My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 010913
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 010913
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:33:12 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:23:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/9/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner O'Connor agreed that is correct. <br />Ms. Stern indicated that that is already in the document. <br />Chair Blank inquired if that does not need to be deleted. <br />Ms. Stern replied that it reflects the fact that there already is an allowance for <br />intensification for Livermore. <br />Commissioner O'Connor inquired if it is only for Livermore. <br />Chair Blank indicated he would be happy if it stated: The 2012 update to the ALUCP <br />allows for consideration of intensification of existing development within the Airport <br />Protection Area within the City of Livermore." He asked the Commissioners if that <br />sounds fine. <br />Commissioner Pearce indicated that it is good, absolutely. <br />Commissioner Narum indicated that she is worried somebody will look at this and say <br />they can have more density because the ALUCP document says so. <br />Chair Blank stated that he thinks Policy 20 is still okay although he would still like to see <br />something that uses the term "airport stakeholders." He agreed with Commissioner <br />Olson that businesses are a stakeholder, the City of Pleasanton is a stakeholder, and <br />airport stakeholders are a little bit different than the regular stakeholders we deal with. <br />Commissioner Pearce said it is good. <br />Chair Blank stated that the noise section is fine. <br />Commissioner Blank moved to recommend that the City Council approve the <br />Draft General Plan Amendments as shown in Exhibit A of the staff report with the <br />following modifications: <br />1. Aviation Hazards Section from the Public Safety Element, Airports: Revise <br />the last sentence of the fourth paragraph as follows: "The 2012 update to the <br />ALUCP allows for consideration of intensification of existing development within <br />the Airport Protection Area within the City of Livermore:" <br />2. Goals, Policies and Programs of the Public Safety Element: Revise <br />Policy 20 to read as follows: "Work with the Alameda County Airport Land Use <br />Commission, arad its staff, and Airport stakeholders to address air navigational <br />hazards." <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2013 Page 18 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.