CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2015
PREPARED BY: Andrew Crabtree, Director/Community Development
APPROVED BY: City Manager
Title
ZONING AMENDMENT, ZA-14-16: CONDIT-EVERGREEN
END
RECOMMENDATION(S)
RECOMMENDATION
1. Open/Close Public Hearing;
2. Waive the first and second reading of the Zoning Amendment Ordinance for ZA-14-16; and
3. Introduce Zoning Amendment Ordinance.
BODY
COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES:
Ongoing Priorities
Maintaining fiscal responsibility
2015 Focus Areas
Stimulate Economic Development
REPORT NARRATIVE:
As discussed in the attached July 14, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report, the proposed Zoning Amendment from CG General Commercial to R-3 Medium Density Residential District would conform to the City's General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approved for the project. (The MOU, attached for reference, was approved along with the General Plan Amendment in February 2015.) Approval of the proposed rezoning would bring the Zoning designation for the site into conformance with the General Plan land use designations for the site (Multi-family Low and Multi-Family Medium) as well as support development of the site consistent with the terms of the MOU.
At the Planning Commission hearing, the Commission discussed the appropriateness of R-3 zoning for the eastern portion of the site which has a Multi-Family Low designation. Staff explained that the proposal is for townhouse development on this portion of the site and that while neither the R-2 Medium Density nor R-3 Medium Density zoning designations currently contain development standards that would support a typical townhouse project, the R-3 district would appear to be closer. Staff also noted that staff is working on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow townhouse development in either the R-2 or R-3 district. The applicant indicated that he would be support either R-2 or R-3 zoning for the eastern portion of the site, but is following staff's guidance.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Inform
A 10 day public hearing notice was published in the Friday, July 24, 2015 edition of the Morgan Hill Times and notices were mailed to property owners within three hundred feet of the project pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090-65096.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
As an alternative to the recommended action, the City Council could rezone the eastern portion of the site to R-2 Medium Density zoning district instead of the R-3 Medium Density zoning district. Should the developer not proceed with a townhouse development or the City amend its zoning district to support townhouse development, the R-2 district would support development of duplexes, but not more intense multi-family development. In the event the City does not amend its Zoning Code to support townhouse development, the developer will likely seek a subsequent planned development rezoning of the property. Because the proposed rezoning would allow townhouses in either the R-2 or R-3 district, the applicant would likely request a Planned Development rezoning should the City not amend the Zoning Code, and the General Plan land use designation density range will limit future development intensity of the site regardless of the application of either the R-2 or R-3 district, staff does not recommend this alternative.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:
On July 14, 2015 the Planning Commission considered and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed Zoning Amendment. The applicant spoke in support of the application at the Planning Commission hearing. No one else appeared to speak on the item. After a brief discussion of how the R-3 District could align with the Multi-family Low General Plan land use designation, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the request. Commissioner Mueller opposed the request, expressing concern that the R-3 zoning designation for the eastern portion of the site could imply future development that would be inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
No budget adjustment required. This project is part of the Community Development Department work plan and the City has collected application fees to cover costs associated with the project.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
Project, Description of CEQA requirements
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously prepared for the project and certified by the City Council, along with a Statement of Overriding Considerations on February 4, 2015. An EIR was warranted because not all potential significant impacts on the environment for the project could be mitigated to less than significant levels. Transportation impacts to US 101 would remain significant and unavoidable because there is no feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to less than significant.
Mitigation measures to be implemented by the project address potential aesthetics, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology, geological, noise, biological (burrowing owls, nesting birds & trees), and air quality (construction and operational) impacts. These are included in the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
LINKS/ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Staff Report 7/14/2015
Zoning Amendment Ordinance
Condit-Evergreen MOU
Council Policy 94-02