01 - Laserfiche WebLink

the park's main inlets and outlets and the projected level of service at build out, with the residential exempt from the cap. City Traffic Engineer Tassano explained that the 1996 General Plan identified mitigations for all major inlets and outlets. Those mitigations were updated, although most remained exactly the same, as part of the 2005 General Plan update. The SEIR demonstrated that the improvements identified would be sufficient to maintain levels of service with the 9.8 million square foot cap and the additional vehicle trips that accompany residential development. Councilmember Narum asked if there are plans to implement those mitigations. Mr. Tassano said the General Plan is very specific about what is necessary to maintain the level of service and estimated that two of the modifications identified would need to occur sometime between now and buildout of the city in order to maintain that level of service. Councilmember Pentin asked and Mr. Tassano confirmed that the mitigations identified for Hacienda are actually designed for the original 11 million plus square foot cap. Therefore, the mitigations are sufficient for the reduced 9.8 million square foot cap and additional housing. Councilmember Brown noted that in the last RHNA cycle, the city's fair share factors only reduced its allocation 58 units. She said this is not the dramatic decrease that staff indicated. She agreed with Mayor that job creation increases the need for housing. She referred to the city's Housing Element Background Report, which states on page 7 that an accepted rule of thumb is that one housing unit is needed for every 1.5 jobs. She asked what exactly the impact of the build out of Hacienda would have on RHNA numbers. Mr. Dolan explained that the ratio to which she referred is useful as a formula that is fairly easily understood and as a planning concept, but it is not used in determining RHNA. He said he also agreed with the Mayor that employment is a factor in the overall equation, but that the other factors by which the city is judged ultimately result in a reduction. He said it would be impossible for him to predict future RHNA cycles. He noted that the Association of Bay Area Government and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which make RHNA allocations, are not even aware of Hacienda's development cap. What is more likely is that they will look upon the additional housing positively and the net impact of this action would be minimal in his estimation. Mayor Thorne clarified his point, which is that RHNA should not be allowed to drive the city's decisions relative to creating jobs. Mayor Thorne opened the public hearing. James Paxson, Hacienda Business Park, expressed his support for the staff recommendation. He asked that the Council do the same, if for no other reason than that the ambiguity in the current langauge is difficult to navigate and could potentially impede business development. He stressed the unique opportunity Hacienda presents for the city, as well as the level of investment put into this part of north Pleasanton which totals nearly $265 million in today's dollars. The park also maintains a significant amount of infrastructure that would otherwise be managed by the city, an ongoing investment that totals another $45 million to date in today's dollars. Hacienda presents a unique fiscal opportunity in that additional development carry little if any additional infrastructure impact to the city. The sustainable vision outlined in the General Plan can happen in Hacienda in a way that it cannot elsewhere. With regards to existing development potential under the cap, he noted that much of the 774,000 square feet available if residential were not to be exempt is already called for by approved but not yet built projects. He stressed that Hacienda's ability to remaim competetive is reliant upon the remaining square footage that would be available if residential were exempt. With regard to the cost City Council Minutes Page 7 of 12 September 17, 2013