12 - Laserfiche WebLink

DRAFT said it excluded residential, was because residential was already part of the base; it was already taken care of. She added that even with the discussion on BART, it was clear they were thinking that BART, even if it were never built, would be counted in terms of the cap. Commissioner Allen reiterated that she thinks the Commission is setting the wrong precedent for future Councils. She indicated that she sees the big picture with a three -fold impact: 1. This is essentially a huge giving -away of rights to develop an additional 900,000 square feet of land in Hacienda without the community gaining anything. Unlike California Center where the community gained the right to meet the City's RHNA needs, the community is not getting anything from this change. If an acre is worth a million dollars, these 50 or 70 acres could be a $70- million dollar deal, and the Commission needs to think about that as a City and not just give up that right. 2. This sets a dangerous new precedent and is not consistent with any of the previous decisions around residential, excluding the decision on the Verona project. All the other five residential properties that were built had the cap shifted because the properties were being used for residential and not commercial. So the cap has been used, and that is why the cap is there, and the cap is no longer being used. Allowing this one exception leads to a precedent beyond this Commission. 3. Finally and probably most important, making this decision for the other properties is inconsistent with the City's community of character and the voice of its citizens. The community has been clear that growth and traffic congestion are two of its biggest concerns. Traffic is not a big deal on this project; it is clear that it is has a minimal impact of a few seconds at a few intersections. But there are other impacts to the City. Even with the housing cap being overturned, citizens expect the City to honor the spirit of that vote and carefully manage growth. The City cannot control RHNA and needs to live with it, but it can control how the cap is managed. That is a trigger that the Commission has a choice to use or not use, and the Commission should manage it, not by counting projects where land is going to be residential and not business when they were approved for business. It should count against cap as the land is not being used anymore and should not go into a pool. With respective to competitiveness, Commissioner Allen stated that she also believes Hacienda should be kept very, very competitive; however, dealing with it with this proposal and the reason we are discussing it today is the wrong way to keep Hacienda competitive. She indicated that it should be dealt with by revising floor area ratios, and as has been done in the past to keep Hacienda competitive, done above board in a thoughtful way with a message of keeping competitive, rather than doing it like a little bit of a back -door deal by taking property, putting it back into a pool, and not counting it DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 8/28/2013 Page 8 of 11