CCMIN102009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan presented the staff recommendation, stating that in addition to the rezoning, staff would request that the Council approve the environmental assessment and the negative declaration. He said the analysis was based primarily on the alternatives analysis in the General Plan EIR and that the negative declaration received no public comment during the review period. He acknowledged that a development of this scope would generate considerable environmental impacts, but that any residential scenario would decrease those impacts over what has already been considered by the General Plan. He noted that the Planning Commission, not consistent with staff, proposed that the City only rezone sites 1 and 2 with the third to be considered once the PUD process is complete. The Commission felt the first two sites would satisfy the first round of RHNA requirements but staff recommends that the Council be proactive and rezone all three at this time. He said that if the Council chooses to take action, it will be doing three things: 1) finding that the project does not have a significant effect on the environment and adopt the negative declaration, 2) finding that the PUD rezonings are consistent with the General Plan, and 3) adopting the ordinance that would approve the rezoning. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with City Attorney Roush that while the rezoning could be approved tonight, no development would be approved until the PUD process is complete, unless the property owners submit a request and provide evidence of good cause. He asked what would constitute "good cause." Mr. Roush explained that staff intentionally left that phrase somewhat ambiguous to allow the Council a great deal of discretion. He advised that, if the Council is concerned with the lack of certainty, it could suggest specific criteria for what would constitute good cause. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Mr. Roush that once the property is rezoned, an application could come forward at any time despite the PUD process, and once an application is considered, the Council is legally obligated to review and either approve or deny it. He also confirmed with Mr. Roush that the determination of good cause would ultimately be determined by three votes. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Mr. Roush that the City's first unfilled RHNA requirements called for 521 housing units. He said he has reviewed many other potential sites throughout the City, has identified 3600 potential units, and suggested it might be more suitable to rezone these other sites and let this planning process move forward naturally. Mr. Dolan stated that these three sites were deliberately focused on because the General Plan very clearly anticipated this type of development at this location. He advised that the General Plan does not plan for this rezoning at any other locations and therefore any alternative would require a General Plan amendment. He also explained that, at first analysis, none of the alternatives measure up in terms of meeting the criteria for the type of development the City says it wants. Councilmember Sullivan acknowledged the additional complications but noted that it could still be done. He said that high- density development at many of the alternative sites is discussed in the General Plan and that some councilmembers advocate housing on the east side of the City, where a specific plan is called for. He asked if staff had any feedback on his request to check into some of these sites. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 25 October 20, 2009