Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 3 <br />on the title of the property) on developers of new residential developments. For example, the City has <br />required developers of new housing in the Vineyard Corridor to record disclosure statements that are <br />meant to alert potential purchasers of issues like airport noise or quarry operations. Likewise, the <br />developers of the new housing on the Bemal Property included disclosures about the rail line and plans <br />for future lighted sports fields. <br />Dan--I hope you find this information helpful. Please let me know if you have additional questions. <br />Julie Harryman <br />Asst. City Attorney <br />From: Dan Carl <br />Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 9:55 AM <br />To: Julie Harryman <br />Subject: RE: Municipal Code Violation and Safety Concern <br />Thank you, Julie. <br />There was one more question that the Planning Department has referred to your department (that has been part <br />of my information requests to the City over the past month): <br />4) What would neighbors be required to disclose under current California Real Estate code in real estate <br />transactions if this CUP is granted? As a CUP would live on in perpetuity with the property -doesn't this <br />disclosure requirement live on with the property? <br />Thanks in advance. <br />Dan Carl <br />925-353-0134 <br />From: Julie Harryman [mailto:jharryman@ci.pleasanton.ca.us] <br />Sent: Tuesday, November 06. 2007 3:30 PM <br />To: __ <br />Cc: Michael Roush; Donna Decker <br />Subject: FUV: Municipal Code Violation and Safety Concern <br />Dan, <br />Your a-mail has been forvvarded to me for a response. I will review your questions tomorrow and try to get you a <br />response within the next day or so. <br />Julie Harryman <br />Asst. City Attorney <br />From: <br />Sent: l hursday, November 01, 2007' 4:5U 1'M <br />To: Michael Roush <br />Subject: Municipal Code Violation and Safety Concern <br />Dear Michael - <br />I met with Donna Decker of the Planning Department on October 16~' regarding this long outstanding issue. She <br />referred me directly to you regarding any legal questions. I have several remaining: <br />. 1) Has the City of Pleasanton redefined fowl contrary to the State Ag Codes Sections 24652, 25403, <br />24952, 57503 and the Alameda County Ag Code permitted use section 17.26.030 to include wild raptors? <br />If so, what legal precedent or legal definition was used for this new and apparently unique definition? <br />These codes all reference domesticated or herbivore fowl for agricultural production -not carnivorous wild <br />raptors. If not -please help me understand how the applicant has not been in violation of municipal code <br />12/11/2007 <br />