PC 021904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Rasmussen noted that the Commission will conduct future meetings on the various issues, "- including South Pleasanton, for which staff will provide background information. Mike Regan, 1363 Hearst Drive, noted that some comments which have been classified as single comments are actually the same as comments in other categories but expressed in a different way. He commented that these could be integrated into macro comments. Commissioner Sullivan asked Mr. Rasmussen to explain the General Plan Update process and how the issues become part of the General Plan. Mr. Rasmussen replied that input has been received from the community, the City Council, and the various Commissions. He explained that issues brought up at a later time, such as Kottinger Hills, will be added and form part of a comprehensive list and will be re-introduced at upcoming land use and traffic meetings. He added that staff will prepare background reports as well as options and alternatives on all issues relating to the General Plan fox the Commission and Council to consider. Commissioner Roberts indicated that the Commission would discuss the specifics of each issue with regard to what needs to be modified in the General Plan and forward its recommendations to the Council. She added that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be prepared which will address each issue. She stated that the public would have opportunities to comment on the Draft EIR; these comments would then be included in the Final EIR which the Council would then adopt together with the General Plan Update. r - Mr. Frost noted that at the same time the City is updating the General Plan, developers will continue to get approval from the Council to build more homes. He expressed concern that significant issues raised by the community during the General Plan Update process may be sidetracked by pressure from developers and the coming election. He asked how these issues would affect how Council proceeds with current development proposals. Commissioner Roberts replied that the Council and the Commission are aware of the community's concerns. She stated that development proposals come before the Commission and the Council during their regular meetings and suggested that the public attend these hearings to express their concerns. Commissioner Sullivan commented that the Council has the ability to defer discussions on specific developments to the General Plan Update process. Brian Swift, Planning Director, stated that the City Council has several options, one of which would be to adopt a formal moratorium on projects that require PUD approval. He explained that there are numerous statutory requirements with respect to findings and time limits to be followed such as completing the General Plan study before allowing a project to proceed. He added that for any project which requires a General Plan amendment, the City Council is not required under State law to consider the time frame; the Council has the ability to require the developer to wait until the General Plan is completed. He continued that for projects that fall under the category of the State's Permit Streamlining Act, the City is required to take action in a PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN UPDATE MINUTES, 2/19/2004 Page 4 of 10