01 - Laserfiche WebLink

12. Public Hearing: PUD-81-30-55M/PUD-85-8-27M, City of Pleasanton — Consider introduction of an ordinance approving a Major Modification to PUD-81-30 and PUD-85-08 to address residential development and how it affects the developable square footage in the Hacienda Business Park Community Development Director Dolan presented the staff report. He explained that the essense of this item evolves around the residential development approved as a result of the recent Housing Element rezonings, as it relates to the existing 9.8 million square foot development cap in Hacienda Business Parks PUD. Specifically, the Council is being asked to decide whether or not any approved residential development would reduce the existing commercial capacity. The issue is framed in a condition of approval of the PUD, in which staff proposes to exempt the residential from counting against the cap and thereby retain the ability to continue to develop commercial properties within the park. The proposed condition acknowledges that there has been some ambiguity as to whether or not this has been the past intent but also officially clarifies the present intent regarding existing residential development as well as any to be approved on those properties that were recently rezoned. Mr. Dolan reviewed the history of Hacienda's PUD, which was originally approved for allmost 12 million square feet of office development. In 1992, 79 acres within the park were rezoned to residential and the cap was reduced approximately 1.4 million square feet. The cap was reduced another 500,000 square feet in 1993 when changes to the allowed uses were made. However, the cap was not reduced in 1990 when 12.4 acres were rezoned to residential. The current cap sits at 9.8 million square feet, with a remaining capacity of 1,704,194 square feet. If the proposed PUD amendment is not approved and the potential residential development in the park is to count against the cap, the remaining office capacity would be reduced to 774,364 square feet. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio referred to the action in 1990 in which residential development was exempted from the cap and asked why, with this precedent, staff would presume that residential development is not exempt. Mr. Dolan explained that while the original language of the PUD essentially says that residential development is excluded, there is no certainty of any anticipation of further residential development beyond what occurred in 1990. What is clear from those approvals and the related public discussion is that there was no anticipation of the level of rezoning that just occurred. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio agreed but said that having sat on the Hacienda and Housing Element Task Forces, her only recollection of any discussion regarding this was that the Council would deal with the matter in the future. Mr. Dolan said there have been a number of points along the way where that discussion has not occurred, which is why staff is coming before the Council with it now. Mr. Dolan stated that there are several other actions related to Hacienda and the PUD that staf has been discussing with James Paxson for some time. The park currently consists of two separate PUD pools, with properties designated either pre or post 1993. Each pool is tracked using different methodologies, which is not easy for staff or park administrators nor is it user friednly to those wishing to develop in the park. Once the Council has decided how to proceed on this issue, staff will work park administrators to merge the tracking system for the two pools. He stated that staff supports the proposed PUD amendment for several reasons: 1) the General Plan first introduced the idea of Hacienda as a mixed use park and staff believes the recommended action to be the logical implementation of that policy design; 2) the Housing Element and Climate Action Plan Supplement Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to the General Plan EIR documents that there is adequate infrastructure capacity, including circulation and traffic, to accommodate the residential development without reducing the office development cap; 3) Hacienda believes the additional square City Council Minutes Page 4 of 12 September 17, 2013