My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
01 ATTACHMENTS
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2012
>
112712 Special Meeting
>
01 ATTACHMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/16/2012 4:42:30 PM
Creation date
11/16/2012 4:42:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/27/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
99
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Policies should also be considered regarding from where to commence measurements <br /> (e.g. toe of hill/toe of slope); whether applicants can submit information to supplement <br /> the GIS data(by field survey or historic aerial photos); how irregular slopes in land <br /> features will be handled(e.g. creek banks);over what distance to measure the slope; and <br /> whether consideration will be given to grading which altered the natural slope. <br /> 5.5 Did so, <br /> he 1986 General Plan include a reference about 25% slope, and,if what circ mstances was it removed in the 1996 General Plan? <br /> The 1986 General Plan did include a reference to a 25%slope. In the Land Use Element, <br /> in the Areas of Special Concern section, the Public Health& Safety open space <br /> designation was"planned for 3300 acres of the Ridge greater than 670 feet in elevation or <br /> greater than 25%slope."25 It appears that this language was not retained in 1996 because <br /> of the adoption of Measure F (the provisions of which were incorporated into the General <br /> Plan) in the interim period. <br /> The 1996 General Plan still includes references to 25% slopes: in the Public Safety <br /> Element,which provides that"Development is restricted in areas prone to landslides, <br /> slope instability,or with slopes of 25%or greaters26 and Policy 13.1 of the Conservation <br /> and Open Space Element, limiting development to one unit on properties with no areas of <br /> less than 25%slope(see 4.2, above). <br /> 5.6 Does the 25% slope have any supporting data or engineering analysis? <br /> In arriving at the 25%slope,staff did consider the existing slopes on Pleasanton ridge, <br /> the slopes of then existing hillside developments and their access roads, and slope <br /> limitations from other communities 21 <br /> 5.7 Should restrictions apply only to structures on 25% slope,or to all grading <br /> on land with 25% slopes? <br /> The Initiative states that"No grading to construct residential or commercial structures <br /> shall occur on hillside slopes 25%or greater." As discussed earlier in tty roads on it <br /> his not <br /> clear from this language whether this would prohibit: (i) grading <br /> of 25% or greater;(ii)grading for any roads on hillside slopes of 25' or greater <br /> where structures(i.e.,six feet or higher retaining walls)are required;or(iii) prohibit <br /> grading for roads to reach areas with hillside slopes 25%or greater. City policy has been <br /> that roads generally not exceed 15% slope,but roads with 5%finished grade icing use <br /> constructed on land with a greater natural slope through <br /> 's See 1986 General Plan,page 11-9. <br /> nSee 1996 General Plan,page V-4. g Development. <br /> Based on conversation with Brian Swift,former Director of Planning and Community pm <br /> 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.