PC 032404 - Laserfiche WebLink

_ Commissioner Fox noted that the vines in the trellises by the drive-through were very small and inquired whether staff could condition a certain size of plant. She would like to see more mature landscaping. Mr. Iserson noted that the landscaping plan typically showed I S-gallon trees or 24-inch box trees and five-gallon shrubs. He noted that was what the applicant planted and added that large vines do not take as well and tended to die off. Smaller vines tend to establish themselves better and survive more successfully. He noted that the applicant was willing to work with the City with respect to landscaping issues. The Planning Commission recessed for a break at 8:22 p.m. Chairperson Roberts reconvened the meeting at 8:27 p.m. c. Discussion Re¢ardine a Potential Moratorium on Development Approvals until after Adoption of the Updated General Plan. Chairperson Roberts advised that she would recuse herself from this item because her property has development rights under the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan and her property abuts the Lin property. Ms. Nerland summarized the staff report and detailed the background of this item. She noted that the discussion was not initiated by staff but was requested by the Commission, following the - General Plan Update workshop at the Senior Center. Ms. Nerland advised that to impose a moratorium, a City Council must adopt an interim ordinance to prohibit any uses that might conflict with the contemplated General Plan. Such an ordinance requires afour-fifths vote or a supermajority, although any recommendation from the Planning Commission would be subject to the regular majority vote. Any action by the Commission at this meeting would be a recommendation and, therefore, subject to a simple majority vote. Ms. Nerland advised that the initial ordinance and the initial interim ordinance moratorium would be effective for 45 days and could be extended again by the City Council for another ten months and 15 days. Following that, it may be extended one more time for one year according to the State codes. She noted that the City Council would likely need to extend the moratorium twice if it wanted to have the moratorium in place throughout the entire General Plan process. Ms. Nerland advised that to adopt or extend such an ordinance, the City Council must make the finding that there exists a "current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with the Zoning Ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare." She advised that the findings, like all the findings made by the Commission, must be fact-based. A higher level of findings is required to extend an interim ordinance that would deny approvals needed for development of projects with a significant component ofmulti-family housing. She noted that in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2004 Page 8 of 22