01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Therefore, Councilmember Olson voiced support of the project and made a motion to find the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and Adopt Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration, find that the General Plan land use amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of an approximately 4.23 acre portion of the 6.22 acre site from Community Facilities Other Public and Institutional to Medium Density Residential, with conditions on page 2 of the staff report. The motion died for lack of a second. Councilmember Narum said many audience members have sent emails and made phone calls. Her question is the benefit to the community if the rezoning is approved, given that more homes are not needed to satisfy the City's current RHNA cycle. She referred to the adjoining neighborhood. In 2006 there was an approval for over 80,000 square feet of building for the church which included a 900 seat sanctuary, 380 parking spaces, and it was clearly intended to be a religious campus. People that moved to the community, in doing their due diligence, would have seen this and they could either choose to accept it or not move to their residence. She asked how this decision would change the impacts on the Ironwood community, specifically relating to traffic and water. From information the Council received, it is clear that what is being proposed is less impact on the neighborhood in terms of traffic in the a.m. peak, in the p.m. peak and on Sunday peak hour, as well as water. One of the things eye-opening to her has been when approvals are granted they run with the land and not with the owner of the land. Therefore, if the church sells this, they sell these approvals and somebody can come in and build what has been approved. She concluded that the impact to the adjacent community is actually favorable in terms of traffic and water because the majority of emails have expressed support of the residential development. Her next question in going beyond the adjacent neighborhood is how it affects the rest of the community. Clearly, she thinks most everybody would agree that the area around Santa Rita and Valley at the peak a.m. periods and evening peak periods, the traffic is terrible. If the Council approves what is proposed, traffic levels indicate it will be better than having the church site being built out. So to her, this is a benefit to the community, as well as a benefit using less water. The City has worked extensively on drought-tolerant landscaping and technologies in appliances, as well as exploring uses of grey water and incorporating those into the houses. She struggles with the questions that have been raised by former Mayor Pico and others on using the remaining Public and Institutionally zoned land, but she also knows that when talking to commercial brokers, they say trends indicate that churches are locating in business parks, are renting multi-purpose rooms at schools on Sunday which provides income to the District, and the public might need to adjust its thinking a bit about the Public and Institutional zoning, given there is land. There are 9 to10 acres at Valley Trails which is empty. This is a larger parcel than this and she thinks she can get there and approve the 25 homes. She would want some changes to what staff recommends. She supports the rezoning and agreed with the Mayor that the Council needs to use its growth management and limit so many houses in 2016 and 2017 to alleviate drought issues. She is also concerned with the one condition in the memo about the building permit versus tenant improvement on the school, and she wants to be sure the added parking at the Gardens is legally documented. MOTION: It was m/s by Narum/Olson to find the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and Adopt Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration, find that the General Plan land use amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and adopt a Resolution approving a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of an approximately 4.23 acre portion of the 6.22 acre site from Community Facilities Other Public and Institutional to Medium Density Residential, and modifying Condition No. 15 in the memorandum dated October 6th to clarify it refers to tenant improvement and not a building permit; and that the City will allocate 7 growth City Council Minutes Page 17 of 28 October 6, 2015