My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 012313
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2013
>
PC 012313
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:34:35 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 3:25:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/23/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
basically removing part of their land from the opportunity to even be reviewed for <br />development. <br />Chair Blank stated that it is only if manufactured slopes are included; but if <br />manufactured slopes are excluded, then in effect they could do that without any <br />consequences. <br />Mr. Dolan explained that right now, the way the ordinance is written as directed by <br />Council, they are excluded and they have to prove that they are meeting the general <br />intent. He noted that nothing about the purposes of Measure PP is lost if an exception <br />was granted. <br />Mr. Dolan continued that this would occur as a conversation point in the development <br />review process: the application would come through, and wherever there was a need <br />for an exception, this would be identified as one of the discussion points. He added that <br />if an exception is needed, it would be considered in the staff report, evaluated, all of the <br />environmental done in advance of that, and ready for the consideration of the <br />Commission and the Council. <br />Commissioner Pearce stated that she assumes, when an application requesting an <br />exception comes through, that the Commission would get not just the picture but the <br />topographic map to demonstrate that the slope was originally less than 25 percent. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes. He explained that there would be a slope map of the whole site, <br />probably a few pictures, and staff might even take the Commission out there to look at <br />the site. <br />Commissioner O'Connor referred to Mr. Dolan's statement that if someone wanted to do <br />this grading today, staff would probably want to look at it to make sure it is stable. He <br />noted that when cutting, other than the steepness of the sides, stability is not as critical <br />an issue as wanting to fill such a large cavern after the fact for stability of that fill if they <br />are going to develop and build on top of it. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that for a significant subdivision being built on flat land, the elevation <br />that at the end is generally not the same as what it was at the start as there are all kinds <br />of things such as some minor grading pushing things around. He indicated that if this <br />area were allowed to be developed, it would not necessarily have a home sitting right <br />across where a tunnel used to be. He added that there might be some fill on one side, <br />a cut on another, and a bunch of infrastructure in there; it would all be engineered so <br />there would be no issue with filling that up. <br />Commissioner O'Connor agreed but noted that there have been some engineered sites, <br />especially in hills where things have moved, so this would be just another level of risk. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that was right; however, every neighborhood in the hills now has had <br />some sort of engineered grading and filling on it as part of the process of development. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 23, 2013 Page 8 of 44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.