PC 04/08/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Barker asked Ms. Seto whether the City Council could place this on the ballot as a citizen-sponsored ordinance that could only be changed by vote of the citizens. Ms. Seto stated that if the ordinance was passed by vote of the citizens, it could only be changed by vote of the citizens. However, it would still be open to legal challenge if a Court determined that it violated due process of any property rights. Commissioner Dove commented that the San Francisco property consists of over 500 acres that need infrastructure. He feels that it will be difficult to expect even the City of San Francisco to pay for the infrastructure of that property. In looking at the growth management numbers, he feels that it would be appropriate to give San Francisco a very high number of approvals for the first three years or so in order to pay for the infrastructure. He favors the ordinance as written with the recognition that those areas that are designed for San Francisco stay in place, but if it does not use any portion of its allocation, that it not be used for somebody else. In response to a question by Chair Cooper as to whether he supported the Planning Commission being involved in growth management allocations in the annual process, Commissioner Dove feels that by doing so the City Council puts this Commission under considerable pressure. He, therefore, suggested that there be a joint workshop between the City Council and the Planning Commission at the beginning of each summer to frame a posture for the following year. Commissioner Wright stated the he supports Option 2, and he also agrees with Commissioner Dove's suggestion to have an annual workshop with the City Council. However, he feels the Planning -- Commission does not need to have a formal involvement in growth management. Commissioner Barker commented that she does not see this as a political issue, but rather as a quality-of--life issue. She stated that she wants the yearly allocation reduced to 350 as soon as possible. She also pointed out that if San Francisco was not building, the infrastructure would not be needed, and, therefore, they should have to pay for it. She has no argument with Commissioner Dove's recommendation to keep their approval numbers high. She also suggested that the numbers suggested by Chair Cooper be included in the ordinance. She would also like for the City Council to place it on the ballot for the citizens to vote because she wants it to be ratified by the citizens so it will stand stronger legal challenge. Commissioner Kumaran stated that he supports Option No. 4 as the development plan, although he had some reservations about the legal aspect. Chair Cooper stated that his goal is to give the Planning Commission a greater voice and input into the goals. He feels that under any option it could work with Planning Commission participation. He pointed out that the City Council needs to be aware that they have to drop the numbers due to infrastructure constraints. He, therefore, recommended that Options 2 and 3 be adopted. A brief discussion followed regarding the differences between Options 3 and 4. Mr. Swift clarified the difference. Upon further discussion, Ms. Seto explained the legal challenge exposure under Option 3 and 4. Planning Commission Page 12 April 8, 1998