PC 111313 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Pearce replied that the Commission can have more discussion, but she would make a motion in an effort to shape the discussion. Commissioner Pearce moved to find that the proposed amendments to the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, Downtown Design Guidelines, and Municipal Code are statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); to recommend to the City Council to accept the Pleasanton Downtown Historic Context Statement; and to recommend approval to the City Council of: (1) Case P13 -2447 amending the General Plan as shown in Exhibit D of the staff report; (2) Case P13 -2446 amending the Downtown Specific Plan as shown in Exhibit A of the staff report; (3) the amendments to the Downtown Design Guidelines as shown in Exhibit B of the staff report; and (4) Case P13 -2448 amending the Pleasanton Municipal Code as shown in Exhibit C of the staff report. Commissioner Ritter stated that he also commends the Task Force for putting this together and doing a great job. He indicated that he is not opposed to the FAR but that what he is more opposed to is making it different for this specific area than what all is expected for the rest of the residents in Pleasanton, because he still does not totally understand the historical value of the FAR versus another neighborhood that might have the same concerns when they are doing a remodel. He stated that he does not think Policy #8 needs to be eliminated because of the Cunningham application, but maybe it can be revised to match the other FAR requirements in the City. He indicated that this is his only comment on the FAR and that the Commission has already addressed the other things. Commissioner Posson stated that he thinks the Task Force did a terrific job in clarifying the Ordinance and getting some of the issues far easier for development. He expressed concern, however, about the FAR calculation being more restrictive. He noted that the Commission did not hear too much from the residents about having a large concern about that, and with that, he indicated that he can support the motion. Commissioner Posson seconded the motion. Commissioner Olson stated that obviously the Task Force had a tough assignment here, and considering the membership of the Task Force, he thinks it was balanced. He indicated, however, that Mr. MacDonald has raised some good points, and if he has to accept this package the way it is without any tweaking per the input from Mr. MacDonald and others, than he is going to be a "no" vote. Chair Pearce asked Commissioner Olson if he wanted to talk about what his concerns are. Commissioner Olson replied that the Commission can start with Policy #8. He stated that he just does not agree with the FAR formula as proposed; he does not see why it cannot be the same as the rest of the town. He added that it appears that some of what Mr. MacDonald raised was addressed at this morning's meeting, and he was not at that meeting but would like to see those points wired into this rather than just saying it can be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, November 13, 2013 Page 37 of 50