Staff recommended that the request is consistent with this recommendation because it <br />provides medium density zoning around the commercial core, which is located just to the east <br />and southeast. This, staff recommended, provides a transition to the low- density residential <br />subdivisions to the north. <br />Ms. Mohr's testimony states that at the subject site, medium - density would be at the periphery <br />with low- density residential immediately adjacent to commercial areas, which she argues <br />contradicts this recommendation. Looking at the land use diagram on page 2 -3 of the RRSC <br />land use element, it appears Ms. Mohr is correct that there would be some low- density <br />residential land in between the commercial node and medium density residential area. <br />However, this is an argument that the RRSC land use diagram is inconsistent with the <br />recommendations of this subarea. That is an argument that would be important when <br />amending or updating the RRSC. Here, however, the application is consistent with the land use <br />diagram, and the hearing official cannot base a decision on a possible inconsistency between <br />the specific map and a general policy. <br />Recommendation 4: Apply site review for parcels fronting the Northwest Expressway and <br />the Southern Pacific Railroads tracks. <br />While this property fronts the Northwest Expressway, the /SR Site Review overlay zone was not <br />requested by the applicant nor recommended by staff to be added. It appears that the intent <br />of the site review would be to address the relationship of the development site to the <br />Northwest Expressway and the railroad, including noise and visual impacts, which would be <br />addressed through other criteria applicable to the tentative subdivision application that the <br />applicant has already submitted for the subject property (see City File #ST 10 -2). <br />The tentative subdivision criteria include EC 9.8515(4), which requires compliance with adopted <br />plan policies. The RRSC includes plan policies (codified at EC 9.9610) regarding minimizing <br />impacts of the expressway and railroad. As such, the addition of the site review adds no public <br />benefit that will not be achieved through the subdivision. If the applicant does not subdivide <br />the land and instead proposes multi - family development, the multi - family development <br />standards (at EC 9.5500), which include landscaping requirements, open space requirements <br />and setback requirements, would provide sufficient landscape, open space and setback buffer <br />for a multi - family development to meet the intent of adopted policies, and of this <br />recommendation. <br />The applicant's written statement addresses several additional RRSC policies. To the extent <br />they are applicable to the proposal, the proposal is consistent with those policies <br />Conclusion <br />The zone change request is consistent with the RSSC and this criterion. <br />Hearings Official Decision (Z 10 -3)432