My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18 ATTACHMENT 07
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
011508
>
18 ATTACHMENT 07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2008 3:44:31 PM
Creation date
1/10/2008 3:04:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
1/15/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
18 ATTACHMENT 07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Page 1 of 2 <br />Natalie Amos <br />From: Anne Fox [anne_fox@comcast.net] <br />Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:32 PM <br />To: Anne Fox; Natalie Amos <br />Cc: Donna Decker; Jerry Iserson; Julie Harryman; Michael Roush <br />Subject: Re: Questions on PAUP-4 <br />Hi, <br />One other question. <br />7. With the code amendment for allowing private tutorial schools to be a permitted use in the municipal code, <br />both Julie and Michael said that this does not apply to PUDs, only straight zoned areas. So for Valley Business <br />Park (PUD), what is in the municipal code for Commercial I gather does not apply since it is not straightzoned. <br />Why for this then, since this is a PUD-MDR zoning, is the permitted and conditional use for straight zoned R1- <br />6500 areas fora 'fowl' being used rather than a PUD modification process to allow wild animals to be in the <br />Texeira PUD 88-3 being the procedure here? Also, I haven't seen the CC&Rs yet. Can we have a copy please? <br />----- Original Message ----- <br />From: Anne Fox <br />To: namos _ci.pleasanton.ca us <br />Cc: Donna Decker ;Jerry Iserson <br />Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:11 PM <br />Subject: Questions on PAUP-4 <br />Hello, <br />Please print out and provide copies of the web links to the Commission. I have some questions. <br />1. Regarding the dimensions of the minimum enclosure for a red tailed hawk, in this State Fish and Wildlife <br />publication, it states that the floor area is 64 sq ft and the minimum interior ceiling height of the enclosure must <br />be 7 ft throughout. <br />http://www.dfg.ca. gov/licensing/pdffiles/fg 1518. pdf <br />The applicant in the exhibit has a sloped roof and also there is per the diagram a large counter in the interior <br />that appears to be placed in a manner such that the net 7 ft ceiling height requirement is not met throughout the <br />structure. <br />The wording in the staff report is that "mews have to be inspected for compliance with federal and state <br />laws.....staff has researched information on mews and compared the applicant's mew to these <br />standards. Staff found that the applicant's mew is well designed to provide shelter." However, staff does <br />not say in the report that the dimension requirements for the enclosure meets or does not meet state <br />requirements. Is this because staff found that they did not, but chose to not make that explicit in the staff <br />report? Can staff clarify that in their presentation and in a written response? Are the dimension requirements in <br />compliance with State requirements? <br />2. Regarding p. 12 of 15 and the purported successful use of falcons to control pigeons in New York, I googled <br />this and found that there had been a complete ban after the hawks attacked pets (small dogs). <br />ittp://www.wnbc.com/news/2384499/detail. html <br />12/12/2007 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.