My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN021892
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN021892
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:03:30 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.
/
20
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
99 <br /> <br /> 9. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS <br /> LAVWMA/TWA <br /> ABAG <br /> ACAP/ACTEB <br /> Alameda County Waste Management Authority <br /> Alameda County Transportation Plan Committee <br /> Fertile Crescent Study <br /> Mayor's Affordable Housing Task Force <br /> Tri-Valley Transportation Council <br /> League of California Cities <br /> <br /> There were none. <br /> <br /> 10. MATTERS CONTINUED FOR DECISION <br /> <br /> Item 10a <br />Ordinance No. 1531, ~Dmrovinq the ADDliCatiOn Of Kay Xu for <br />Re~oninq and Development Plan ADDroyal for property at 5130 <br />Foothill Road as Filed Under Case PUD-91-02 <br /> <br /> Peter Shutts, 4133 MohrAvenue, Suite G, explained that there <br />was some concern by Ms. Ku regarding the easement. Ms. Ku was <br />concerned with the potential liability of Ms. Starnes transporting <br />her horse to and from her property. He stated that Ms. Ku was <br />willing to agree to an easement for weed abatement and maintenance <br />but did not want it to be used for transporting a horse because it <br />could jeopardize the value of her property. <br /> <br /> Marti Starnes, 5050 Foothill Road, reviewed the history of the <br />project. She explained that when Ms. Ku developed her property, <br />she and Ms. Ku discussed obtaining a recorded easement to the rear <br />of Ms. Starnes' property. They chose an appropriate area and it <br />went to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission for <br />approval. At the Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Ku decided that <br />she did not want the easement and therefore, it was removed from <br />the plans. At the Council meeting, an easement for maintenance was <br />added back into the plans. She was not opposed to this being an <br />easement for maintenance purposes but asked that Ms. Ku list the <br />number of times per year it could be used. She requested that it <br />include vehicle access to her property to transport her horse. She <br />confirmed that the horse would not reside there permanently. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked Ms. Starnes if there was another access to <br />get her horsetrailer to her property. <br /> <br /> Ms. Starnes answered not really. It would only be possible to <br />walk the horse through her backyard, within a few feet of her pool. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if Ms. Starnes could estimate the number of <br />times she would need to access her property for her horse. <br /> <br />2/18/92 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.