CCMIN082112 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan stated that the changes were made so late in the day that staff did not have copies available for the Council or public. The Council asked that staff prepare copies immediately. After reviewing the slide, the Council expressed considerable confusion and concern regarding maximum density and the total potential number of units. Ms. Stern explained that the last column was inserted at the request of a Councilmember. In some instances, the SEIR analyzed a maximum density that is higher than that recommended by staff and the Council and that is what is represented in the final column. Councilmember McGovern referred to page 7 of the Planning Commission minutes where Ms. Stern had indicated that 30 units per acre was both a minimum and maximum density. Ms. Stern explained that some, not all, sites have a minimum density that is equal to the maximum. She attempted to clarify the matter in stating that the last two columns of revised Table 2.1 really only refer back to the SEIR analysis, which looked at minimum densities on all sites as well as greater densities on the sites where it might be appropriate. Councilmember Sullivan requested clarification on Site 5. Mr. Dolan said Site 5 was rezoned at a minimum of 30 units per acre but it is unique in that it was a larger parcel when originally evaluated. In trying to be responsive to the community, the parcel size was reduced but the SEIR had already analyzed the density at this higher acreage. He explained that the 57 units per acre listed in Table 2.1 is artificial because it is based upon the original ':en acres, rather than the seven that were ultimately rezoned. He reiterated that these values are simply what the sites have environmental clearance for and suggested that the Council could amend any of the maximums if there is any concern. He cautioned that it would be difficult to defend the Standards and Guidelines as reasonable if they identified a minimum and maximum of 30 units per acre for every site, as it is very difficult to design a project under those conditions. Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked and Mr. Dolan confirmed that the purpose of the range in the SEIR is to allow some flexibility where necessary. He said CEQA documents must be analyzed on a worst- case basis. Now that the SEIR has provided clearance for a certain number of units, which are identified in the table, the Council can pull that number back as long as it does not go below the minimum or some reasonable range above that. Councilmember Sullivan conceded that expecting every project to come in right at 30 units per acre is not likely reasonable but thought most people's expectations were that the goal was an average of 30. He felt that, as presented, the rezonings were much denser than he had anticipated. He said he would like to have Council discussion on what the appropriate range would be. Councilmember McGovern said she would like to discuss the fact that all documentation, including the minutes of the Planning Commission, led her to believe that these sites had been approved with a minimum and maximum density of 30 units per acre. Mr. Dolan said staff made no attempts to deceive the Council in any way and believed they had explained the intent of these ranges as he just described. He stressed that this is simply a different way of presenting the same information. Staff has tried to be straightforward about the fact that the minimums were needed to meet Regional Housing Need Allocations (RHNA) but that the SEIR evaluated something more than that to accommodate policy dialogue that would allow for a different outcome if needed. Based on the Council's desire to establish a different maximum, Mr. Dolan suggested that a density range of 5 units per acre (where possible) over the minimum established for each site would be appropriate. City Council Minutes Page 11 of 19 August 21, 2012 •