RES 01063 - Laserfiche WebLink

impa~ when it ~ the traffic condition~regulations as they rehted to the unbuilt lots. The City llid mt ~ the entire park's cap on development,, mostly'for practical reasons (the developmeat agreements would not have allowed it without non-Prudential owners' consent) but also because it was felt that si~nificant expansi.ons or tear down - rebuilds were unlikely on already developed lots. The ~ 1992-vacantlots have been generally developed (only planned expansion of m~jo~ project~ - laeol~~ Shaklee, Roche - remain), but many have not yet been occupied. The City'sla~t traffic conms (lanuary 2000) do not incorporate much of this last development's traffic. Thus, it is still not known in fact (as opposed t~ projection) what the traffic effects are of a l~ally built-out Hacienda Park. City ~taff has received several inquiries about significant expansions of pre-i992 developed properties. If these were to be approved, the "cushion" of total development the City bargained for in 1992 would be reduced, and with other such requests, could be depleted. Note, however, that these expansions must follow the original traffic regulations, the most salient being the demon.~ration that the project's traffic, coupled with existing and approved projects' waffle, will.not cause a LOS E condition at the PUD-identified intersections. This issue is discussed in the "Traffic' section below. Any expansion uses up both total Hacienda Park "cap" space and also affects intersection LOS. Staff and the Hacienda Owners Association jointly gav~ notice to all the owners of lots in Hacienda to explain the cap and traffic conditions (see a~ach~d letter), We felt it was important for all owners to understand the regulations and the effects of one developer's application on all others' ability to expand. To date, no property. owner has eo~tacted staff to request that this application not be processed in accordance with the existing regulations. The p~'opo~'d project is about 28,9}0 square feet larger than the existing restaurant. It would reduc~ the total cap remaining (about 400,000 square feet) by that amount. (Note that for the total Park development cap there is no adjustment of project sizes based on use.) Awr~lvrial~n~ of Use - The site. lies along the commercial-busineSS-serving edge of Haci~, with its ho~els/restaurants, and shopping centers. While office uses exist across Hopy~rd ROad to U~e west, the only office uses along Hopyard Road within Hacienda Park north of In~leWOOd Drive are the one-story, service-providing offices located behind the Wells Fargo Bank. Although offices are a permitted use in the "CPD District" of the Hacienda PUD, this area hi~torlcally developed with non-off~ce uses. One key land use issue is whether the north Plea.~nton area is best served by a. business-serving commercial use at this site or more offices. The n~rket forces have indicated that at least the Pedro's restauraht ~oncept Could not thrive at this si~e, and the office market is thriving. The Chamberlin ;Group obviously believes that an Case No. PUDD-81-$O-84D Page 6