PC 012313 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roberts agreed with Commissioner O'Connor that the ordinance was really clear that the provisions of the ordinance or the initiative can be amended and repealed only by the voters of the City of Pleasanton. He indicated that there was nothing in there that said exceptions could be granted; that whether a road is defined as a structure or not is fine, but then there are no exceptions. He stated that he thinks the intent was not that someone could later come in and interpret it and allow houses or structures on the ridges because of this exception. He stated that the intent of the voters is to protect the ridges from structures being built, and if a road is defined as a structure, then that is the way it ought to be. With respect to these man -made things, Mr. Roberts stated that it would be very helpful if there were a limit of some relatively small number of vertical feet. He referred to the example staff had of this cut that looked like it was about 10 -15 vertical feet and stated an exception to the voters' 100 -foot limit cannot be more than 10 or 20 vertical feet. He added that when this was discussed by Council, the phrase "landlocked areas designated for development by the Pleasanton General Plan" was not included and seemingly was just added recently. He noted that this would be a huge exception and that just about every parcel could have that exception. Carol Spain read the following prepared statement into the record: "Good evening. My name is Carol Spain, and my husband and I have lived at since 1989. 1 have served on the Ventana Hills Steering Committee since its inception, when the Bode Ranch development was first proposed. `i would like to bring to your attention three key points within the proposed amendment to Title 18, all pertaining to Public and Private streets and Roads, which can be found in the Draft Municipal Code Amendment, P12 -1796, Ridgeline and Hillside Protection and Preservation, dated January 23, 2013, Chapter 18.70, page 9, items E1 -E3. "I. First, the City should grandfather Specific Plans or PUD Development Plans approved prior to November 2008 (which is when Measures PP and QQ were passed.) Previous members of City Staff, Planning Commissioners, City Council Members, and various people within the community worked many long and difficult hours to reach these agreements and they should be upheld. Proposing anything other than grandfathering these plans represents an insult to the process as well as to those who sat before you who approved these plans in the best interest of the City and surrounding communities. Documentation relative to supporting the key issue is included in the Draft Municipal Code Amendment (Item E -1), and it is written in a way that aligns with the meeting minutes from the Special City Council Meeting that was held on November 27, 2012. "2. My second point is associated with the wording included in the Planning Commission staff report dated 112312013, which references: Public and Private Streets and Roads, and more importantly (since this is what is proposed to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 23, 2013 Page 13 of 44