PC 03/24/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

this meeting and had expressed his apologies. Chair Cooper stated that he personally feels the Commission needs to consider the options on this issue, therefore, he would like for the Commission to take public testimony at tonight's hearing, and because there is no alternate and the fifth commissioner is absent, he would like to continue the matter for decision. He, therefore, does not anticipate a definitive vote on this item this evening. He asked speakers to address the specific items that are outlined in the staff report: Should there be a specific plan in addition to the existing General Plan for the area? What geographical area should it encompass? What should it look at? What should the time frame be? What should the composition of the committee be? He advised that the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council at the Commission's next meeting. Planning Director Brian Swift presented the staff report outlining the options that staff feels that the Planning Commission has with respect to all of the items that Chair Cooper indicated. He noted that the threshold question is whether to do the study. The staff report outlines the reasons that the City has used in the past for requiring a specific plan or other major study of a particulaz azea. If the Planning Commission determines that a study should be undertaken, it will then need to decide the azea that should be included in the study. He referred to the exhibit displayed before the Commission and reviewed the potential study areas, noting that there aze a number of options that could be selected. He advised that the Commission would also need to recommend the scope of the study and the issues to be studied. Mr. Swift stated that staff does not recommend that the Planning Commission create a "statutory study area," which the Planning Commission and City Council can do by State law. This has the effect of "freezing" development applications for up to a yeaz. The reason that staff is not making this recommendation in this instance is that the great majority of this area is currently in Alameda County's jurisdiction. The City would have to undertake numerous legislative actions in order to process and approve any project within this area, all of which are capable of being delayed by the City legally without invoking the study area moratorium. Mr. Swift advised that the last major item for consideration is the method and process for conducting the study. He reviewed a number of possible options, noting that if the Commission had a better process, it could be included in the recommendation. Mr. Swift advised that in response to questions from Commissioner Barker, a memo was prepared concerning "Aspects of City Revenues from Different Land Uses." He explained that the memo provides information regazding revenue sources for residential and commercial/office development. He noted that when the City looks at development it looks not only at revenue, but also the fiscal impact to the City. He noted that the letters received regarding a proposed study were unanimous in support of having a study. In response to a question from Commissioner Bazker regarding the impacts a proposed study area may have on the City outside of the study azea, Mr. Swift advised that every study the City has done looks at buildout of the entire City in conjunction with the study area. In response to a question from Chair Cooper, Mr. Swift explained that a formal moratorium would freeze the development of all small projects that are currently underway. He noted that the Commission - would need to take a deliberate action to adopt a formal moratorium, otherwise while included in the Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 24, 1998