Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-12-02 City CouncilTO: FROM: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 2 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:DECEMBER 2, 1997 CMR: 484:97 SUBJECT:CITY COUNCIL PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CITY OF PALO ALTO 1998-2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND USE MAP RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council: 1. Confirm the Council’s tentatively-approved changes to the Planning Commission- Recommended 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan as shown in Attachment A, after making any desired corrections or changes; 2. Review and tentatively incorporate the staff-recommended changes related to Midtown as shown in Attachment B; 3. Review and tentatively incorporate the staff recommended change related to Stanford Shopping Center as shown in Attachment C; 4. Review and tentatively approve the Land Use Map and the four land use designation changes as follows: Apply a Commercial Hotel Overlay land use designation to the Stanford-owned lands on the northwest comer of Page Mill Road and E1 Camino Real; Change the property fronting on Maybell at the rear of 4170 E1 Camino Real from Multiple-Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial; Change 491-493 Charleston Road and 4201-4277 E1 Camino Real (Hyatt Rickey’s) from Service Commercial to Multiple-Family Residential with Commercial Hotel Overlay; and CMR:484:97 Page 1 of 6 Add the Commercial Hotel Overlay to the Service Commercial and Multiple-Family Residential designations at 4261-4271 E1 Camino Real and 431 Dinah’s Court (Dinah’s Garden Court Hotel). 5. Forward the Council-proposed changes to the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and Land use Map to the Planning Commission for review and comment on the changes, with a stipulation that the Commission review, comment and report back to the Council by February 1, 1998. BACKGROUND On September 4, 1997, the Planning Commission-Recommended 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map were transmitted to the Council. On September 18, 1997, the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Comprehensive Plan was transmitted to Council. On September 23, 19 and 30, 1997, the Council held public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan. On October 28, November 3, 10 and 18, 1997, the Council reviewed and took tentative actions on the EIR and the Planning Commission- Recommended Plan. DISCUSSION Tentative Council Approvals: Staff has compiled all of the City Council tentatively approved changes to the Planning Commission Recommended Comprehensive Plan and included those as Attachment A. These include Council recommendations that required staff to provide additional wording or modify text. These are noted with an asterisk (*). Midtown: In the discussion on Midtown (Pages L-26 through L-28), the Council directed staff to revise the section to establish a broader perspective and to recognize some of the changes that have occurred in the Midtown area as a result of the positive changes in the economy. The staff-recommended changes are included as Attachment B, which also includes the Planning Commission recommended version. The changes provide a slight shift in emphasis to public improvements and deletion of many of the specific references to the content of the private portion 0fthe Midtown Plan. Stanford Shopping Center: As contained on Attachment C, Programs L-20 and L-21 on Page L-18, changes are recommended to recognize that re-evaluation of the Stanford Shopping Center expansion cap was part of the recent review of the Sand Hill Corridor projects. Land Use Map: Map Changes Since June 1996: The Land Use Map distributed with the Draft Comprehensive Plan was prepared June 18, 1996. A revised version of the Land Use Map has not been distributed. Since June 1996, several Map changes have been approved by City Council. These include: CMR:484:97 Page 2 of 6 Designation of Palo Road, Vineyard Lane and Stock Farm Road as collector streets, changing the designation of Quarry Road between E1 Camino Real and Arboretum Road from Proposed Collector Street to Proposed Arterial Street and approving the extension and widening of Sand Hill Road (consistent with its previous arterial status); Establishing the Streamside Open Space area located between Sand Hill Road and San Francisquito Creek as ranging from 180 feet to 310 feet from the center line of the creek; and Designating Glenbrook Court at the rear of the Palo Alto Hyatt property as single- family residential. Further, the map should reflect the deletion of Homer Avenue and realignment and extension of Urban Lane at the new Palo Alto Medical Foundation site as approved by the Council in January 1996. The City Council tentative action on the Land Use Map includes previous Council actions. The Land Use Map will be distributed to the Council at the time the Council is requested to approve the final version of the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. Proposed Changes to the Land Use Map." The following are the proposed changes to specific land use designations: Commercial Hotel at Page Mill Road and E1 Camino Real (Program B- 18, Page B- 14): No Planning Commission recommendation was made regarding placing a Commercial Hotel Overlay land use designation on the Stanford-owned lands on the northwest comer of Page Mill Road and E1 Camino Real. The Commission had four members who had conflicts of interest in discussing this item. In accordance with State law ("the rule of necessity"), the four Commissioners with conflicts drew straws, in order for one of the conflicted members to participate. The resulting vote on placing a Commercial Hotel designation on the site was 3 to 1 in favor. Since a majority of the full Commission was not in favor, the item is brought forward with no recommendation. Staff continues to recommend application of the Commercial Hotel Overlay land use designation for this site. Sites that were considered by the Commission and recommended for change in Land Use designation are: the property fronting on Maybell at the rear of 4170 El Camino Real, from Multiple-Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial; 491-493 Charleston Road and 4201-4227 E1 Camino Real (Hyatt Rickey’s), from Service Commercial to Multiple-Family Residential with Commercial Hotel Overlay; and adding the Commercial Hotel Overlay to the Service Commercial and Multiple- CMR:484:97 Page 3 of 6 Family Residential at 4261-4271 E1 Camino Real and 431 Dinah’s Court (Dinah’s Garden Hotel). The Commission retained 1795-1885 E1 Camino Real as Neighborhood Commercial after considering a change to Multiple-Family Residential. Noise_: The City Council delayed its discussion of the proposed policies in the Natural Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan to allow time for review of the Planning Commission minutes that were omitted from the set of Commission minutes forwarded to the Council in September. Staff was also asked to provide additional information on the noise issues raised during the development of the proposed policies. The evolution of proposed noise policy has been driven by two factors: 1) the recommendations of the City’s noise consultants to incorporate more quantitative standards into the noise policies and 2) the desire of the Planning Commission to provide flexibility to the standards to accommodate housing development along transit corridors. Efforts to Quantify Policies: One of the consultants’ recommendations was to include specific thresholds of significance for use in California Environmental Quality Act analysis. Previously, the thresholds of significance were left up to the individual EIR author. The thresholds selected and proposed as Policy N-34A are widely accepted in the industry and are not controversial. They do not represent any significant change in City policy but do provide specific guidance for EIR preparers. The noise consultants also recommended that the City revise the Land Use Compatibility Table to make it consistent with the State Guidelines for the Preparation and Contents of the Noise Element of the General Plan. The City currently expresses its standards in average daytime L10. L10 is the noise level exceeded 10 percent of the time. The unit of measure for such a table is now required to be LDN, or a 24-hour average noise level with a 10 decibel (dB) penalty for noise between 10 PM and 7 AM. The required change in the unit of measure does not change City policy in a substantive way. One key standard, the level of noise appropriate for residential use, is proposed to be more stringent than in the previous Land Use Compatibility Table. The maximum noise level would be lowered from 65 dB to 60 dB. However, as explained below, some exceptions to the standard have also been proposed. Planning Commission Introduction of Flexibility: The Planning Commission added flexibility to the policies by providing opportunities for the City to relax the outdoor standard for residential uses. The flexibility would allow the City to approve housing development in locations that are above the 60 dB standard if the necessary mitigation is considered to be undesirable (e.g., excessively high or unsightly noise walls) or where the outdoor areas affected by the higher noise levels are not intended for extensive use. CMR:484:97 Page 4 of 6 The text of the plan explains that housing opportunities near transit often have background noise levels exceeding the 60 dB standard. The primary difference between the proposed policy and current practice is that balconies on multiple family housing developments could be excused from the standard. The City currently requires that balconies meet the standard, at least as noise would affect a person in the sitting position. Implementation: City staff is developing a Comprehensive Plan Implementation Report that will provide detailed recommendations on implementation responsibilities, resources and priorities. Staff anticipates having Planning Commission review of the Implementation Report begin in early Spring, soon after Council adoption of the Plan. Non-substance changes: Numerous non-critical spelling and grammatical convention errors are noted throughout the Draft Plan, the green sheet revisions and on the Land Use Map. Staff intends to correct these in the final version that will return to Council after Planning Commission review. These include but are not limited to: a complete revision of the Acknowledgments page, changing Santa Clara County Transportation Authority to Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency, changing all references to Town and Country Shopping Center to Town and Country Village, changing Lanning Chateau to Laning Chateau, making the park acreage consistent on pages N-3 and C-3, changing SOFA to SOFA, and revising the caption of the picture on Page L-33 to correctly identify the Dr. Thomas M. and Dora Moody Williams Park. Any other corrections should be forwarded to staff for inclusion. RESOURCE IMPACT The Planning Commission-Recommended Comprehensive Plan and Final EIR identify many costly public improvements, legislative changes, plans, studies and programs that are proposed over the life of the Plan. Significant additional staff time and staff resources will be required to implement the proposals. These costs will be the subject of a separate staff report that will accompany the Implementation Chapter. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Comprehensive Plan is the primary policy tool for guiding the future development of the City. Its purpose is to direct decision making toward a shared vision of what Palo Alto should be like in the intermediate and long-term future. The Plan provides the policy framework for decisions of both private and public projects. Through the Implementation Chapter, the Plan is linked to the Capital Improvement Program, the City budget and Council priorities. TIMELINE Following Council action, the Council-proposed changes to the 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (Section 19.04.080) requires that the Planning Commission review CMR:484:97 Page 5 of 6 and comment and report to the Council on the document within 40 days unless otherwise provided by Council. Due to the holidays and crowded Planning C6mmission agendas, staffis recommending that the deadline be extended to February 1, 1998. Once the Commission has completed its review, staff will reformat the document into the City" of Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan and return to Council for final approval of the Plan. Findings required to be adopted under CEQA will be provided at that time. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The tentatively approved changes to the plan by the City Council, do not result in any significant changes to the assumptions used in preparing the Draft EIR or the Final EIR and recirculation is not necessary. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Tentative City Council actions Attachment B: Staff recommended changes on Midtown and Stanford Shopping Center Attachment C: Staff recommended changes to Programs L-20 & L-21 re Stanford Shopping Center Area Maps of proposed land use changes Letter received November 14, 1997 from John K. Abraham PREPARED BY: James E. Gilliland, Assistant Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: FLEMING ~.&. VAssistant City Manager Planning Commission .Property owners: Northwest comer of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real 4170 Maybell (rear) 491-493 Charleston Road and 4201-4277 E1 Camino Real 4261-4271 E1 Camino Real and 431 Dinah’s Court CMR:484:97 Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT A City Council Proposed Changes INTRODUCTION Green Page 1-3, text under heading "Meeting Residential and Commercial Needs," revise the wording as follows: Palo Alto is well known as a desirable residential community and a City with a healthy, competitive business community. Meeting the demands of each community is a major theme of the Plan. The Plan establishes the physical boundaries of residential and commercial areas and sets limits where necessary to ensure that business and housing remain compatible. It encourages private ::~:2ii:i:: ?:::’:’:~::.-~:~:~.?~:::::::~:k ~-?:’:’"¯~..e.~.e..~ enterprise, but not at the expense of the City’s residential neighborhoods. The City is committed to retaining existing businesses, maintaining vital commercial areas, and attracting quality new businesses. Green Page I-3, revise the last theme title to read: ~N~:.!~.s..E...o.g~g~ Governance and Regional Leadership. LAND USE & COMMUNITY DESIGN Green Page L-5, Policy L-1, revise as follows: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed land within the urban service area by ~,,o,~,,~,~ an ~~..S.~~ ~2~i!~i~ urban growth boundary at the same location as the boundary of the urban service area. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Jttttipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for -’ .... ’ ........ ’---- -’ -- ~~i~; and retain undeveloped Baylands east of Highway 101 as open space. *Green Page L-5 and L-5A, text following Program L-0A to be replaced with the following and placed in a text box: A 1985, three party interjurisdictional agreement with the City, Santa Clara County and Stanford University, sets the land use polices for lands owned by Stanford and located JGI971A:LATTACHA 1 within unincorporated Santa Clara County. Stanford’s General Use Permit, issued by Santa Clara County, establishes building area, population limits and some mitigation measures for development of the unincorporated lands; and, identifies four sub-areas with special land use controls (See Map L-3). The special area limitations are: Area A (Campus frontage along El Camino Real): No development. Area B (South of Sand Hill Road between Pasteur Drive and Junipero Serra Boulevard): Until 2021 limited to academic and recreation fields and related support facilities. Faculty, staff or student housing may be proposed in a portion along Campus Drive West. Area C (West ofJunipero Serra between Alpine Road and Deer Creek): Low intensity academic uses that are compatible with the open space qualities of the area. Development of any structure over 5,000 square feet requires a use permit from the County. Development for income producing purposes, or sale or lease for nonacademic purposes, would require annexation to .the City. Area D (Arboretum area along Palm Drive and the Oval): No development. (Note: Leave sidebars) White Page L-7, Policy L-7, be revised as follows: Maintain a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential development for the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City Council may make modifications for specific properties that allow modest additional growth. Such additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900 maximum,-oraara3~’tm~ -1_ _ 1..’_1- ....... 1-_-- 2~"~_1__ ~ ..... .’1 ..... -1_ ~-1-_ ~ ...... 1-____.’_._ 1~1 Green Page L-9, Open Space/Controlled Development definition be revised as follows: Open Space/Controlled Development: Land having all the characteristics of open space but upon which some development may be allowed. Open space amenities must be retained in the~,.e:.: areas. Re,s.idential den:.s:..~ties range from 0.1 to 1 dwelling White Page L-9, accept the original White Page definition of Single Family Residential as follows: Single Family Residential: Includes one dwelling unit on each lot as well as JGI971A:~TTACHA 2 conditional uses requiring permits such as churches and schools. Specific areas may be zoned to allow second units or duplexes where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and not create traffic and parking problems. The net density in single family areas will range from 1 tO 7 units per acre, but may rise to a maximum of 14 units in areas where second units or duplexes are allowed. Population densities will range from 1 to 30 persons per acre. Green Page L-10, Transit-Oriented Residential definition be revised as follows: Transit-Oriented Residential: Allows higher density residential dwellings in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers within a walkable distance, approximately 2,000 feet, of the City’s two multi modal transit stations. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of public transportation and especially the use of Caltrain. Design st ~andards will be prepared to ensure that development successfully co~butes to the street and ~zes potential negative impacts. ~~ Net density will range up to :~5 ~ units per acre, with minimum densities to be considered during development of new City zoning regulations. *Green Page L-10, Mixed Use def’mition be revised as follows: Mixed Use: This category includes Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development. Its purpose is to increase the types of spaces available for living and working to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain areas, and to encourage the upgrading of certain areas with buildings designed to provide a high quality pedestrian-oriented street environment. Mixed Use may include permitted activities mixed within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby sites. Live/Work refers to one or more individuals living in the same building where they earn their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Design standards will be developed to ensure that development is compatible and contributes to the character of the street and neighborhood. Floor area ratios will range up to 1.15, although Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or near multi modal centers will range up to 3:0 ~i!~FAR ~ii:.u..p.~i~:~.~!~::::::::::::::::::::...:::::::::::::::::::...::::::::::::::::: ....... White Page L-11, Commercial Hotel defmition be revised as follows: JGI97[A:~ATTACHA 3 Commercial Hotel: This category allows facilities for use by temporary overnight occupants on a transient basis, such as hotels and motels, with associated conference centers and similar uses. Restaurants and other eating facilities, meeting rooms, small retail shops, personal services, and other services ancillary to the hotel are also allowed. This category can be applied in combination with another land use category. Floor area ratio will range up to 1.5 White Page L-14, text following Policy L-11 be revised as follows: ___,_......... , ..... ..... ..,,_ .... ,-,..~_ .. ...... ~_ ~..__ ,T ....... .~ .... " ~uidelines that encourage certain design patterns and components were provided to all interested builders, contractors, and residents. These guidelines are Used in approving Home ~ ....~.1 _. "l. .........""’-’:::~:.:.~ "~ "~’ ::": "~ ;- "~:-:::;::~’~ .’:;:!-" ~:;:?::!:Improvement Exceptions. l,~,,,,,~,y, ,,~, ~, ~,,,,~i::ii~i~, the Council adopted ~..:~ measures which require design compatibility for alterations or demolitions of residences, constructed prior to 1940, found to have historic merit. The community has also initiated discussions about design compatibility in neighborhoods throughout the City. White Page L-15, the text next to the picture depicting PACCC be revised as follows: ~~.~ ~entura School provides community services such as the Palo Alto Child Care E-errter (PACCC) and a public gathering place for the Ventura neighborhood. White Green JGI97IAAATTACHA Page L-18, Program L-17 be revised as follows: .s....up.p...o.~..~p!..e...m...e..n..t..a~..o...n...o.f.. ~....D...o.~.t.o.~ Urban Design Guide. ~iii~ Page L-21,. Program L-_28 be revised as follows: Establish the following ~~ priorities for redevelopment within the Cal- Ventura area: ¯Connect the Cal-Ventura area with the Multi-modal Transit Station and California Avenue. Provide new streets and pedestrian connections that complete the street grid and create a walkable neighborhood. ¯Fry’s Electronics site ~ili~.~d~: Continued ~etail activity is anticipated for this site over the next 15 years. A program should be developed for the 4 future use of the site for mixed density multi-family housing and a park or other open space. Hewlett Packard: *White Page L-28, Program L-39 be revised as follows: Make improvements to Middlefield Road in Midtown that slow traffic, make the street more pedestrian-friendly, and unify the east and west sides of the White Page L-31, Policy L-47 be revised as follows: Green Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, :?:.:~?‘~.:!.~::)~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:.:......~::~:)~.?~:~:~:~?~$!:.:!:?~:~.::~::::;.::...::~:i?.:.!:‘:::)~.?~;;~.:.~...~:~windows, bays, and balconies along public ways ~~:.~i:.~~; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. Page L-32, Program L-53A be revised as follows: Encourage salvage of discarded historic building matedalsfor re-iis~ by thc White Pages L-35 and L-36, Programs L-64, L-65, and L-68 be merged into a new Program as follows: White Page L-42, Program L-78 be revised as follows: Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility wires, ~ " " areas. Minimize the impacts of undergrounding on street tree root systems and planting areas. JGI97[A:LATTACHA 5 TRANSPORTATION White Page T-3, Policy T-2 be revised as follows: ~~{d~ economic, environmental, and social cost issues in local transportation decisions. *White Page T-4, text in fn’st paragraph following Goal T-2 be revised as follows: Palo Alto is serviced by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Attthofity ~f~ (S~VTA), Caltrain, Dumbarton Bridge Bus Service, and Stanford’s Marguerite Shuttle. All of these services converge at the university Avenue/Downtown Multi-modal Transit Station. The California Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station serves as a secondary transfer :"" "iF:: ’ ":::" :’:"’:?~’;::’:’::’::"":’::’::’:’.?~::~.~:!’.?::’::’::’:cente~ ~ third eertter ~~LS..~..t.Lo...n. is planned on San Antonio Road near the Mountain View border. *White Page T-5, Policy T-4 be revised as follows: Support continued development and improvement of the University Avenue and California Avenue Multi-modal Transit Stations and e~m~"tmefi~r~ the proposed San Antonio Road Station as important transportation nodes for the City. White Page T-6, Program T-13 be revised as follows: Evaluate the extension of a light rail line -’--- ’~’ " ....-’-- ~,~,,1 from Mountain~l.L~,,,eLt~ .I,~L %~I&LELLL%.~ View through Pain Alto to Menlo Park. White Page T-6, text following Program T-13 be revised as follows: Light rail is perceived positively by residents and has been enjoying a renaissance in many parts of California. Santa Clara County light rail is expected to reach Mountain View in 2000, and a logical extension would be north alor, g " ’~ ....~’- -l~,/ %,.~ ~.ILLLLI~.~ Rent to Pain Alto and Menlo Park. The extension would provide more stops than Caltrain and would provide access to many destinations not served by Caltrain. White Page T-8, Policy T-10 be revised as follows: ~~~ amenities such as seating, lighting, and signage at bus stops to increase rider comfort and safety. JGI971A:~ATTACHA 6 ~,~ite Page T-IO, Program T-20 be revised as follows: Implement a network of bicycle boulevards, including extension of the southern end of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard irtto Mountain View. WhitePage T-11, text next to the second photograph be revised as follows: When the Stanford Research Park was built in the -1-960s ~i~, automobiles were seen as the only sensible way to travel and streets were designed without sidewalks. Today, many employees walk to work and exercise at lunch time, but they must do so in the traffic lanes. White Page T-18, Program T-38 be revised as follows: White The following roadways are designated as residential arterials. Treat these streets ¯¯: ?:’!? ~:.::: ::~:?~:~’Y’ "~::::::~:~:~.i’~’?i:~:w~th landscapmg~::i~~..s.i and other visual improvements to distinguish them as residential Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road) University Avenue (between San Francisquito Creek and Middlefield Road) Embarcadero Road (between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road) Charleston/Arastradero Roads (between Miranda Avenue and Fabian Way) Page T-20, Policy T-34 be revised as follows: Reduce neighborhood street and intersection widths and widen planting strips as appropriate ---’- ......... -~: ~ - -" .......... ~- White Page T-20, text Following Policy T-35 be revised as follows: White Vertical curbs prevent drivers from parking on sidewalks, a common and undesirable practice in areas where rolled curbs are not separated from sidewalks Page T-23, text following Goal T-8, first paragraph be revised as follows: Parking is allowed on most streets in Palo Alto, and large tracts of land in commercial areas are devoted to parking. The City regulates parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business distfi~t-s~ Public lots in these areas are paid for by property owners through annual assessments JGI971A:kATTACHA 7 White Page T-24, text following Policy T-46 be moved to follow Policy T-45 as follows: Palo Alto’s policy in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue areas is for most new development to provide its own parking, as the existing demand exceeds the existing supply. Under certain circumstances, some development is allowed to pay in-lieu fees instead of actually providing parking spaces. The fees are used to provide future public parking spaces. White Page T-28, Program T-54 be revised as follows: -~~.ii~!i~~~ ~elocate the terminal building away from the Runway 31 clear zone, allowing for construction of a new terminal. Map T-4 be modified to eliminate the representation of the extension of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard into Mountain View. HOUSING White Page H-7, Program H-4, modify original Program H-4 wording as follows: Evaluate the provisions for second dwelling units in single family areas to provide *White Page H-7, text following Program H-4 be revised as follows: Second unit cottages can provide additional rental housing that is both desirable and unobtrusive. The current cottage regulations should be evaluated to determine how additional units might be provided ::"":?!’~:~i~::::~:~:~:i:~:i-"!:Y’?~";:~:Y’i~!:~:~:~:i:~:!:!:~:!:~:: ::!’~:~:~:~-’======================== " ~ ¯ ¯~i:i~.O.,..~S...ii~...u..~.::.g..s;:i~ reduced parking ~~!~, the-C-ity ’--- limiting the maximum size of the unit, allowing for attached JGI97[A:LATTACHA 8 units, and reducing the minimum lot size requirement. Appropriate development controls and .review procedures should ensure compatibility with adjacent properties. WhitePage H-11, add new Policy H-11A following Goal H-3 as follows: :?’.’~-~:i:;:::5:’:.~’.?i:%?.:-i-??:/-::’~:3~::’:::. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ¯ White Page N-3, Program N-2 be revised as follows Examine and improve management practices for natural habitat and open space areas, including the provision of access to open space for City "-’-- "---’-- "--’-’:- , o,,,~, ~---~ ~,~va~ ~,,e.,L vehicles and equipment, to ensure that natural resources are protected. Green Page N-4, Policy N-4 be revised as follows: Stanford~,s.!gw.e..r. (0...o,...,~i~!.prpp.e,.rty... .................... open space link between the urban area and the foothills. Green Page N-4A, Programs N-5A, N-5B, and N-5c be deleted as follows: White Page N-7, Program N-7 be-revised as follows: JGI971A:kATTACHA 9 Participate in ali:..S~!i~i~ii~iiCoordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) process with adjacent cities¯ White Page N-7, Program N-9 be revised as follows: riparian corridor restoration and enhancement program that identifies specific stretches of corridor to be restored, standards to be achieved, and sources of funding. Include provisions for tree planting to enhance natural habitat. White Page N-9, Program N-12 be revised as follows: ~~ii!Rc-es’tab]~~~ of Arbor Day in Palo Alto. Green Page N-9, Program N-12A be revised as follows: White Page N-9, Program N-13 berevised as follows: Develop and implement ar;-e~fforceabte-plan for maintenance, irrigation, and replacement of trees in parks, parking lots, and City fights-of-way. White Page N-12, Program N-22 use original wording as follows: Implement incentives for the use of drought-tolerant landscaping and recycled water for landscape irrigation. White Page N-15, Program N-31 be revised as follows: Complete improvements to the storm drainage system consistent with the priorities outlined in the City’s 1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan *White Page N-15, add text following Program N-31 as follows: JG]97]A:LATTACHA 10 White Page N-17, Program N-36 be revised as follows: Support l~~ programs that result in the removal of the oldest and dirtiest vehicles on the roadway, White Page N-19, Program N-43 be revised as follows: Continue sponsoring a monthly ~!~!!:.:.household hazardous waste collection event. White Pages N-21 and N-22, Programs N-48 be revised as follows: ~:~:~::’7~.~"::"’::’:::i::.~:"""’:’:::::::,? :,1;":!’::?::~Continue to develop ~.S.....t..5~.ff...~ source separation programs for recyclable solid waste materials fora,,-" waste generators ...rg~~.i~.i.~.~.er~.¢...[~.~.~.~u....s.~.============================================================================================================================================================= White Page N-21 and N-22, Program N-50 be moved to follow text after Program N-48. White Page N-22, add the following text to follow relocated Program N-50: WhitePage N-22, Program N-49 be revised as follows: Maintain and expand the use of~ ~ecycling ~enter at the City’s refuse disposal area. Green Page N-25, Policy N-38 be revised as follows: Green Continually evaluate and revise forecasts for electric power demand. Pursue -:i::":::~!:~:~:~:~:?::?:!~:~:’::"’’":::!:~:’:!’:*:~.~::~:~:!adequate low cost supplies to meet this demand by participating ~~~i!~ the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) .0..r o..~..er. ..... ’ .... ~ ..... -’---" ........... ’- ..... ’ Page N-25, Program N-58A be revised as follows: JGI971A:kATTACHA 11 Encourage ~ ~~b~ of public education programs addressing energy conservation and efficiency. *White Page N-27, Policy N-43 add text following: *Green Page N-28, Program N-67 be revised as follows: C--~rdraet-w~ ~~~"~:i~i~i!~!!~!~ an engineering geologist to ~.~ revie~ geologic, soils, and engineering reports for development~ in hazard areas. Establish appropriate fees to cover the cost of this review. White White Page N-29, Program N-68 be revised as follows: ’ code requirements for excavation, grading, and filling so ~i"..~ii~ that they conform to currently accepted standards. Recover the cost of this work through grading permit fees. Page N-29, Program N-69 be revised as follows: Establish a standardized process for evaluating the impacts of development on the storm drainage system. ~’ .... :-- " .... White Page N-31, Program N-75 be revised as follows: Initiate public education programs that ensm~~~i~.~at each household in the City is prepared to be self-sufficient for 72 hours after a major earthquake. Update and distribute the City’s earthquake preparedness guide, "Living with Our Faults." COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES Green Page C-2, revise chart on Capacity vs. Enrollment as follows: JGI971AAATTACHA 12 1997 1997 2010 Capacity Enrollment Projected Enrollment Elementary School 4077(1)4406(1)4200 Middle School 2,359 2,087 2258 High School 2,869 2,842 3346 TOTAL 9,305 9,335 9804 (1) 1996 White Page C-7, text under Goal C-1 be revised as follows: Delivering high quality City services with lhaxited-~i!~seal resources is-not easy. A ¯ ..~, u~ ~ of aau:!~.g.e,,,s,.::.efficlency and coordinafionh~’-es~at~, along of changing community needs. Demand for services like day ~.i.:~i~:~.i!~i~iicare, education, and recreation continue to grow and change. Technology has revolutionized the way many services are provided, but has also added a new level of complexity. At the same time, the service delivery system itself has changed. Services that were once exclusively provided by the City may now be provided by another public entity or by a nonprofit agency or private company. The result of this trend has been a growing emphasis on partnership and coordination. The only way to achieve maximum efficiency in City service delivery is to collaborate with other jurisdictions, avoid duplication of efforts, build coalitions with the Palo Alto Unified School District, and enlist the assistance of businesses and volunteers to supplement City resources. White Page C-8, Program C-1 be revised as follows: White Page C-8, Program C-Sbe revised as follows: .LU~.,.LLt.Zty tLL~ I,./~.P~L~I, LLt, dLL,I~L,L JGI97IAAATTACHA 13 Green Page C-10, Program C-10 be revised as follows: ~~i.~!ii]3~udget for mad-train ~ staff ~~ in ~~ management -’--"’ .... ~ techniques.~l’kl.ll~ White Page C-14, Program C-17 be revised as follows: Program C-17: ,,T ...... .._ White Page C-14, new text added following Program C-17 as follows: *Green Page C-14, Program C-18A be revised as follows: White Green Page C-14, Program C-19 be deletedi I Ikl~Inlll k.,’l.7, I ll~13tll g llllldlk;¥1,~llll.,lll, ]JlOJ.l~) Ik/l ~,~Idllllllllllll.J/ lalwllltll~b 1111t.l ~’,,t.-. Z"_ -.’1~’~-- .-1-~- .’--_1__-I Page C-14, text under Program C-19A be revised as follows: The City’s existing performing arts facilities are dated and would be difficult to retrofit to meet today’s standards. The City may ~:ii~ consider a joint venture with Stanford University to construct a contemporary state-of-the-art performing arts center. This partnership would allow the cost of the facility to be shared and would maximize its potential use. Such a center should also include exhibition JGI97[A:kATTACHA 14 space. *White Page C-14, Program C-21 and text following be revised as follows: Preserve E1 Camino Park as a recreational resource for the community nt-a White El Camino Park is owned by Stanford University and is leased by the City through Page C-14, text following Policy C-23 be revised as follows: Palo Alto is committed to the maintenance of its facilities to maximize their potential life and avoid the costly effects of deferred maintenance. The City also is committed to on-going improvements that make facilities more welcoming to the public. ~These improvements, such as those completed at Civic Center Plaza and in the lobby at City Hall, could allow public buildings and spaces to truly function as :’community centers.’ Reinvestment could include modernization of.existing facilities to add computer systems, electronic communication equipment, and other ~ ~iiithat improve access to services and increase operating efficiency. White Green Page C-15, Program C-23 be revised as follows: ~::: ":..~..: .:::5:.f::’.:::.:: ~:::::.::-":":.::::::::. : ~::.:’:":!:?::i ~i~:"::!:’ ’ ~--""~s...~.e.j~(~g~ii;~!park, plaza, or other pubhc gathering places _ _." _tt __t__ a_ ~t _~ 1-_I. ~t -_-~:.‘~:~:3~:~:::~:.‘...~:~:~..~:;~::~.~:~:....~:.~.~..~:~:~:~:~:~:.~i:::~...::..~:....~:!:~:~:~.:.::~:~.~.:~:..~!?:~...:.~::~::.~:~:~:~:~:::’~:~.~.~__ ^~*;.’~.,~,~:-~-.~’5:: Page C-16, text following Program C-23A be revised as follows: New technology and changes in our public and private facilities have moved people with disabilities from the confines of their homes into the community at large. As people with disabilities become more mobile, we have become aware of additional impediments not anticipated in our earlier changes. It iiiay t ..... _’L,_ ~---" ....’ ...........’--’-’-planning~,,,,,~ ~ ~,,, ,~,,~y ,,, ~,~, ,,~,. Continued awareness and will facilitate seamless participation by all members of our commtmity." BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS JGI971A:LATTACHA 15 *White Page B-1, Revise the first paragraph in the Introduction as follows: The Business and Economics Element addresses business-related policy issues at the citywide and subarea levels. It is an optional Comprehensive Plan element but its goals, policies, and progi:ams are equally important to those in the mandatory elements. The Element has been specifically prepared to ensure that the needs of Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods are balanced with those of its business community. Its goals emphasize compatibility, diversity, growth, and flexibility. *White Page B-3, text in second paragraph under Retail Sales be revised as follows: These numbers represent the or~peree~ C t~.~...s:ii~...n......e..!ii~....r..~.t, share of the sales tax collected on local sales. The "other" category includes businesses in the San Antonio Road corridor, the Bayshore area, and other remaining businesses throughout in the City. White Page B-5, Policy B-1 be revised as follows: Use a variety of planning and regulatory tools, including growth limits, to ensure that business growth ~ is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods. White Page B-7, Program B-4 be revised as follows: Develop ~g!~P~~P~-~!i.~ fiber optic ring around tlae City as recommended in the 1996 Telecommunications Strategy Study,~,~,-- -’ ,,~ .......... "~,r,, ~, ~ ~,~ by *White Page B-9, Policy B-16 be revised as followS: Where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties through incentives such as reduced parking requirements, credit for on- street parking, and increases in allowable floor area. Use such incentives only :’:where they are needed to stimulate redevelopment JGI971A:L4~TTACHA 16 *White Page B-10, text following Policy B-19 be revised as follows: The University Avenue/Downtown area is a regional retail and entertainment attraction, and a professional office and service commercial center for Palo Alto. ..i.:~~i~~i In the past, the City has taken steps to maintain the area’s strong retail function by limiting the amount of first floor office space. To protect the areas’s scale and character, the total amount of non-residential floor space allowed is also regulated. White Page B-10, delete Policy B-20: " Green Page B-10, Policy B-21 be revised as follows: Maintain a~-i economic, ~,,~ ~,,~ ~!}...!!..i the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complements the Downtown business district, provides ~ for the continued operation of automotive service uses, and serve~ the needs of nearby neighborhoods." Green Page B-13, revise the text at the top of the page (following Policy B-27, page B- 12) as follows: Neighborhood Centers include Midtown, Alma Plaza, Charleston, Edgewood Plaza. The primary concern in these Centers is revitalization, pa,,-~calarly ha ~ ...........................,_ ........Ci.tyo,~,~. The wishes to increase the economic competitiveness and vitality of the~ area~ and is willing to examine regulatory changes and public improvement programs to achieve this objective. This could involve the use of tax or assessment districts to finance necessary improvements. GOVERNANCE White Page G-1, text under Form of Government be revised as follows: Palo Alto was incorporated as a Chartered City-in 1909. The City has adopted a strong City Council/City Manager form of government. The City Council is comprised of nine members who each serve four-year terms. The mayor and vice- JGI971A:kATTACHA 17 Oreen V~ite ~fite mayor are elected to one-year terms by their fellow Council members. The City Council has two standing committees: the Finance Committee and the Policy and Services Committee. In addition to their legislative duties, Council members represent the City on a variety of local, county, regional, and statewide boards, commissions and other organizations. These include the Santa Clara ~ Cities Association, the Santa Clara C-otmty ~!!:~ Transportation Amhofity ~ii!~, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, among others." Page G-4, Policy G-1 be revised as follows: Delegate ~~ decision-making to the Planning Commission, with an appeal process to the City Council, to simplify and shorten the project review process for ,‘a,-,~‘a.u ............. ~,,,.l~,a,:^’........~i~i~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...................... ........ ""::’ ........ projects. Page G-5, text under Policy G-1 be revised as follows: The City has a~adc a coa-~-~ai~,i~i~t to~.!.. consider changes to the City Charter that would delegate more responsibility for land use decisions to the Planning Commission. Many land use decisions now require both Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Delegating more decision-making to the Planning Commissionii!ii~a:ii~!!~.l..ii!~d:i:~i~.~!~~ would streamline the application process and relieve applicants of ~~:~ii~roceedings. Page G-5, Program G-1 be revised:as follows: Initiate a charter amendment for the ballot that would delegate specific !i~ ~’~!:~:!:::~::-; ~:i:~.~ :~::::’.":~:~-::!:~:i.i:~:!¢"~.:~.~:’:!:~:i::’:~:!:!:~:!:~:!:~:~;: ":i:~:~:!:!:!’!:~::::" "?.::"¯~...s..~~:~!:.a...~~!~ to the Planning Commission,~ Page G-5, text under Policy G-2 be revised as follows: "-to .ttat~,_ Ci~aC’ " ,tttatt ~-t~’-:-- ,at-~" ,tut~_ COi-t-t~iiit-t~t-y. The City Council is committed to delegating more responsibilities to e~sting boards and commission~!~a’nt ~di!i~zreati~ng new advisory bodies ~~ili~i:~iii~i~ig."~!!~iii~~~iii~"hen a’pa~~ular expertise or broader base of input is Green Page G-5, Program G-2a be deleted: JGI971A:LATTACHA 18 Green Page G-5, Program G-2B be revised as follows: TT--1 J .........1 __.__’t. 1] __¯ ,,,,,, ,~, ,~-,-,,, ~,o,,~ ~:ildesign workshop~ or charette~ to address design issues within the City. WhitePage G-7, add text following Policy G-6 as follows: Palo Alto should regularly review the benefits of providing and/or sharing :-’---: .....resources, -,~,u~,,s Green Page G-7; Program G-9A be deleted: WhitePage G-8, Program G-10 be revised as follows: ~~_ .~~!i!~i~i~ progr~ to enhance opportunities for volunteer assistance. White Page G-8, Program G-11 be revised as follows: ~~.....~..e..i.i~!:g~i~oppormmtaes for public and nonprofit organizations serving the City to provide information about themselves to the public¯ White Page G-8, Program G-12 be revised as follows: ~~?~i~iilprogram to publicly recognize the efforts of individuals, groups, and businesses who provide volunteer services within the City. White Page G-9, Program G-17 be revised as follows: ¯¯:~:’ ":~ ~..::~::::::::~:]:i:::~::~:~:i:~::::.:!:!:::!~i:i:i:~..~:!:!.~.:?i:::i:~:::~:~:i:~::~:...~.:!...~i:?,~~.0.."~i.~.i.~p.:~.!Customer-onented process improvement efforts. JGI971A:~ATTACHA 19 Attachment B ¢) 0 Attachment C STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER PLANNING Page L-18, Program L-21: The re-evaluation of the Stanford Shopping Center expansion cap was part of the recent review of the Sand Hill Corridor projects. Program L-21 should be replaced by a program that reflects the City Council action and approved Development Agreement. It is recommended that: The last sentence in the text above Program L-20 should be changed to: .b.~i.!..d.~ili~!i0.~i:~!~iii~p~iiii~::~.!..~ ~ incorporate improved University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station and nearby housing. KRSi 19 9 7-2 Icompplankssc.wpd Multiple Family 491-49~ Charlee$on Roaa/ 4201-4227 El Camino Real Change Land Use De~i~na~ion ~om 5e~ice Commercial ~o Mul¢i~le Family Reei~en~ial wiCh Commercial Ho~el Overlay Multiple Family Multiple Family Residential Commercial Graphic Attachment to Staff Repor~Date: 6/4/97 Scale: 1 inch = 400 FT North Remain MultiFde Fami~ Re~ide~r~ial Remain 5ervi~e ;ommerGial Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Scale: 1 inch = 400 FT North Neighborhoo~ Commercial Maybell Avenue Proper~y Change Land Use Designation from Multiple Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial Multipl~ ¯ Family" " Reei~lential Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Date: 6/4/97 Scale.’1 inch = 400 FT North I~gionallCommun’rty Commercial Multiple Family R~sidential Neighborhood Commercial ~rvice Commercial Commercial 2650-2780 El Camino Real Change Land Use Designation ~rom Multiple Family Residential to Multiple Family Residential with Commercial Hotel Overlay. Reeearoh/ Of~ce Park Graphi.c Attachment to Staff Repor~ Date: 6/4/97 Remarks on U . Noise Element of the Proposed Cr’. ~rehen.z-ive Plan John- Abraham, for the City Council an,L: .:,tarf ~-~~by R~, ’~’:’~’ ." "Havinq been involved in the review orocess before the P]a~]ning Commi"-"i,:,iLt~" for a par-ticular noise problem and also havinq followed their deliberations on the new noise element, I would like ~o make a few ""’" - comments. First, the Planninq Commission is, in m~ opinion, a b~t proactive nn..:,~ ... bei~alf of developers ~,/ith reqard to noise issues in Palo Alto. In revie~,v ............ matters involvinE~ objection:J from neighbors, the Commission asks the question "How can we make this project work for the developers and applicant and still meet leqitimate ;~oise concerns?" There maq be a subtle difference between’tI~at and asking "Can this project-meet leq~t~mate neiqhbor concerns and s~.ill be savedW’ but it means a qreat de~l to nei~hb6rs. In mq particular case, for example the CommiSsion became dis[urbed that ne]qhbors miqht have the no~se ~Jrdinance on their side made a sudden partisan tecl~ical rulinq aqainst us ~in error it turn~s out)and booted our appeal ou[ of-tI~6~r r:nuri ’Wilhin Comprehensive Plan, extra friendliness towards developers shows up in the Comm~sslon’s revised Goal N-8, pa.ge N-22 which now reads "An Environment that minimizes the adverse ~mpacts of Noise." Compare this w~th CPAC’s original "Reduce and prevent no~se poIlu~ion." TIle C:ommission recommendati on treats s~rn,ptoms, no [ causes. It encouraqestMple pane windows ~nstead of el irni~J~in~ noi,se a~ the :,;nurr:e lessen]n~ access to noise standards for people ~J]onq transit ~rr~J~-s, and i~ ~eneral compromises noise standards in favo;’of cheap and easy fixes for ~evelopers. The recommendations are likely to be used to argue for increases in current no~se under the banner of "flexibility" as the Commissioners now term it. t’ I would ~sk that the Citq Council reiect Goal N-8 and in,ste~ havene couraqe ~o face the real problems ~uch as leaf blower noise and construction noise the, two leadinq ~o~se complaints; ~rl Palo Alto excluding Shoreline (74>~ in 1991-2,Cf. Palo Alto Com~rehensi~,’e Plan Update, Noise Technical Background Report, August 1994, page 9).’ The ser:ond problem witil the Comrnissior~ is that it has somehow ~ecome defeati,,s,t regarding noise. Noise equals traffic, nothin~ can be one.,.npjse ~ e,,~rywhere and we must ~ive up and acceder more ~oise as ~new~a~e. ~nis defeatism works well ’,#ith dew, eloper fa~,’oritism--let us have more triple pane, sealed containers to I ’e~. ~n near transit, sinceU~ere isno hope to treat the real cause of noise. I believe oneI~as to dare consider that perhaps Iivinq next to railroad tracks is undesirable because of 110 decibel train ,#histle noise. The I~ealtI~ of residents should be more llllpnrtant than arll dm~eln ~er’~- dn,-i-~_..... y ....e ........~. to build more units;.Because of the preposterous demand for I~ousinq in Palo Alto, no noise problem, no matter how severe, is likelq to ~Jiscouraqe people from moving in to sucha situation. Responsibilitq lies with fhe Cit~ Council to prO~ect res~.~ents from unheaiU~q housinq~ tl~e marke~ will For l ikelNdo the iob. Residents, present 6s well’6s future, are entitled t~ flex~biIib~ on their behalf, and in this nnise el-~._.,~,.~’-~ there ~s pre~u~nus; ..... little for~hern~e a bit for developers.- ’At the October !5, 1997 Citq Council Meetinq Council Member ’.~r:hrl~.ider a.’_--;l::.e~1 the ’.", _" _ _ _, ~,H nolse r:nn:--;ul].~=ir~t ~.he e:..:’.ceJlenI~ que::;tinn "How do Ue noi:--;e policies in the new cornprehen::;ive [~lan I::ompare ’,,,’,i,’ith the policies In the current plan?’" Mr. llIin!T+,,orth replied tha! the new policies are required under the statutes a{-~d the real dlfference is that the com~atahiIitLI qul~-ielines as I~-~ hn,,.w~t~-are--!~ninq In apprnve r~ew pro.i e ::i:--;--are.. ......... mn~-~.-re’.:;i ri r:i i,:s., i h~!-I- . incl u~Je more’ I~ nd-u’.:i~s am-I spar.i_ fi c quantitative limit_--; Thi:--; refers in part to the Land Use Table on page I N-24. Wl~ile Mr..’-:-n.qworth. as an acoustical enqit~ ’ certainl.LI l.’.nows about CEQA proce,~,:-., e~, lle arid the City Councll need ,L, know ~n ~ddition what actuall.LI happens during tile review process in Palo Alto, somethin.q I have recent. ~. ....e -.-~,--,p~Ii~n~. w~th. It is l.rue that the new quidelines ar~ more quantitative than before. What is not mentioned is’how disputes between developers and resldents are handled under CEOA now as upp~_o~d to LIears before. In the review process, applicant, staff and appellant use tIi~ ComI:~rehen:~iv~. Plan for arqum~nls to bols~.er their cases. Since developers often !lave extensive neqotiations with the Plan~,inqDepartment as t~_~ what they need to de; to get their project approx.’ed-. there is encouraq~.d in the process a partnership between the develope~: and plannin!~ st~i~. Residents wI-io oppose a small pro,lect do not generally I.:~:i’,,,’,,,’ what they need to do and are often unprepi~red for the extensive battle requireI:I to qet staff attention for thelr usuaIl.q ,u..nderstated and often unstated I~ut leqitimate arqurner~ts. Residents d~not realize, for example, that under C:E~QA quidelin’~.s slaff r.-an ~-Iisregard neiqhbor obiections ,u~;less prei~ented ~!-I ~-n e:--.:pert Nei~Ib~rs.,,, ,are o~ter,una~.’:.’are theft theq ha,,e a narro,,Y time ~.i~indm,,--,,’ durinq ,,, h]’ch theLI can file leqal challenqes ~_o a defective miti.qated r,.e.qa~ive~declaratio~ or that th~.N can ohie~:t at all, reqar,-Iless of i~i,~,w bad f.he project is. Th~!j do not understandthat staff w6rks with de,.elopers assidbousl._LI,,to aqoid the ,-Ireaded EIR because nf cos,!, and that the mitiqa~.~d ne!:lati-,,,e declarationshould be rock solid and ..,erN con,.incinq, or’el~:e it’is quite properl.q :,’ulnerabl~. tn lineal r.hall~nq~. ~Tlmr~. i.~: ori"mu,~h nr~.soure In Inw~.r mitigations lor the benefit of the applicant as was the ca:--;e in the proiect decision I appealed. Developers qenerally have the expeMence, funi-linq ~nd,,financial motivation to eas]l!.I defeat all tile objectionsresidei~it~ ha,.e, legitimate or not."" This is WhLI I arn a,sl:.in~ Council to take a hard look at the Table on paqe N-24. Th~ .qre.LI shade~I area represents "conditionall.q acceptable~ la~d use. ~s nnt’ed~below the qraph, fallinq in the ,.:IreN ~rea triqqer.~noise anal.qsis of the required m~ti.qation. TI[is sound~ qd-6d in prindfple, bu.~:.I ~n-attest that in practice," this means staff r}~ay decide what ~~loga~.~ons wil! just barely do the lob. Proponents will [LIPi~ll.q quote,.he lar,.:leSt number ~n the table to ,~lemnnslrale lheir m,inlof ,.i~.~i’ The riqht h~nd boundaries are much too .qen~ro~]s -~t tl~e e.’..-..:’pZens~ of ~-e-si~ents. Eighty Lrln for "Outdoor sports and-recreation, neighborhood parks and ~laLl.qrounds," for example, equals the sound of a iadkhammer at 50 feet ,-luri~:ig the da~, and 7,:.:, Ldn at ni.qht. No nne would want to Ii’,,e like that in Palo Alto. ~,,et with triple pang windows, sealed interiors, the Planninq Commission would like iust that for people living near tra[~sit corridors. Under the porposal, theor~ly thin.q protectin.q residents frorn hi.ql- Ldn is the iudqment of CitLI Staff. Curr~ntl~._i there- is no staff noise ~,xpert at all i~va~lable (or ne-:,,.Y proiects. Mis~akes are easil.LI made, and I canassure qou ha?e b~.en ma,-l~ in the rec-ent pa:--~t. I am ~Z~sl.-.:inq (hat all the right l~a-nd shaded -are ~ boundaries be mo’.,’ed to the left at ]east 5 units aml preferabIN 10 units in all cateqories. I arn sure staff would deny that theLI ’,,’.,:,,i,l~Id ever l:::i-~o’:.’,:’iI~!~l~ c~rcurnvent health consideratior~s on behalf .oF de :, el opers qet.’,,.,,.’ith,~Tu( an independent expert b:, advise them there ~s likelihood df more mistakes. The Land Use Table is too burdensorne ~o{- residents. _.,,...~.,~,.. : on paqe 4 of 8 in d~. table compares the worst of tile ............’[..=: ’"~" ~"- ~ .....’ ,.,~ propo:=:~11~’--~-I’-.~ upper,~,.~,~,,,. plan limi._ .,..,.,,.,, ,.,,~ u~.’.=.,, of ’"-__ ,,n,,.~.~. It is .,,.~ limits in both new and old tables that get the closest attention. Also at the October 15, 1997 rneet~q Council Member Rosenbaumn,-,l.ed that on pa~e N-23 an,-! Policu. N-33~ the Cornrnissior~ asks that residents along tt~ansit corridors ha’,;e less acces~ to the noise ordinance despl~.e l.he I~act !.hat we alreadN_ have._ qult~._ a bit of housinq. _ along the .-~., tracks, i.e. Wh.LI tI:-- .’,~creased "!l~,:~ibilit.LI" now? Mr. !nqworth replied that tl~e~e are l~wo .... Jndards In~ol,.ed, ou~door and in~,_ iii-~tandards. Theindoor ~tandards wouldn’t cha.nqe but outdoor stan~-lards mi!~l~t be lessened. Mr. Schreiber noted tI~a[ the reason the Commission asi~ed for "flexibility" isessenti..a,!ILI to avoid backing intOs anCEoAEIR. Clearl.LI the Corrlmissi~n want::~ e,,ti-a protec:tion aqainFlexibilitq for residents does not seem to-be at requla(ions. pMority itelf~ for-tI~e Commissi~:m. Cornrnissioner Schmidt su.qqe:::ted that tl~eLI l:~,biected toputtin!:l required outdoor patios on the no~-~:-street side of ~buildin.qs for noise ~elated reasons. TheLI woulrl prefer to put them right on the S(reet, makin!:l them iust a little-bit noisier. Mr. Roselnbau~n asked if Council needed] to be cizmcerne~-I ahout the new lan!:luaqe increa._-~ing noise levels in such places as patios?’ Mr. lllingworth sT~er~:ied to a.qree. Cornrnissioner Cassel felt that traffic is the maln noise culprit and ~.he best way to deal with tI~e problem is to develop rnore transit oriented housin.q. Tl~is despite Mr. lllin.qworth’s table in the DEIR (Table 16, page 201)’showirLq that proiec!,e..d’traffic noise over the projected lile of the ne’.,,~:Cnmpreh6nsi,,e Plan is at most one or two decibels, a neqlihle increase. When Mr. Rosenbaurn returned to asl-...in~ ’,,,’,,,’hat has cha-nqed now, I’!~.Ca,.:~sels replie~-I es’.::entialILI that the new’iiZ:EOA~ rules requ~re it. I ha,,e seen nothin.q to iustiF.LI a preernpti ,, e" ~trike other thatch, theCornmi :--~si oneiSs irri tati on ,t,~i th re.--~i den t s qun t inq the Comprehensi’,, e Pl an aqainst themin review disputes. Mr. Schreiber~s discussion pointed out tl~at an EIR, while expenslve, allows an override b.LI the r:itLi, but due to ex.pense the Commission wan~s alternative Y:,’ays of’~::ircumventing CEQA’s s~!~nificant impact restrictinns. Ease oi approval arld reduce~~, costs~forde~i,’elopers are clearl.LI the real motivation for relaxed noise standard~. I ask that Nou omit the°top par-aqraph on pa!~e N-23 startinq "The r:itN.. and ending wfth "...travel routes" ~nd all relai~ed lan.qua.qe in [he entire~noise element. " " C~°un~_:ll Mem~.ber Fazzino, at the same Council Meeti asked whether witI~ the newlarl.quage Palo Alto will be looking at i ~If as a small city rather that a re.~idential sub.~rh Commissioners Schmidt and Cassell apparentl.Li see Palo Alto as,alread.LI a small city with a need to support public tr-~nsportation. It seems I.o me we can support public transportation without puni~,hin.q nei.qhborhoods with increased noise.There is no ~.:Iood reason to qi,,e u~ on I.’.."~epinq Palo Alto as ~::luiet as it is. I note that~ recentl.LI Cour~-~il Member Faz~ino has proposed ,addin.q ,~pr-o.qram to the Plan lool.-..in~ at leaf blower- noise, a propnsal I ~,,~.r!-I rr~ch cor~mend, and hope the Council will add such a program. - - " With house prices averaging a half-million dollars in Palo Alto, issues of quaIi(.N of life are not likelLI to qo awaLI. The currentComprehensive Pi-bn is much friendlier, ri~uch i~ore in accord with tl~e like,ly future wli~;hes i:,f (]esidents thanthe proFios~iz~ ~P..larl. P!lea:--,e keepin rnin-I the stro.~.q idea.s of the current Plan a,-~d CPA_~’s ori.qinal recornrnendati on:--i- and reject the anti-resi denti al changes proposed bi~ the Pl anning Cornmi ssi on.