PC 012313 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McGovern said, and he was not sure Measure PP allows any exceptions. He added that from the Measure itself, as Chair Blank read it, any exceptions to what the Commission thought was a clear initiative, would have to be approved by a vote of the people. He stated that he finds it difficult to take and that he does not think the Commission has that as an option. He added that with respect to grandfathering things, again, it is clear from the Measure that the Measure overrides what is in the General Plan, and he thinks the voters' intent is to also override Specific Plans if there is a violation of Measure PP. He noted that the voters went back and did a referendum on a project they thought was done wrong, so he does not think they wanted to grandfather anything in. He stated that PUDs are different because PUDs actually grant vested rights to property owner, but General Plans and Specific Plans are guidelines which are changed all the time, sometimes radically. He noted that was done for the Bypass Road to the golf course, changing it from where it was originally approved after all the work the Commission and Council did on it. Chair Blank asked Ms. Harryman if the Legal Department has looked at any case law surrounding this in terms of the City Council's discretion regarding interpreting the will of the people. Ms. Harryman replied that both Larissa Seto, Assistant City Attorney, and Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney, worked with staff on this report; however, she was not certain if they specifically researched case law on that issue. Commissioner Pearce stated that she agreed with Commissioner O'Connor regarding Specific Plans and PUDs in that if what was passed says that it overrides the General Plan, by definition it also overrides Specific Plans because Specific Plans are referenced in the General Plan. She noted, however, that her preference would be to have exceptions, especially with the street and the road; and then only reference PUDs, as opposed to saying that if it is in a Specific Plan, then it is fine, as that seems to go against voter intent. Commissioner O'Connor stated that one other clarification he wanted to make that he thinks is important for the City is that Measure PP basically says that this is for residential and commercial development. He indicated that he knows there was concern on the part of the City about if it wanted to put in a City amenity such as a water tank or a tower or a park or something that is not a residential or commercial development or if it wanted to have access to get to a trail. He further indicated that he thinks there is no issue here because this does not pertain to the City, and it is clear that this only pertains to the hillsides for commercial and residential. He added that he would hope, though, that the City would not want to build a four -lane road going up to some little park or trailhead somewhere, that it would do something a little more restrained, maybe call it a pathway or roadway as opposed to a major road. Commissioner Narum noted that building a City park would still require a public hearing in some form. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 23, 2013 Page 18 of 44