SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Q: Why are Sections 1-3 of PMC Section 2.30.02 B regarding the duties of the Planning Commission being updated? A: Regarding the redline changes to items 1-3 in the PMC amendments for Planning Commission: The suggested changes are clean up items – the existing phrasing of the items implied that the Planning Commission itself adopts the General Plan and Specific Plans (etc.), whereas in fact the Commission makes a recommendation to adopt, and then the City Council is responsible for adoption of these types of regulatory documents. And, the City does not have a “master plan” and has not in the past adopted “precise plans” – rather, we have a citywide General Plan, and more typically adopt specific plans or more generically “area plans” for more specific geographies. The language changes align to our actual practices. Item 4 Q: Is there any opportunity for additional discussion on this item, including the in-lieu fee? A: Under SB 330, the City does have to take action using 5 or fewer hearings; however, this item could be continued while staying within that 5 meeting limit. Item 7 Q: What is Livermore’s timing to bring forward the annexation and SOI amendment request to LAFCo? A: Per Livermore staff, the request for annexation and SOI amendment is not expected to go to LAFCo until spring/summer of this year. The project will go to Livermore’s Planning Commission on 3/5/24 and City Council on 3/25/24 – those actions would include initiating the application to LAFCO for annexation/SOI amendment thereafter. Q; Are there other similar parcels (in Pleasanton’s SOI) that it is likely/possible Livermore may seek to annex in the future? A: Staff reviewed Livermore’s existing SOI boundaries and did not identify any properties with similar characteristics to the properties under consideration in the SOI amendment (i.e., within Livermore’s UGB, but outside their current SOI). The exception is SMP-38, which as discussed in the agenda report, is within Pleasanton’s Sphere, and Livermore in the past has signaled a desire to similarly amend their SOI to include it. However, that is not part of the current application or request. Note: all 3 parcels – SMP 38, 39 and 40 are owned by the same private landowner. Q: Can you confirm that Pleasanton’s agreement or authorization is not required for LAFCo to modify the respective SOIs? A: With respect to the SOI amendment, the City of Pleasanton’s agreement or consent is not required for LAFCo to change the SOI. However, LAFCo procedures encourage outreach and