01 8-27-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

developments. He said he wanted to also take into account that transit adjacent developments have a higher traffic impact than transit-oriented developments. He referenced slide 53 and confirmed with Mr. Iserson that the report done by Strategic Economics was done in August of 2005. Commissioner Pearce questioned whether the three remaining sites were the only ones with the potential for future development in Hacienda. Mr. Iserson said no, there is the potential for the Roche which is located in the northern section and is currently vacant and there could also be others that could intensify given the possibility of them being built below their maximum FAR. Commissioner Pearce noted that if there is theoretically an elementary school, it would not be located in Hacienda given the space, and Mr. Iserson said this is a question; staff flagged this early on and encouraged Hacienda to dialogue with the school district, and in moving forward the school district will be brought into the process to find out what their needs are and where a school would go, if needed. Commissioner Pearce referred to page 6 of 13 of the staff report relating to standardizing the method of mitigating traffic for new development, and she asked for examples of this. Mr. Iserson said based on Hacienda's original development agreement and the General Plan, if a development causes traffic at an intersection to go below LOS D, the project needs to mitigate it. In the new General Plan, because the traffic fee is in effect, it provides an opportunity to collect fees and for the City to decide where and when to allocate fees to improve intersections that are congested. The approach was modified slightly to give more options whereby, based upon the amount of impact and the location of the intersection that was impacted, the developer may have to do the entire thing. It may also be pro-rated or there may be a reimbursement agreement, so it is a matter of flexibility in deciding how to mitigate the intersections when projects produce impacts. Chair Blank referred to slide 51 and said he was surprised by the full public participation comment, stating that it was his understanding that a specific plan process was more broadly inclusive than it is for a PUD creation. Mr. Iserson said it does not have to be, but if the direction is to do a PUD rather than a specific plan, staff would want to be sure the public be given ample participation and the process would be slowed down. He said Hacienda is a little different than most PUD's due to its size. It is almost like a master plan, so staff would support and encourage that the process be slowed down as compared to the normal PUD development processing while also expanded to be as inclusive as a specific plan would otherwise be. Commissioner Fox said in the housing element slide it talked about options for having the affordable units located on one site versus dispersing them throughout a development, which would be a Council decision. She thought the Council would not have an option on this because the inclusionary housing ordinance says affordable units must be spread throughout the development. She questioned whether the Council would have to reverse or waive the inclusionary housing ordinance in order to locate units altogether on one site. Mr. Iserson said this is the reason staff flagged the item; if the direction was to proceed in this manner due to there having more affordable units and deeper levels of affordability, the City would need to decide what the appropriate mechanism would be. Commissioner Fox referred to the charrette that occurred in 2003 and said Hacienda came forward and wanted to consolidate the parking lots into parking garages. They wanted to build residential or mixed use in the green area between the street and existing commercial buildings, and she wondered if what we are seeing today is what was proposed six years ago. She voiced CCIPC Joint Workshop Minutes 4 August 27, 2008