My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020690
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN020690
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 10:11:38 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.
/
28
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
64 <br /> Mr. Tarver asked what the legal significance of the easement <br /> is in terms of the future expansion of the airport. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee stated that the way the proposed avigation easement <br /> is written does not provide the City of PleasaNton any assurance <br /> that airport noise is not going to get worse. An avigation <br /> easement can include a provision which says that the airport will <br /> agree to limit the noise it makes if the other party gives up the <br /> right to take the airport to court. Although an avigation <br /> easement does not prevent noise, this provision could change the <br /> noise level significantly. The avigation easement considered for <br /> the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan did not contain that provision; <br /> hence, the staff did not endorse it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that the City should have some protection <br /> from the airport. He asked what the maximum size for the runway <br /> would be. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer mentioned that it was his understanding that the <br /> runway at the airport would handle up to 737's. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes asked what would happen if an avigation easement <br /> were established and the City did not agree with it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked if an avigation easement could be <br /> established without the City's approval. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the Commission of the City of <br /> Livermore cannot do that. However, the Alameda County Airport <br /> Land Use Commission can adopt rules that are very close to this if <br /> it so chooses, but it has not chosen to do that at all. In fact, <br /> its protection area is on the other side and it has a safety zone <br /> and height limits which the City of Pleasanton has been following <br /> for many years and which have been incorporated in the Specific <br /> Plan. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Mr. Tarver, that <br /> Council request the Livermore City Council to modify the proposed <br /> Livermore Airport Protection Area to exclude the Pleasanton <br /> Meadows and Stoneridge Drive residential neighborhoods by moving <br /> the western boundary to E1 Charro Road. <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Mohr, Tarver and Mayor Mercer <br /> NOES: Councilmember Brandes <br /> ABSENT: Councilmember Butler <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> 13. REPORTS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY <br /> Item 13a <br /> Proposed Lease with Strizzi's Restaurant <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush presented his report (SR 90:40) regarding the <br /> matter. <br /> <br /> -26- <br /> 2-6-90 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.