My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 05:069A
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2005
>
SR 05:069A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2005 1:59:43 PM
Creation date
3/10/2005 1:00:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
3/15/2005
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 05:069A
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
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
the issues with respect to the potential impacts on the horse pasture as well as on the <br />Bozorgzad's privacy issues. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti if the City could obtain deeds for the proposed easement now to <br />guarantee that the path would ultimately be built. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the condition requires a deed from Mr. Bach for the easement, but <br />that the path would not be constructed until such time as his property were developed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver believed that at the time the Specific Plan was being reviewed, <br />consideration was given to the path and to agricultural uses, but one was not determined <br />to be more important than the other. Staff encouraged Mr. Bozorgzad to subdivide his <br />property so that it could be determined how everything would be laid out to accomplish <br />the Specific Plan. He felt all the property owners were in agreement with the Specific <br />Plan and how it was to be built out. He firmly believed this path was necessary. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis clarified that there would be an easement for the trail without that <br />condition. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift said yes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis did not think being so uncompromising was building good will for the <br />trails. She would also like to have the trail now, but did not want to impose that on <br />people who are not ready for it. There is assurance that when the property is developed, <br />the trail will be built. She assumed that at some point Mr. Bach's property will no longer <br />be agriculture, based on the North Sycamore Specific Plan, and there will be a street <br />constructed there. She asked what the City's options were if there is an easement for the <br />trail and the property never develops. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the City could construct the trail when it wished. As currently <br />written, Condition #8 specifies the path would be constructed in conjunction with the <br />Bach property. That condition is more directory than actually doing anything. Condition <br />#6 requires a deed for the easement to the City. Then it is between the City and Mr. Bach <br />as to when the path is developed. The actual location of the trail as suggested by Mr. <br />Pico would be reviewed in conjunction with the house. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush indicated that if Condition #8 is modified, there is a risk that the entire <br />Bozorgzad application will be delayed until the Bach's provide the easement. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver said the reason he liked Mr. Pico's suggestion is that the matter be <br />resolved prior to recording the parcel map or issuance of a building permit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl said that could be resolved by putting the trail on the Bozorgzad <br />property. However, if Mr. Bach is still unhappy with the trail adjoining his property even <br />if it is not on his property, a portion of the private street is on his property and <br /> <br />Excerpt from the City Council Meeting Minutes of 9/20/99 9 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.