My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
22 ATTACHMENT 05
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
041514
>
22 ATTACHMENT 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2015 3:39:19 PM
Creation date
4/4/2014 1:20:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
22 ATTACHMENT 5
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
/ , <br /> ow <br /> ?,./4 <br /> .�,/ •�' ire ..� b -.. <br /> #1114.1"... ." <br /> PCP- 'wear, <br /> 1 <br /> �_ ' ______ Site Layout <br /> Alternative 1 site layout was sent to the Commission for review. To conform to the State's <br /> Brown Act (Government Code at § 54950 et seq.,), commissioners were invited to a site visit <br /> either individually or in a group of two without forming a meeting quorum. During a site visit, <br /> two commissioners asked the possibility of shortening the length of the proposed road and <br /> sliding the building pad on Lot 2 further down slope so that no portion of the future home on <br /> Lot 2 would be higher than the elevation level at the western property line, blocking a portion of <br /> the sky for the homes located below the proposed site. <br /> Staff reviewed and discussed the possibility of shortening the road and shifting Lot 2 further <br /> downslope towards Silver Oaks Lane with the Engineering Division. The City Engineer pointed <br /> out that if the proposed road were be shortened and designed to meet the requirements of the <br /> Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department, given the existing topography of the site, additional <br /> retaining walls would be required in order to support a driveway from the end of the <br /> hammerhead to the proposed building pad on Lot 2. The City Engineer does not believe this <br /> solution would be superior to either the proposed site layout or Alternative 1 site layout. The <br /> Engineering Division did not support modification of the roadway configuration and <br /> hammerhead design as shown on Alternative 1 site plan, but did suggest lowering the building <br /> envelope from the proposed elevation of 510 feet to the same elevation as the hammerhead <br /> (at 500 feet) to avoid additional retaining walls. Based on the preliminary grading plan, this <br /> design, referred as Alternative 2 (see figure on the following page), would result in a building <br /> pad being located at a maximum of 30 feet lower than the grades along the westerly property <br /> line. It would also prevent a future home from partially blocking portions of the sky, responding <br /> to the comments from both commissioners. <br /> PUD-84 Planning Commission <br /> Page 11 of 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.