zone District regulations. Replacement Housing If Hotel Is Built: Can the Comprehensive Plan require replacement housing in some other location if the commercial Hotel Overlay Land Use designation is placed on a site? This issue is addressed by Policy H-5 that states "Discourage the conversion of lands designated as residential to nonresidential, unless there is no net loss of housing potential on a community wide basis." If the. Council prefers stronger language, an additional policy or program could be added that includes language such as "Provide for alternate housing sites comparable to that lost if a hotel is built on a residentially designated site," or the word "Discourage" in Policy H-5 could be revised to "Do not allow." However, being this specific in a program or policy is probably not necessary and removes some flexibility for unforeseen circumstances. At this point in time, the issue of additional housing potential can be looked at in terms of the total Comprehensive Plan review rather than focusing on a site-specific trade-off, as would be the situation with a separate plan change application. Changes in Land Use Density Designations Related to Traffic Impact~: Can the City relate specific land use issues/approvals to changes in intersection level of Service? i.e., Is it possible to link particular land use actions to the significant negative impacts at the six intersections? While it is theoretically possible to select one or more specific parcels, assume new land uses, and recalculate resultant traffic flows on surrounding streets and intersections, the time and cost to do so makes it impractical. The travel forecasting model that was used for the Comprehensive Plan update was developed to look at the composite effect of multiple changes throughout the City, and not for individual site analysis. The traffic impacts at a given intersection are the result of a complex interaction of the traffic generation from individual parcels all over the City, and the capacity of the roads and intersections to handle the trips..If traffic generation were changed on a parcel, the routing of trips from other parcels would also be affected. Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR does contain two "special area" analyses where the relative impact of land uses on specific parcels on an adjacent intersection was determined. The procedure used for this analysis was complex as CMR:433:97 Page 2 of 8 described above and the results are sufficient only for limited comparison purposes. It was not feasible to calculate levels of service. In a project with a 15-year time frame, such as the Comprehensive Plan, no isolated parcel will have an enduring impact at a particular intersection. For example, if the land use were changed on a particular parcel so that the impact at an adjacent intersection changed from significant to acceptable, and other assumptions remain unchanged, the former significant impact would probably merely be delayed a year or two before being realized anyway, due to changing traffic conditions in the rest of the City and region. The project analyzed in the Draft EIR (the Update) is a reasonable worst case scenario. Based on past experience with the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study and other traffic studies, the reality is typically better than the reasonable worst case forecasts. In conclusion, in a long-term, wide-area analysis, the transportation model is designed and best used to determine the collective, long-term impact of one or more scenarios of multiple land use assumptions, as was done for the Comprehensive Plan. Broadly speaking, based upon the level of service data in the Draft EIR for the existing conditions, the Low Alternative, and the Project (the Update), it appears that the only way to avoid significant and unavoidable impacts at multiple, major intersections is to limit development to approximately today’s levels. Noise Comparative Analysis: Compare the existing noise policies with the proposed new policies. Do the new policies allow more noise? The discussion in the 1980-1995 Comprehensive Plan on noise is generally nonquantitative. However, the policies and text reference quantitative standards in two ways. First, the existing plan includes a table of noise standards that defines recommended "superior" and "acceptable" noise levels for various land uses. The standards for superior or acceptable are not mandatory but are "recommended" for use in evaluating whether a particular land use is appropriate in a particular noise environment. The standards also provide guidance when mitigation is imposed in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process. These standards are provided for both indoor and Outdoor locations for most land uses and the unit of measure is L10, or a measurement of the noise level that is exceeded I0 percent of the time. Second, the existing policies reference the City’s Noise Ordinance. The ordinance provides quantitative limits to noise that can be created on different types of property O.e., residential, commercial and industrial, andpublic) at the plane of the property line or other specified distance from the noise source. These limits are placed on noise created by machines, animals or devices for the purpose of protecting others from excessive noise. The limits are based on increases from the local ambient noise level and are measured in dBA (defmed below). An exception is granted for daytime hours, and special regulations apply to construction related noise, equipment used by the City or other public entities and their CMR:433:97 Page 3 of 8 contractors, residential power equipment, gas powered leafblowers, street sweeping, refuse collection, safety devices, emergencies, and parking lot and business district street cleaning. Proposed development projects or land uses must meet the limits imposed by the noise ordinance. At the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan noise consultants, the Planning Commission-recommended Comprehensive Plan includes additional quantitative standards. First, the unit of measure in the land use compatibility table has been revised. The State of California has mandated that noise elements use noise measurements that include day-night average levels such as Ldn. Ldn is a measurement of a 24-hour average noise level, with a penalty added for nighttime noise. This unit of measure is a more inclusive measurement than L10, and therefore the proposed compatibility standards are more restrictive than the existing standards. The categories of "superior" and "acceptable" have been replaced with "normally acceptable" (noise levels for which no noise evaluation is required except in special circumstances), "conditionally acceptable" (levels where a noise study is required and mitigation to the normally acceptable level would be required), and "unacceptable" (a level at which mitigation probably won’t be available to attain the normally acceptable standard). While Ldn and L10 are two distinct methods of measuring noise, determination of noise level using the two methods for the same environment result in insignificant differences in value. The key measurements of the compatibility tables from each Plan are presented below: Land Use Category Residential Commercial/office Park Industrial Schools, libraries, hospitals, etc. Existing Plan Acceptable (Ll0-presented in dBA)** 65 70 65 75 None Proposed Plan Normally Acceptable* (Ldn-presented in dBA) 60 70 65 70 60 *The no~rmally acceptable category allows for the possibility’ that Some specific uses may require lower noise levels than the standard presented. ** dBA = A noise measurement system using decibels which have been "A" weighted to reflect the sensitivity of the human ear to mid-range frequencies. CMR:433:97 Page 4 of 8 It should be noted that the indoor standard is not included in the table above and is not proposed to be included in the new Comprehensive Plan. The indoor standards are not necessary because they easily be met through normal building techniques, if the outdoor standard is achieved. Indoor standards for mu!tiple-family residential uses are included in the proposed Plan as Policy N-33A because they are required by law. The indoor standard of 45 dBA is also proposed to apply to single family residential development in Palo Alto. It should also be noted that the proposed plan includes language added by the Planning Commission (following Goal N-8 on page N-23) which allows flexibility in the noise standard for higher density residential development located near transit stations and routes. Finally, Policy N-34A on Page N-23A of the proposed plan provides a stricter significance criteria for CEQA noise analysis. The existing plan has "no significance" criteria. Theoretically, mitigation would be required only if a proposed project increased noise to levels above the standard. Environments below the standard subjected to noise increases would not necessarily be protected from the increase unless the standard was exceeded. In practice, most analyses prepared for the City utilized a significance Criteria as proposed in the new Plan. Inclusion of this significance criteria in the Plan formalizes the requirement. Revised Noise Ordinance: Will proposed Program N-56, which states the City’s desire to update the noise ordinance, result in more lax noise standards for Palo Alto? The purpose of updating the noise ordinance is to provide increased clarity in the application of its regulations. Recent neighborhood conflicts have resulted in different interpretations of the ordinance by different noise professionals. Such an update will also provide an opportunity for the City to evaluate the more stringent regulations relating to community noise concerns such as leaf blowers and weekend construction noise. Greenmeadow Neighborhood Park Standards: Is the EIR correct in stating that the Greenmeadow neighborhood needs neighborhood parks? Doesn’t Cubberley count towards these standards? Cubberley Commttrtity Center was not considered in the EIR analysis of neighborhood park land in the Comprehensive Plan because it is not City property, but rather a leased school site. However, like other school properties, Cubberley does, in fact, function as a neighborhood park and should have been considered in the analysis. Staff recommends that the Final EIR be revised to exclude references to the Greenmeadow neighborhood as needing additional neighborhood park land.- I~clusion of Council Actions Since Preparation of the Final EIR: Why are the changes to the Sand Hill Road Project, and possible other projects as approved by City Council, not reflected in the Final EIR in all locations where the project is mentioned? The Final EIR acknowledges that the Sand Hill Road EIR has been certified in several appropriate locations, e.g., item 8 on page 2-4, revises the Draft EIR description of the Comprehensive Plan project description for the Sand Hill Road Corridor and several responses to comments. CMR:433:97 Page 5 of 8 The ~assumptions included in Draft EIR Table 1, Comprehensive Plan Update 2010 Development Assumptions, and subsequent analysis and discussion of the proposed Project have not been revised in the Final EIR to reflect the reduced Sand Hill Road Corridor project approved by the City Cotmcil. The EIR evaluates the public review version of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Other changes made throughout the Planning Commission review of the plan are similarly treated. Revision of the EIR analysis to reflect the reduced Sand Hill Road Corridor project and other minor changes to the Comprehensive Plan would be a major undertaking. CEQA does not require that the EIR be revised, as long as the changes to the project description do not result in a more intensive "project" and the EIR evaluates a worst case scenario. The various references to the larger Sand Hill Road Corridor project in the EIR do not mean that the project is still part of the Comprehensive Plan, only that the impacts of such a project have been evaluated under CEQA. Residential Densities: To what extent does the Plan address the issue of City policies recognizing the more intense current residential densities as opposed to the lower intensity single family zoning? This question relates to the maps presented by the Planning Commission that showed the actual residential densities as being greater than the current zoning. Both the 1980-1995 Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission- recommended Comprehensive Plan recognize that retention of existing residential units is important. The current plan provides for the preservation of older single-family homes and small aparanent buildings (Housing Element, Policy 2) and requires that any project causing the loss of rental housing units must meet two of three requirements for replacement, including a 100 percent gain in housing units and/or an equal number of rental units and/or a 20 percent Below Market Rate requirement (Housing Element, Program 9). The Planning Commission-recommended Comprehensive Plan was even more explicit in the policies and programs that encourage increasing the housing supply. These include consideration for adopting minimum density requirements (Program H-2); evaluation of the provisions for second dwelling units with the intent to increase unit production (Program H-4); amending the zoning regulations to allow lots of less than 6,000 square feet (Program H-6); modification of parking requirements to allow higher densities in appropriate areas (Program H-7); encouraging the development of housing on parking lots by adopting incentives that will lead to housing production (Program H-10); and maintenance of multi-family rental housing (Policy H-8, Program H-15 and Program H-16). CMR:433:97 Page 6 of 8 Multiple-family.. Densities: Please provide some comparisons of densities in multiple- family projects. ADDRESS 901 Webster (Webster Wood) 165 Forest 345 Sheridan (The Mayfield) 423 Alma (Abitare) 753 Alma (Alma Place SRO) LOT AREA (Square Feet) 149,410 31,525 70,006 23,962 17,640 # OF UNITS 68 32 83 44 107 DENSITY (Units/acre) 20 44 51 80 264 Floor Area Ratios in the Land Use Definitions: In the Regional/Community Commercial Land Use definition, the maximum floor area ratio is up to 2.0. Since the Downtown has a limit of 1.0 to 1, is this reflected by the definition? The Regional/Community Commercial designation includes areas in the Downtown as well as in other parts of the City Because the current Downtown zoning at 1.0 to 1 is more restrictive, the zoning would apply and consistency would be maintained. Further, since the FAR limits in the Land Use definitions are applied to the entire area designated for that land use, and not to the specific site, variations are acceptable on any given site. For example, it would still be possible to approve a project of greater than 2.0 to 1 FAR. In the case of the Downtown area, numerous properties exceed even the 2.0 to 1 FAR, but the entire area averages less than 2.0 to 1. It should be noted that the California Avenue area zoning permits a 2.0 to 1 FAR and is the probable origin of this maximum. It would be possible, although very unlikely, to reestablish a 2.0 to 1 FAR Downtown. This action would still be consistent with the Plan but would need a separate environmental review and revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Mixed Use Density: Would the Planning Commission recommendation to raise the Mixed Use Land Use density to a maximum of 3.0 to 1 ever mean that it .would automatically be applied to a property.? Mixed Use as a land use designation has not been applied to any site. To do so would require a Map Amendment and attendant public hearings. Placing the Mixed Use designation on a site does not automatically result in a right -to a 3.0 to 1 FAR, since it is an "up to" maximum and would require review on a site-by-site basis. The Commission increased the FAR with the intent to create more housing opportunities in the areas along transit corridors and near multi-modal stations. Staff recommends that the definition be further clarified by adding the following phrase to the end of the defmition: "...with the increased FAR .to be used predominantly for residential purposes." CMR:433:97 Page 7 of 8 Scientific Names: Can the scientific names of plants and animals be included? scientific names are in the EIR. The -RESOURCE IMPACT Resolution of the issues covered in this report would not directly impact City resources. However, adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan including items identified in this report would have numerous impacts on City staffmg and fiscal resources. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The response to the questions regarding Ronald McDonald House, Commercial Hotel Overlay, Replacement housing, land use designations and traffic impacts, noise issues, residential densities and mixed use densities contain policy implications. The recommended wording change for Mixed Use land use defmition would clarify the intent of a proposed land use policy. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Final EIR will be revised to exclude references to the Greenm. eadow neighborhood as needing additional neighborhood park Iand. Other responses to questions in this staff report do not affect the EIR that is to be reviewed and certified by the Council. ATTACHMENTS None PREPARED BY:James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer Brian Dolan, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: / CC:Planning Commission Former CPAC Members Stanford University Stanford Management Company KENNETH R. SCH~BER f rector of Plannin/~ anc~ ." Community En~nt Manager Speakers at the 9/29/97 and 9/30/97 City Council Meetings CMR:433:97 Page 8 of 8