SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Allen Roberts stated that he had some comments on the revisions that staff proposed. He noted that staff had recommended putting in an exception for roads, for things in Specific Plans. He reminded the Commissioners, as he did at the last meeting, that the Initiative does not provide for any exceptions and that any exceptions should go back to the public for a vote. He added that if the Commission wants to decide that a road is not a structure, then that might be a way around it and the Commission would be clear of what it says in the Initiative. He continued that the other point he made at the last meeting was that he thought the definition of a ridge that staff is proposing is very weak. To illustrate his point, he showed the Commission a picture he found on the Internet which, unfortunately was not of Pleasanton Ridge but of the ridge behind Pleasanton Ridge. He pointed out Sunol Peak on the photo, a ridge that continues on down for about six miles, and another that just continuously just heads on down. He noted that, based on staffs definition that the end of the ridge is the last peak, this is not a ridge. He added that he researched what other municipalities have done, and instead of trying to define a ridge, they have taken an inventory. He stated that at the last meeting, some of the Commissioners brought up the idea of doing an inventory, and the objection was that it would be complicated and hard to do. Mr. Roberts then displayed the topographical map with overlays and property lines that was included in the Commission's packet. He indicated that he had highlighted what the ridges are and spoke about this to some of the Commissioners, asking which ones would not be a ridge under staffs definition. He stated that it was really difficult to make that determination because a very detailed map is necessary to figure out which the last hill was. He pointed to a long ridge coming all the way down and stated that based on staffs definition, that would not be a ridge. Mr. Roberts stated that it is not difficult to do an inventory and that he thinks staff's proposal is to figure it out on a case-by-case basis. He pointed out that the trouble with a case-by-case basis is that nobody wins on that deal. He noted that if he were a developer, he would have to put together his whole development plan and come before staff and ask what a ridge is, and that is not a good thing. He added that the citizens who voted for this wanted to have it apply to ridges in order to preserve them, and under a case-by-case scenario, they would have to come in front of staff or the Commission and fight for what they want as a definition of a ridge. Mr. Roberts reiterated his proposal to do an inventory of what the ridges are rather than pick some definition of a ridge, and be done with it. He noted that in this way, everybody would know what will be used; developers would know where they can build, and the public would know what is going to be preserved. He added that if a definition will be made, it should be one that is already in the Municipal Code and not something new. Chair Blank asked Mr. Roberts if the definition of ridge in the Municipal Code is satisfactory to him from his perspective. Mr. Roberts replied that he thinks it is fine. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 13, 2013 Page 5 of 20