PC 082813 - Laserfiche WebLink

the developers. Referring back to the case tonight, she noted that the developers chose to build residential on these sites, not commercial, because that makes sense for them. She further noted that had commercial been built on those sites, commercial would have counted against the cap; therefore, since they chose to build residential, it would seem residential should count against the cap as well because the land is now used. Commissioner Allen stated that she is troubled with the idea that, aside from California Center and potentially the BART location because that is a little different, the Commission may be setting a precedent that other Councils and Commissions will have to deal with should this come up many years down the line. She indicated that she had been sending many letters to staff today, but really looking at Verona and all of those properties and the intent, as she read the ordinance and spent many hours on it, it is very clear to her that the cap that was identified in the current ordinance, the reason it 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 28, 2013 Page 10 of 16