HACIENDA REPORT - Laserfiche WebLink

together take about one year as outlined above, although staff acknowledges that this schedule is subject change. However, since Hacienda has prepared much of the background analysis for the plan, one year may be a realistic time frame for a Specific Plan. Moreover, since Hacienda's infrastructure (circulation system, water, sewer, drainage, etc.) is mainly in place and able to support the proposed land uses, since many of the sites are developed, and since there are no significant infrastructure financing issues, there may not be a need for a Specific Plan since the remaining issues can be addressed through the PUD process. Again, staff's main concern is with the substance of the process and that all issues are vetted with full public participation. Staff has some concern about combining the park-wide planning process with the individual projects' review process. Typically the more general planning process occurs first to establish the vision, goals, and objectives for the planning area as a whole. Individual site development projects then follow, and would be reviewed as to how they conform to and implement the direction of the broader specific plan or development plan. Starting the park-wide planning process with individual site development plans that are fairly complete and that may not incorporate the objectives and principles for the park as a whole (some of which have been stated in the draft General Plan), may complicate both the resulting Hacienda Development Plan and the individual projects. However, if the Council finds that the applicants' proposed development plans appear to be appropriate for those sites and fit into its vision for the park, then such a combined process would work. Furthermore, under this scenario, the Council may determine that there would be no need to do a Specific Plan or park-wide PUD Development Plan, instead focusing on the proposed developments and the area immediately adjacent to them. Alternatively, if the Council believes that substantial changes to the W.P. Carey and BRE plans are necessary to conform to its vision for Hacienda, then this process could also work if the developers were to modify their plans to include the elements that Council determines are necessary. There would then be a parallel process between overall Hacienda planning and individual site development review. Another consideration is that the residential projects require a General Plan amendment while the CarrAmerica proposal would require only a PUD modification. (Building floor area increases and resulting traffic impacts are the major issues with the Carr project, although, as with other projects, this would be a manageable effort.) The CarrAmerica proposal has been included in one of the General Plan EIR alternatives (as have the residential proposals) so that the traffic impacts and mitigations for that project will be identified. CarrAmerica would wait until the General Plan Update and EIR are adopted before proceeding with its project review. However, there is a question as to whether the Carr proposal would need to be part of the full workshop process (if that process is selected) since it has already been to a PC workshop and is a commercial mixed use development. Staff believes that the CarrAmerica project can proceed independently without impeding the residential, mixed use or TOD land-use aspects of the Hacienda planning process. Page 8 of 13