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
Chair Blank stated that makes sense way on the other side of Livermore. <br />Mr. Dolan continued that ALUC says there is a circumstance where it is important to the <br />city where safety and all the other concerns may be overruled to accommodate some <br />other goal, and staff's suggestion here that Pleasanton stand up for it is merely a <br />suggestion; that if there is a circumstance where a case can be made to have <br />exceptions to the APA and Livermore gets that exception, then Pleasanton should get <br />something like that as well. <br />Chair Blank commented that it is because Livermore has a BART station in the APA <br />and Pleasanton does not. <br />Mr. Dolan noted that this thing is about safety and questioned what it is about a BART <br />station that makes putting residential there safe. <br />Chair Blank added that it is also about noise and pollution, and 80 percent of the <br />complaints about noise from the Livermore Airport already come from Pleasanton. <br />Mr. Dolan explained that this is not associated with any particular site or any planning <br />effort; it is a matter of just applying these restrictions and exceptions to them equally to <br />the two communities affected. He added that if the Planning Commission does not <br />believe that Pleasanton should go after as much of its own discretion as possible, then it <br />can recommend that it be excluded. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that Pleasanton used to have a housing cap of <br />29,000 units that was put in place by its citizens, and Pleasanton fought the lawsuit to <br />retain that housing cap, but lost. He indicated that if Pleasanton is going to go out and <br />fight for yet additional space to build more residential, it will risk having ABAG come in <br />and start dictating to Pleasanton that it has more room for more high- density, low -cost <br />housing, and this starts to snowball. He added that he thought the City did not want <br />more residential. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that staff is not thinking about the Airport Land Use Plan in terms of a <br />growth management tool, and that is not what it is intended to be. He added that the <br />Commission can come to its own conclusion. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that it appears like Pleasanton is asking for flexibility to <br />be able to have more high- density housing in Pleasanton. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that it does not necessarily mean more but rather, flexibility in terms of <br />location. He noted that this is completely hypothetical and might not ever come into <br />effect. He explained that when the City does a plan or somewhere down the road, the <br />City might find in whatever it is looking at that there is a preferred location. He added <br />that the City has not reached the point of quantities or locations, but it is getting there <br />pretty quickly over the next couple of months. He noted that if the City is in the process <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2013 Page 9 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.