Laserfiche WebLink
iT " 1 a . ...•. <br /> r,)...... ei '.• 1 - ./ '& , * - -• 1- <br /> .,' ,.� .� /s 64V , 1 � ' '�1 ``-~, i it �� <br /> .0".4,,� by S e. �+ l �. r .. :% �' <br /> ■ fib -- - �L�^. _ A�` �i~� -� <br /> °mss 1�t`.r, a`:-j l.' : A .-,L.%.\i;��% -- <br /> _, . �` . _ Kam` `�t <br /> ---,- - �o�., ��- Via ' \ <br /> The image above is an overlay of the previous plan (in black), the new plan (in red) and the developer's <br /> slope map showing 25% slopes (hatched areas are greater than 25%). The new road (in red) is in the <br /> middle of the 25% slope area that is specified to be open space and to have grading limited to <br /> controlling erosion. The road should be relocated back to the previous location (as shown in black) and <br /> the 25%area left as open space as specified by the Council on December 15`h <br /> Ridge Definitions <br /> At the December 15`h meeting,the Council once again ignored Staff's definition of a ridge and <br /> arbitrarily ignored what are clearly ridges. <br /> Below is a picture of the ridge along the southern property edge. The ridgeline has been highlighted with <br /> a thin white line. Any Pleasanton voter who voted for PP would agree it is a ridge. The Staff definition <br /> for ridges concurs this is a ridge (the dip on the ridge at the water tank is very apparent). It appears the <br /> Council arbitrarily decided it wasn't a ridge because doing so would make the construction of the access <br /> road from Sunset Creek non-compliant with PP. <br /> �'. - <br /> :.a te'7-..:7 __ `ti k .4,1., 7. .- <br /> syyr ,-- .w..... ^ �r <br /> .n <br /> - <br />