PC 082813 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commission's packet: there is nowhere else in the City where the City has the opportunity to simultaneously meet several really important objectives that are outlined in the General Plan — sustainability, environmental objectives, economic objectives, and place- making objectives. He noted that all of those things happen in Hacienda in a way that cannot happen elsewhere. Mr. Paxson stated that the third really important thing is kind of an offshoot of the second. He noted that nowhere else in the City has it already been paid for and is continuing to be paid for other than in Hacienda. He indicated that the Park was bonded to the tune of about $5.50 per square foot of indebtedness to build all of the improvements that are there now and beyond. He noted that Hacienda had built way more than the Park and, as staff has pointed out, the capacity built in the Park was for something much larger than what it is permitted to build today; in addition, Hacienda will maintain that until 2039. He noted that, for example and to give an idea, just in straight year -by -year dollars, Hacienda has already put close to $60 million dollars in maintenance and other types of things that are not available anywhere else in the City, and that agreement is going to be going on for several more years. He reiterated that being able to accommodate the additional residential in Hacienda, plus being able to simultaneously meet all these objectives, is an opportunity that is not available anywhere else in the City. With respect to Commissioner Allen's questions, Mr. Paxson stated that he was not at the table when the ordinances were adopted and added that he would like to believe that if he were there, he would have said this was a really bad idea and should not be done. He indicated that the fact is that everything with regard to a lot of those changes had to do with negotiating with the Councils that were in place at that time and figuring out how to move things forward. He noted that 1993, in particular, was an incredibly difficult period, and the economy was just coming off the last really awful downturn from the S &L debacle which hurt Hacienda considerably. He indicated that at that point, Hacienda had to look creatively at what it was going to do to keep the Park moving forward. He stated that he was not the table then and did not know what the content of the specific points of the discussions were, so he does not have a really good answer. He indicated, however, that anecdotally, given the things that have happened over that time and what people say, he thinks those were fairly good suppositions of what that conversation was like. Martin Inderbitzen, representing California Center, stated that Mr. Dolan did a good job at summarizing the right level of what the issues were about and explaining where California Center fits in that process. He reiterated that they are kind of between a rock and a hard spot, being put in a position where the City asked them if they were willing to entertain residential, and they were certainly willing to entertain and think it was a great opportunity, being the highest ranked site in the whole Housing Element update process, but they would have to trade Hacienda's cap for residential. He continued that they thought the Hacienda owners would not allow it and did not, and they were told that they would not be allowed to go forward. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 28, 2013 Page 8 of 16