PC 031109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Seto stated that if the Commission is sensitive to the Measures with respect to this project, the Commission may want to limit its discussion to and base its decision on the fact that the 25-percent slope is a man-made slope. She added that there is other language for the Commission to also discuss that light poles in the parking lot are not considered structures, and the Commission can expand it to include that discussion. She explained that staff was simply trying to provide a narrower option. Commissioner Blank inquired whether, if the Commission indicates, for example, that parking lots do not count, that artificial land does not count, and the headline in the newspaper states, “Planning Commission overturns a key provision of Measure PP,” the only remedy would be for the matter to go to the City Council and then for the proponents to sue the City. Ms. Seto stated that the Commission’s decision could be appealed to the Council and agreed that this would be the process. Commissioner Blank stated that he thought it would be cleaner not to make judgments about what the authors of MeasuresPP and QQ meant and that he would rather decide on the project based on its merits, independent of Measures PP or QQ. He added that if the proponents of Measures PP and QQ decide that the Commission’s approval was inappropriate, they have the means to file an appeal. He stated that If the project is denied, he did not want the proponents to say the Commission upheld Measures PP and QQ as a precedent. He also pointed out that four years from now, there could be different Commissioners who could come to different conclusions, and this could be where the City gets in trouble. Commissioner Narum inquired if the Council moved to incorporate the language of Measures PP and QQ in the General Plan. Ms. Seto said yes. Commissioner Narum noted that the question would then be if this was consistent with the General Plan, which was not included in the staff report. Commissioner Narum stated that Measure PP reads: “Exempt from this policy are housing developments of ten or fewer housing units on a single property” and is silent about commercial property. She noted that this parcel was legal as of January 1, 2007. Commissioner Narum stated that she has a problem with the fact that the site was a man-made slope done in the 1970’s and existed at the time Measure PP was written, circulated, and voted on. She stated that she was more inclined to make the statement that this is one unit or structure that was a legal parcel on January 1, 2007 and then state that this is what is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Blank agreed that it is much more powerful for the Planning Commission to say as a body that this is consistent with the General Plan and not talk about specific Measures PP and QQ issues because they are not relevant in terms of precedent. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 11, 2009 Page 4 of 9