15 - Laserfiche WebLink

two-year check-in I think it makes sense to bring issues with the code We do an omnibus for administrative cleanup items on an annual basis in Pleasanton I think that land use and zoning are a little bit different and sometimes you need to jump right on it and sometimes it's less urgent I would encourage him to talk with the City Council about creating this as part of a Work Plan item because it's not a minor task And I would suggest the same thing earlier that we do that at the end of the zoning code cleanup process I think there's going to be an annual check-in a year or two after the code is updated, and then maybe it makes sense to do it every two years But it's a significant workload commitment to go through and vet individual projects and look at the development standards that we have in place Commissioner Brown My view is the same as yours It's going to be re-visited multiple times in the next couple of years and then maybe every two years after that as appropriate I did think it was a useful point around the interpretive piece and is that going to be recorded, or are we relying on staff to just bring those things up when we talk about the future phases'? Beaudin I fully agree with Mr Paxson on this point I think for a number of reasons— for budget and staffing reasons primarily, most cities do have an interpretation finder and those are kind of gold with people who work with the code because they've identified the pitfalls and somebody's taken the time to think carefully about it, and that sets if not a precedent, it gives you at least a solid direction to go in when you're trying to tackle these issues I want to take all of those in Pleasanton and get them into our code and then going forward, I think it's our job to keep track of those and make them publicly available I have no problem doing that I'll tell you right now, Steve Otto's zoning code has pencil notes in every margin So as we get into the zoning code update, we're basically taking those pieces of information depending on the content of the piece of the update that we're doing and we're having conversations about them understand the frustration and we're going to do our best to get the pencil notes in the margin into the code Commissioner Brown At times I've expressed frustration I just thought it was a good point Beaudin Yes, I'm sharing Mr Paxson's sentiment Commissioner Brown Okay Exhibit B, Table 1, you mention when we were talking about the 4 dBA earlier, what is meant by the property plane'? Beaudin It's the property line going straight up It's not a visible Commissioner Brown Okay, all right Page 7, Exhibit B, Item 1, write in headings for zoning districts in the chart I think if you avoided repeating on every page the definition of CUP, MCUP, P and C, you could probably fit that in if you make it smaller and make it vertical I think it would make the table a lot easier to read versus C-N, C-C, C-R, C-S, CFO, etc But again, I'm not going to belabor the point, but I respectfully disagree on that EXCERPT DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 27 of 30