Laserfiche WebLink
<br />d. Clarification of the Plannine Commission's reouest of Citv Council rel!lU'dinl! Growth <br />Manae:ement <br /> <br />,- <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson noted that the City Council was advised by the City Manager that the Planning <br />Commission had passed a resolution regarding growth management. The City Manager did not want <br />to pass it along to the City Council until she had a better understanding of the Planning <br />Commission's intent of the resolution. However, the Commission's action on the resolution was <br />placed on the Commission Action Report which the Council receives, so the Council was aware of <br />the resolution passed by the Commission. In the meantime, the Council received a staff report on <br />Growth Management options, considered two options for how growth should be allocated, and made <br />a decision to involve the development community to work out a growth management solution. Staff <br />is bringing the matter back to the Commission with a request that it clarify. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cooper feels that any resolution passed by a City Commission should be presented <br />in its entirety to all interested parties. <br /> <br />Chair Barker was very upset that the Planning Commission's resolution was not presented to the City <br />Council by the City Manager. She feels the Planning Commission is wasting their time. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cooper agreed that a resolution should not be buried in a staff report and would like <br />to see complete texts of all relevant issues in future staff reports. <br /> <br />Chair Barker motioned that the City Council readjust the growth management issues based on <br />the further information that the Planning Commission had passed and signed a resolution on <br />growth management. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson stated there was no ill-intent on the part of the City Manager. She presumably did not <br />understand the full intent of the resolution as adopted by the Planning Commission well enough to <br />fully explain it to the City Council. Mr. Beougher also stated that he felt the motion and resolution <br />were rather nebulous. Chair Barker agreed that that is part of the issue, and the Planning <br />Commission wanted the City Council to address growth management "for a more orderly progression <br />to buildout." That was what was unanimously agreed upon by the Commission. <br /> <br />Chair Barker stated that she wanted all resolutions passed to go to the City Council and not die on <br />the desk of the City Manager; secondly, she wants the resolution passed by the Planning Commission <br />on February 12, 1997, to be sent to the City Council. <br /> <br />The motion was not seconded. Chair Barker amended her motion as follows: <br /> <br />Chair Barker motioned, seconded by Commissioner Cooper, to send the growth management <br />resolution as approved by the Planning Commission on February 12, 1997, to the City Council. <br /> <br />Discussion on the motion: <br /> <br />Commissioner Lutz agreed the resolution should be passed on to the City Council, but feels the <br />Commission should use this opportunity to add more specificity to the resolution. His original <br />concern goes back to the General Plan review and his non-support of the General Plan Steering <br /> <br />Page 8 <br /> <br />March 26, 1997 <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />