01 - Laserfiche WebLink

adoption of the Housing Element, and specific projects, there was always a discussion about what would happen with the Hacienda cap. Mr. Dolan explained that staff is simply looking to clarifiy the issue because not everyone holds the same position as the Vice-Mayor on this topic. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked what would happen if the Council chose to take no action tonight. Mr. Dolan said the issue would still be outstanding. Councilmember Pentin referred to the original PUD, which exempted residential development, and suggested that the default would then be the same. Mr. Dolan acknowledged the logic but said it would be very helpful to have a Council vote affirming that the language, as written, is meant to apply to the residential sites that were recently rezoned. One concern with that action, as opposed to staff's recommendation, is that the intent with regards to future rezonings remains unclear. As proposed by staff, the amendment would exempt everything that exists at present and those properties that were rezoned but does not exempt future rezonings. Councilmember Brown noted that the actions taken in 1992 and 1993 create significant precedence for reducing the cap and said she understood staff's need for clarity. She requested clarification on how pre and post 1993 properties are calculated and that the action acomplishes staff's intent to unify the method used for each. Mr. Dolan clarified that tonight's action does not relate to that issue. Councilmember Brown said she would prefer for them to occur simultaneously so that the Council can make its decision in the context of what effect the change in tracking methods has on the available square footage. Mr. Dolan explained that it would be a neutral action with no impact on the cap. Staff's current idea is to convert both pools to car trip equivalents, rather than car trip equivalents for one pool and square footage for another. Councilmember Brown disagreed and said a change from square footage to car trip equivalents would require a recalculation. Councilmember Narum asked staff to comment on the costs benefits of residential versus commercial development. Mr. Fialhe explained that Hacienda is unique in that most of the development that is occurring is considered infill and therefore does not carry many of the costs associated with what is known as a greenfill development where infrastructure is not already in place. He said that generally, single family residential housing generates a positive cash flow for the city, whereas multi-family residential has a greater impact on city services per square foot and tends to generate a negative cash flow. Commercial, office and industrial development generates a positive cash flow. Due to the assessed value, potential sales tax and other fee revenues, office tends to be the most ideal type of development in terms of cash flow. Annually, a 30 unit per acre multi-family project could result in a roughly $190,000 net decrease in revenue whereas a 400,000 square foot office building could generate upwards of $600,000 in additional revenue. Councilmember Narum acknowledged that the General Plan EIR and related SEIR indicates the business park has more than enough capacity to meet traffic standards. She asked staff to comment on City Council Minutes Page 6 of 12 September 17, 2013