PC 010913 - Laserfiche WebLink

process and it chooses not to overrule, she is not sure if the City can subsequently independently and unilaterally overrule. Ms. Harryman stated that the statutes certainly anticipates that a city that is affected is going to look at this within 180 days and either adopt the Plan as is or overrule it, or as staff proposes, adopt it but have the ALUC say it is consistent. She noted that those are the anticipated options and added that she does not see a specific timing provision. She further noted that if the City wants to waive or amend its General Plan, it could do that. She added that she would probably have to do more research as this obviously is not an area that comes up often; 1986 was the last, and it is not clear in the statute. She indicated, however, that it looks like if the Council later wanted to amend the General Plan, the City could take another look at this airport land use issue. Commissioner Olson stated that he is certainly in favor of development but he thinks the City should give up on the idea of future development in an APA. Chair Blank stated that in reference to Appendix C, he does not personally have much of a problem with Item 1, but he would like to see some clarification. He indicated that Items 3, 4, and 5 seem reasonable, as are Items 6 and 7; but he personally has a problem with Item 2 and believes it should be removed from the recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Narum inquired if what are now allowed on Zones 4, 6, and 7 are changes from what were previously allowed, and if up- zoning and down- zoning are also allowed. Ms. Stern replied that previously, there were just different zones and they were configured differently. She added that as she remembers, there were some restrictions on high occupancy as well as high building heights. She noted that they were not as detailed in terms of the uses as they moved the zones around and relabeled them so much. Chair Blank stated that all these zones were sort of bifurcated and trifurcated and he thinks ALUC wanted to try and appear like sort of a phased approach. Commissioner Narum stated that the reason she was asking is because allowing lower density single- and multi - family residential use in Zone 4 is great but questioned if that is the City would really want to have housing as a community right in a flight pattern. Ms. Stern added that it should also be noted that Zone 4 is within the APA. Chair Blank inquired if that it is in the City of Livermore. Ms. Stern replied that part of it is in unincorporated land right now, but it would be anticipated to be in Pleasanton because the other part of it is already in Pleasanton in Staples Ranch. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2013 Page 14 of 20