My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN120192
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN120192
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:34:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
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
213 <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that the PUD conditions would go on <br />indefinitely. He understood that Mr. Joel was concerned with the <br />agreement with Ms. Sorensen having a termination date, as opposed <br />to doing something different with the spring. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked if the decision not to finalize the lot line <br />adjustment was a condition of the PUD. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said that the City Council conditions did not <br />specifically say that. There was only a representation made at the <br />Council meeting by the A-M Homes representative that the lot line <br />adjustment would not be recorded until an agreement could be <br />reached. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner recalled the only condition that Council placed <br />on this matter was that it found that the proposed use of the <br />spring was consistent with the PUD and until an agreement was <br />reached, Council would not take any action. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver was concerned with the power poles, the fencing <br />and other things associated with changes to what was in place at <br />the time Council made the decision as to the lot line adjustment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift believed that the changes which had been made were <br />consistent with the PUD. The agreement that is being discussed <br />pre-supposed that a different use of that spring would be done <br />compared to the 500 gallon Y-valve system that is currently in <br />place. That is the modification to the use of the spring that <br />Council would have to decide whether or not it was consistent with <br />the PUD. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if there was anything different about the fence <br />that would prevent deer from getting through it. She then asked, <br />if there was a geotechnical analysis of the supply of Ms. <br />Sorensen's water and results proved that her source of water was <br />other than this spring, would that resolve this problem. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said that he had not seen the fencing. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that the issue would still remain whether <br />or not the use of the spring was consistent with the PUD. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the spring water could be used for <br />agricultural reasons. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that the PUD does not address this issue. <br />The PUD shows this area as open space, which staff has interpreted <br />as agriculture-open space, which is the use of the property which <br />would have been used by the homeowners association should it have <br />taken over the property. <br /> <br />12/1/92 ii <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.