The general plan calls the field "visually important to the entire quality of the valley. This preserve should be kept in a natural condition and the existing agricultural character preserved." The meaning of that passage has been central to the controversy as to what can and cannot be done there.
Now there are answers. As to what cannot be done: The boundary with the open-space district is to be unmarked by fences or lines of vegetation, said Commissioner Nate McKitterick in an interview. Furthermore, the most visible acres adjacent to that border must be kept in hay or grass.
As to what can be done: small-scale farming of fruits and vegetables in areas not so easily visible from Portola Road. Fences to protect the crops and a barn-like storage building to store hay are also allowed.
In keeping with their long-held opposition to the vineyard, Commissioners Denise Gilbert and Alexandra Von Feldt dissented from the majority opinion of Arthur "Chip" McIntosh, Nicholas Targ and Mr. McKitterick.
"I interpret general plan language literally," Ms. Gilbert told the Almanac. "Any dictionary you look in, meadows are grass fields and hay."
Mr. McKitterick and Mr. Targ communicated by email.
"Reasonable minds could and did differ on appropriate action," Mr. McKitterick wrote. "My vote was guided by staff's interpretation of the general plan and the limitations the application places on the activities in the meadow."
"The town's decision-making process has been rigorous," said Mr. Targ. "The result is a well defined, ecologically sensitive project that preserves the lands' natural and agricultural character."
This story contains 410 words.
Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.
If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.