PC 092309 - Laserfiche WebLink

Plan EIR where it looked at a transit-oriented development alternative, and whether it had any impact. He stated that this is generally true citywide and not only for the Business Park because community-wide impacts are looked at. He continued that during the Master Plan process, it may be necessary to provide additional park space within the Business Park in the PUD process. Commissioner Blank noted that Ms. Stern was emphatic when asked the question earlier that this was right out of the General Plan. He inquired if the Negative Declaration for the rezoning does not count as a Negative Declaration for the PUD. Mr. Roush replied that he was trying to pair it with Ms. Stern’s comments that the Negative Declaration prepared for the rezoning was based on the environmental analysis done for the General Plan with respect to one of the alternatives, the transit- oriented development, in the General Plan. He added that based on that, a determination was made that there would not be an impact on schools, recreation, etc., and he was only suggesting that when the PUD modification process comes forward, there will be another opportunity to look at a range of alternatives that may cause the need to have additional park-type facilities within the Business Park. Commissioner Blank stated that he wanted to have it clearly stated for the record for a future Planning Commission what Mr. Roush is saying: if this project were to be approved as it sits today, and two years down the road a developer comes in and is ready to develop a transit-oriented development project, and the Planning Commission says that is great but the developer must build a park or amenity for recreation, he wanted to be sure whether or not this is legitimate. Ms. Stern stated that an environmental impact is not necessary to request an amenity. She explained that if the Commission believes it is a needed amenity in the area because of Pleasanton’s high standard for good and accessible parks, the Commission can require it without relying on a CEQA analysis finding of significant impact. Commissioner Blank stated that he was looking at it from the perspective that the developer would say it is not needed. Ms. Stern stated that the Commission has discretion over this. Mr. Roush stated that if there were an environmental impact that resulted from the more specific PUD plan requiring additional park recreation facilities, clearly, the Commission could impose this. He added that even without that specific environmental impact, the Commission can still require it even if it did not rise to the level of an environmental impact that had to be mitigated, as long as you could find a reasonable nexus between the need for that amenity and the project. He confirmed that this could be backed up by the Planning Commission or the City Council if the PUD were approved by both. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 23, 2009 Page 14 of 34