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