PC 032906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Roberts accepted Commissioner Blank's proposal with a further ~~ amendment that no more than two trees be added as mitigation, with the size and type to be determined by the Planning Director. Commissioner Blank accepted the amendment proposed by Commissioner Roberts. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Arkin, Blank, Peazce, and Roberts. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: Commissioners Fox and Maas. Resolution No. PC-2006-11 was entered and adopted as motioned. a. Economic and Fiscal Element of the General Plan Review and provide comment on a Draft Economic and Fiscal Element of the General Plan. Ms. Stern summazized the staff report, and noted that Pamela Ott, Economic Development Director, and Sue Rossi, Assistant Finance Director, were also in attendance. She detailed the background of this Draft Plan and described its relationship ~-- to the General Plan. She noted that the Economic and Fiscal Element was an optional element and not required by State law; it provided guidance regarding economic development and fiscal policy for the City. She described the process by which this document was drafted. She noted that when the 1996 General Plan was written, it was thought that sales tax revenues would outpace property tax revenues. That outcome had not occurred, and property taxes were still the major source of funding for the City. She noted that other City budget challenges were discussed, particulazly with respect to labor costs and long-term debt limit. Ms. Stem noted that Attachments 3 and 4 contained a number of changes to goals, policies, and programs, although most were carry-throughs of the 1996 General Plan. She noted that the Balanced Budget section has been renamed Sustainable City Finances. She noted that changes were made to Programs 13.2 and 13.3, using the wording "discourage" rather than "prohibit" with respect to debt limit and financing current expenditures with debt, which allows some flexibility when fiscally prudent. Program 14.4 regarding the funding of PERS addressed the issues with PERS during the low-performing periods of the stock mazket. Some cities did not perform that funding, which was not required, and the City of Pleasanton did fund it. She added that this program requires the City to fund PERS under normal contribution; therefore, reserves will be built up by the City for future needs. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 29, 2006 Page 6 of 25