PC 062415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan added that in this case, the Initiative actually suggested that the General Plan be changed; it was very direct and was an amendment to the General Plan. Ms. Harryman agreed. Chair Allen continued that if one were to say that a road was a structure — which the General Plan does not say, there has not been a vote and that has not been decided — that would create additional definition that would trump other agreements that were made, no matter how important those agreements were. She asked Ms. Harryman if that was correct. Ms. Harryman replied that is correct. She explained that the City Council will be the ultimate decision- makers here on many issues, including whether a road is a structure, and if the City Council determines that a road is a structure, then that will override what the North Sycamore Specific Plan says with regard to it being able to go through to Sunset Creek Lane or out to Sycamore Creek Way. Commissioner Balch noted that there has been a lot of serious talk about this precedent of the PUDs and that while the CC &R's are primarily an agreement between the owners and the Homeowners Association, the PUD is not; it is a City document. He asked Ms. Harryman if those are trumped as well. Ms. Harryman said yes. She explained that a PUD is a form of ordinance, and an Initiative would trump anything that's specifically conflicted with the Initiative. Commissioner Nagler noted, as has been stated several times, that a lot of the challenge is that that which was enacted trumping all others was unclear and unspecific, which allows it to be interpreted by subsequent ordinance or Council action. He asked Ms. Harryman if that was correct. Ms. Harryman said yes. She added that to that point, Michael Roush, former City Attorney who has since retired, did an impartial analysis at that time, in 2008, and he identified several terms in the Initiative that were not defined and would need to be interpreted, and "structures" was one of those; "roads" was another. She continued that today, a lot of people are very firm in their position one way or the other, but as the former City Attorney opined, this is open to interpretation, and the City Council will have to make that decision. Commissioner Nagler commented that, to that point, the current policy of the City Council that the answer to the question: "is a road a structure ?" is to be determined on a project -by- project basis, and, while from one perspective that could be the Council is not interpreting Measure PP, from another perspective, it could be that, in fact, the Council is interpreting Measuring PP to say that that particular question is to be applied on a case -by -case basis, and, therefore, there is not a global answer as to whether a road is a structure in the context of Measure PP. He asked Ms. Harryman if that was correct. Ms. Harryman said yes. She indicated that that was where the Council last left it, that the Council wanted to decide on a case -by -case basis. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 32 of 54