CCMIN020513 - Laserfiche WebLink

of support for the relocation of existing projects within the same ALUCP zone, outlined specifically which projects would require ALUC review, and provided some minor process clarifications. Councilmember Pentin asked and Ms. Stern confirmed that it would be amendments, not the entire existing plans, that would be subject to review. Ms. Stern stated that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed General Plan amendments in January 2013. Much of the discussion focused on Section 3.3.2.6 of the ALUCP and a section of the Appendix C. Section 3.3.2.6 allows modification of the APA by Livermore in order to accommodate a transit oriented development around the proposed BART station as Isabel/I-580. Appendix C had previously included a similar clarification that Pleasanton should be afforded similar consideration if it should request an amendment to the APA. This was based on the idea that Pleasanton might wish to look at the location of residential development in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan Area or Staples Ranch that is located within the APA. The Planning Commission disagreed with the proposal and staff subsequetly deleted this from the recommendation. The Commission also recommend several small wording changes, as outlined in the staff report and included in Attachment 1. On January 16, 2013 staff met with the ALUC to discuss the amendments submitted in December as well as the Planning Commission's recommendations. The ALUC did not make a final determinatiom as to consistency but did provide several comments. They requested clarification regarding which projects in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area would be submitted to the ALUC for review and asked that the City enter into an agreement to refer future projects on Staples Ranch to the ALUC. Staff believes Appendix C makes clear that the draft East Pleasanton Specific Plan will go to the ALUC for review, as would any zoning map amendments. With regards to Staples Ranch, there is not authority under state law that would require referral of projects consistent with the Staples Ranch Specific Plan Amendment and Vesting Tentative Map. The City has already completed detailed land use, compatibility and safety analyses as part of the Environmental Impact Report, which was previously reviewed by the ALUC. The ALUC requested some wording changes related to the APA exception for Livermore, which staff believes is adressed in the language submitted to the Council. The ALUC also requested that the adopted Safety Zone diagram be included in the General Plan amendment and staff has agreed to working with them to ensure the correct information is included. Ms. Stern stated that staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution approving the General Plan amendments, as recommended by City staff and the Planning Commission. Mayor Thorne asked how the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) views vacant land that might be contained within the various protection zones. Mr. Fialho said RHNA has nothing to do with available land. The number is allocated based on jobs/housing imbalances and it is then up to the local authority, in this case Pleasanton, to find the available land whether that be within the Urban Growth Boundary or outside the APA. Mayor Thorne said he was under the impression that somewhere in the RHNA formula that they do consider all vacant land. He asked what the impact would be if the City decided to do something different than what is planned today for Staples Ranch. Ms. Stern said there would be no impact in this context if the changes were consistent with the Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Map. Any changes not consistent with those approvals would likely be submitted to the ALUC for review. Councilmember Pentin asked and Ms. Stern confirmed that in that event, the Council would have the ability to overrul the ALUC's response. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 9 February 5,2013