PC 03/26/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

informal charting of the percentages of low-income units, apartments, affordable housing, etc. in the yearly growth management allocation so there is an orderly progression of the City's buildout goals. Chair Barker expressed her concern that projects are being approved in 1997 that won't get growth management allocations until 1999 or 2000. By that time, they may potentially come back with a completely different project than what was approved because the housing market has changed over the years. She is also in support of the goals for affordable housing so the Planning Commission can get a sense of where they're headed. Perhaps Ponderosa should be required to do some affordable housing in order to achieve the City's goals. Commissioner Wright also stated that he would like to add clearer language to their original resolution by asking the City Council to provide the Planning Commission with a loosely defined time line of goals so the Planning Commission can then work in conjunction with the goals of the City Council when making approvals at the Planning Commission level. Some of the Commissioners agreed they would like some direction from Council as to what type of housing projects are desired (large homes, apartments, etc.) and when should they be built. Mr. Beougher advised that the San Francisco property and the units to be built on that property do not fall within the growth management allocations. He also stated that the City Council has grappled with the growth management for some time and has been one of their priorities. General discussion continued on the general topic of growth management. Commissioner Lutz feels that the Council owns this problem, and the Planning Commission can't do anything about it. He wanted the Council to recognize this. Further, when the Planning Commission approves projects, they are being neutral on growth management. The rest of the Commission agreed that it is not within their purview to deal with growth management issues, and staff and the Planning Commission are bound to look at each project as it is presented based on its individual merits. If the City Council wants to alter the Commission's position, they should give them some direction in which they can deny projects. Another issue of concern to Commissioner Lutz, that has happened albeit infrequently, is when a developer presents an application to the Planning Commission and when the same application is presented to the City Council, it is somewhat changed in scope. He feels the courtesy should be extended to the Planning Commission to have a second opportunity to review the project. The Main Street building with second-story apartments is a case in point. Staff felt this was the policy of the Council, however, some Commissioners disagreed. Mr. Beougher stated it is at the discretion of the Council whether to refer applications back to the Planning Commission. Chair Barker stated the Planning Commission would like staff to make it known that it is the Commission's desire to review the applications in such cases. Commissioner Cooper stated his opinion that it would not be appropriate for him to lobby the Council on a Planning Commission decision as a private individual. He relies on staff to present the Planning Commission opinion to Council. Commissioner Wright disagreed, stating that he has done just that, making his opinion known to the Council as a Commissioner or a private individual. Chair Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 Marcb 26, 1997