My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 082802
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
PC 082802
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:46:37 PM
Creation date
4/15/2003 8:37:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/28/2002
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 082802
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
<br />r <br /> <br />Fish and Wildlife Service. One of the agencies wanted ponds created in order to provide <br />breeding grounds for the tiger salamander, but the other agency did not support that <br />because of the potential for bullfrogs moving into the ponds and eating the salamanders <br />and potential red-legged frogs that may return to the area. They decided on other types of <br />mitigation than creating ponds and wetlands on the hillside area. The existing wetlands <br />would be protected. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson replied that the <br />Conditions of Approval for Green Building practices were contained within the PUD. He <br />noted that the PUD did not contain much flexibility regarding the conditions, and added <br />that the PUD was not being considered at this time. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sullivan noted there were some subtle but substantial differences between <br />the newer and older PV conditions. He noted that the new version contained the words <br />"best efforts," but the older version did not. Also, the new PV conditions stated they <br />"will" implement it, as opposed to the older version, which stated they were "encouraged <br />to" implement it. <br /> <br />Mr. Iserson noted that the City had a strong interest in implementing Green Building <br />practices, and they would not only use their best efforts to implement them, but would <br />encourage TTK to do so, as well. <br /> <br />r- <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson replied that there would <br />be planting on the excavation sites after they were cut. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Jim Hoge, applicant, intoduced Dr. Shinnan Kiang, general partner ofTTK Partnership <br />and Steve Goins of David Evans & Associates, who was the project engineer. He <br />described the site, and added that they would donate eight acres for the Golf Course, and <br />twenty-six acres would become permanent open space. Twelve acres would be retained <br />for the twelve home sites to be considered by the Commission. He noted that they had <br />been involved with this project for five years. He believed that it was a high-quality <br />project because of the caliber of the people involved with it, including the Golf Course <br />Committee and City staff: Larissa Seto, Michael Roush, Brian Swift, Jerry Iserson, <br />Marion Pavan, Wayne Rasmussen, and the late Randy Lum. <br /> <br />Mr. Hoge noted that they concurred with the staff report, and would be available for <br />questions from the Commission. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan regarding the Green Building <br />modifications, Mr. Hoge noted that they would not build the homes, and that a developer <br />would implement the Green Building standards. He noted that the Design Review process <br />would give the Commission an opportunity to address those standards. <br /> <br />.--- <br /> <br />Plarming Commission Minutes <br /> <br />August 28, 2002 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.