My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 080900
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
PC 080900
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
8/1/2001 5:40:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/9/2000
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 080900
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
Mr. Swii~ advised that the Commission can approve the apartments as part of the overall PUD <br />and if comfortable with that process delegate staff to work with the applicant on aspects of the <br />component; otherwise a different process will need to be structured. He noted that design review <br />will need to be completed by mid-September. <br /> <br />Mr. Costanzo reviewed the proposed "New Home Green Builder Checklist for the Apar~nent <br />Rental Units" and the "New Home Green Builder Checklist" prepared by Greenbriar for the <br />project. He requested that these lists replace condition of approval #84. <br /> <br />Dan Rnsenhaum of South Bay Development stated that they would like the list prepared for the <br />commercial development to be incorporated in the same format and used rather than the wording <br />in condition of approval #84, but that the LEED scoring would still apply. He noted that <br />condition #84 states "superior" and should read "certified." <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkln requested that Greenbriar provide feedback on the costs, effectiveness, and <br />benefits of the Green Building practices. Mr. Costanzo agreed to this. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sullivan noted that he believes that the list that has been prepared is very good. <br />He asked if Greanbriar Homes would be willing to meet with representatives of the Alameda <br />County Waste Management Authority and staffto review the list and identify additional areas of <br />low or no cost. Mr. Costanzo stated that he is willing to participate in a meeting, and be <br />"encouraged" to add to the list, but does not want a condition that states they have to add to the <br />list. <br /> <br />Mr. Costanzo reviewed the conditions of approval that they have identified as areas of concern. <br /> <br />Condition #31: Mr. Costanzo stated that they do not want a children's play area in the <br />Village Commons open space, noting that a tot lot has been included in the apartment <br />component. <br /> <br />Condition #$4(d): Mr. Costanzo asked for clarification of this condition, noting that <br />Greenbriar does not want the responsibility for the cost to relocate the sewer main and/or <br />pump station. <br /> <br />Condition #57(d) (iii) Mr. Costanzo stated that Greenbriar had never planned to install a <br />culvert under the UPRR right-of-my and doesn't feel it needs to be done. <br /> <br />Condition #57 (h): Mr. Costanzo stated that Greenbriar does not agree with this <br />condition and that they are not willing to maintain ownership of the creek, he further <br />stated that it has always been Greenbriar's intention to dedicate the entire fight-of-way to <br />the City. <br /> <br />Condition ~67 (a) (iii): Mr. Costanzo advised that Greenbrier expected to install an <br />irrigation system off of the park and that it would be a very low maintenance area, and <br />any maintenance required would be done by the City in conjunction with the park He <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br /> <br />August 9, 2000 <br /> <br />P~el2 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.