PC 012313 - Laserfiche WebLink

For the benefit of the audience, Chair Blank read a section of the Measure PP Initiative: "Policy 15 on page 11 -19 of the City of Pleasanton August 6, 1996 General Plan is added as shown.... lll. The provisions of this Initiative may be amended or repealed only by the voters of the City of Pleasanton at a City general election and overrides any existing General Plan." He stated that he understands the issue about the 25 percent manufactured slope but that he was a little nervous about the exception language, particularly the landlocked part of the exception, because he was worried it could be used not today and not by the people in this room, but 10 or 15 years down the road to start the whole process over again. Commissioner Olson stated that he really resonated with what the second speaker, Ms. Spain, said about agreements made way back when that ought to be honored. He indicated that if calling a road a structure will prevent that road from being built and results in traffic affecting an established neighborhood which building that structure would have prevented, then he thinks that in a case like, an exception process is necessary. He added that, at the same time, if an exception process is applied to everything, then everything is open and soon enough, a ridgeline that all would agree is a ridgeline is vulnerable to development. He recalled that when the Commission previously considered this matter, the idea surfaced regarding creating an inventory of ridgelines in the City to which Measure PP would apply. He stated that the Pleasanton Ridge would obviously be one of those ridgelines, even though as, Mr. Roberts pointed out, it has a descending slope that extends for several miles. Chair Blank commented that Commissioner Olson's statement was a great idea and asked staff to comment on the Pleasanton Ridge. Mr. Dolan replied that he is aware there have been disagreements in the past on what a ridge is, but staff thought then that the definition was adequate and that that it would not be that difficult to identify what a ridge was. He noted that was is difficult to identify is when does it end, and the definition could be faulty when applied to the Pleasanton Ridge; however, he did not think there is necessarily any developable land on the Ridge that would be affected by that. He added that it is a kind of theoretical opportunity where, as described by Mr. Roberts, one could run into a situation where that definition would be problematic; however, he did not think that in that specific instance, that question would ever have to be answered. He noted that the Council spent most of its time on the manufactured slope and roadway issues and suggested that the assumed situation was not something that troubled the Council. He added, however, that staff could take another look at it. Mr. Dolan stated that if the Commission addresses the exceptions to the roadway, it ought to make a distinction between its comments about whether or not it would defer to existing Specific Plans and PUDs, which the Council pretty much agreed to defer to, and any exception process beyond that for some circumstance that the Commission thinks makes sense. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 23, 2013 Page 16 of 44