PC 082813 - Laserfiche WebLink

particular action would be neutral on how much development would ultimately be allowed. He indicated that staff is not tackling that issue in this one application and plans to follow -up on it sometime in the relatively near future. He added that staff sees it as more of a clean -up process and should not be confused with the fundamental issue that is being considered tonight. Mr. Dolan stated that staff's support of this clarification started with the general thinking about what was going to happen in Hacienda in the last time the General Plan was updated. He explained that before that Update, there was no mixed -use designation, but the City started to envision Hacienda as something more than just a business park. He noted that when residential was first allowed in Hacienda, the sites were rezoned for high- density residential; however, the General Plan really started to envision the area as a mixed -use development. He further noted that the Mixed -Use Business Park designation was widely applied thought the Park and was considered to be positive, a good location for housing, and good for the Park and the City. Mr. Dolan stated that the second reason is that the required RHNA housing must go somewhere, and if it does not go into Hacienda, it will go somewhere else throughout the City. He noted that in some ways, if it goes elsewhere, the City will get the housing and the office anyway; however, the City thinks that Hacienda is the right location to put both, as envisioned in the General Plan. Mr. Dolan continued that the third reason for staff's support of this change, which is very important, is that the Housing Element EIR documents evaluated a large amount of development. He indicated that basically, this scenario where the office number is not reduced but residential is added on top of it works in all infrastructure areas and, most importantly to most people, in traffic. He noted that staff has done the analysis and traffic should not be a concern as the circulation system works, and the total number of trips is well beyond what this action would allow. Mr. Dolan stated that the fourth reason is that Hacienda needs the additional square footage to remain competitive as the City moves forward. He noted that there is competition for new projects as parks are constantly evolving, changing, and adjusting to the new marketplace. He indicated that expansion of the opportunity in Hacienda is important to remain competitive, and he believes the Commission may hear a little bit more about that this evening from others. He stated that all other limitations on development in Hacienda will remain in effect; it does not change the site development standards that have been adopted for the housing sites or the site development standards that apply to commercial development. He added that the uses are not changed, and the FAR restrictions on a site -by -site basis are not affected by this change; it is just the total amount of development that changes. Mr. Dolan stated that the last reason is a narrow issue but is something that the Commission needs to understand. He indicated that the California Center project that has already been approved cannot move forward unless it is expressly exempted from the current cap. He explained that Hacienda reviews development projects proposed in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 28, 2013 Page 5 of 16