PC 010913 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Harryman replied that she would not say that the Pleasanton is throwing a wrench into their process. She explained that their Plan has been adopted no matter what Pleasanton does, and now it is Pleasanton's turn to take a look and decide whether the Plan, as adopted, suits Pleasanton or whether it needs clarification. Commissioner O'Connor stated that he thinks the City is better protected by clarifying the obvious because it is not always obvious to everybody. Ms. Harryman agreed that some things are not so obvious, and staff would have a difficult time implementing them. She explained that in discussion with staff, it was meant to work better within the City's PUD system in the way Pleasanton zones things or views projects, not including the exception the Commission has been focusing on; but generally, that is what the other clarifications were about. Chair Blank stated that he did not look at the language with a sense of that elimination because there is the actual language of the General Plan. He indicated that, for example, he commented in an email that the 2012 update to the ALUCP allows reconsideration and intensification of existing development of the airport protection area, but there is no mention of noise. He stated that he just wants to be really careful here that the City is not inadvertently opening up a can of worms. Commissioner O'Connor inquired if, in asking for these clarifications, the City is not changing its General Plan. Chair Blank clarified that there are some General Plan changes. Mr. Dolan confirmed that there are some General Plan changes that have to be made regardless. Commissioner Pearce agreed. Mr. Dolan explained that the task is to make changes to the Pleasanton General Plan that recognize and are consistent with the ALUCP. He indicated that that is the fundamental action, and staff is saying that in some cases, it is hard to understand what they mean, and getting clarification at the staff level has not been successful so the City is forced to do it through this process. Chair Blank referred to the second page of Exhibit A of the staff report that states: "The ALUCP states the intent of the APA is to prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses near the vicinity of Livermore Airport. The 2012 update to the ALUCP allows for consideration of intensification of existing development within the Airport Protection Area." He indicated that even though the update allows it, and he does not want to speak for the Commission, he thinks there is general consensus that the Commission does not want to have that. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2013 Page 17 of 20