Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENT 1 <br />11C~liilil~13t1 <br />Owners ~.i` SOClatlnn <br />Rrcember 10, 200? <br />Nelson Pialho, City Manager <br />Jerry Iserson, Plmmiug Director <br />City of Pleasanton <br />123 Main Street <br />Post OFPice i3ox 520 <br />Pleasanton, CA 94566-0302. <br />Re: Haaieada Business Park Planning <br />Dear Nelson and Jerry: <br />As p•e haa•e discussed,.) laaienda issupportiveofthe Citj•'s effnt-LS to Uuild tnamen tum tntvards the. adopti on ol'its updated <br />General 1'lao ~y 31>riug 2003. Pleasantm) hea always Uean a leader in adopting cutting edge and award winning general <br />plans. We are particularly pleased that market l'orc:es al FlarSrnda, toge.dtrr with the evolution of tlie. park, are creating <br />unidne opportuwities for Wacienda to revitalize i [selfin a mamter H'hieh hacks with the irnxrvatirr f ransi l-orir•nu•d, m ixcd <br />usranrlsustainable[lerelopmerit vision the City Stalf, the Planning Conunission and the City Council hace describer) in <br />the Cit}''s rlnfl GenrralPlan Update ("GI'U"). <br />As part of our planning ellixts, ve have directed [DAW to prepare dte attachrrl analysis of the GI'U, .As you will see, <br />the EDAW analysishighlights hove dtr goals and policies in the City's draft GPLI <rill be advanc•edand impleurrntcrl by <br />I-laeienrla as the pursue ell'oris to convert a successful master plamted, job-generating bosiucss park kith existing <br />infrastructure to a iiaore contemporary, compact, mixed use area with enhancer) nUmrehfcular opportunities and <br />cannectivity. <br />'fhe EpA W analysis finds that an updated Derelnpmrnt Plan/"fUD Design Guideline PUD MndNJcalinn far Hacienda <br />could he used to accomplish the same goals as a Specific Plan. We believe that the CiM' and Hacienda would br well <br />served by including same Ilexi(iility in the planning process to address the mixnn'e of uses anil their coiincction widti^ <br />Hacieurla, without strictly conditioningpenrliog proposals on first processing a nett Specific J'lan.'1'his tvoulrl also allow <br />Hacienda and the Clty to 1}rC[er address the Pact that there are lrojects al' diR•erent stages otl'eazlinrss, and w"oulrl allaw <br />Uath tct move forward as the}`were ready within a shucture than addressrsan areratl vision. <br />9'here are many policy and practical justificatioasto support sucJt altemalivrs. First, as inrlicatcd above, Uy Spring 200S <br />dre City should Have its current planning vision and goals in place based upon uptlarerl CGQA analysis. V/hile man}~ <br />innovative transit oriented development ("TUD") projects have.been appraved, and in some casts rlcvrlapr<I in the East <br />I3ay in recent years, a number afsmartgrowth projects in Pleasanton have been delayed pending the City's adoption of <br />its new General Plan. Ipe•ould Ue unfm~nmateif 2003 could not Ue the year in which some of these inlill, sustainable <br />development projects at Idacieuda: move Carvvard. <br />Second, whereas 3 years ago, the Hacienda stakeholders y'ere considering seeking rrsidenti. I allocations as high as 3,000 <br />units oii many mot wiles, they have now reached cotrsensus to curreiuly srekapproximately cJ00 units an a smaller range <br />of sires. As a result, given that Hacienda is not contemplating greeniield development, Uutrather a narrower range of <br />proposals for compact, mixed use developmrrtp the need fora 3pecitic Plan is less courpelling. <br />4173\Vlllne•lio;ul. Suite l(IS.Pleasanton, Gdifocnia 945f3F-R57t1 Phone 9?5.734.(iSnll Pax )25J34.fiS0I a-mail info(o=hacienda.orp www tww¢hacientla.ort <br />