My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0097.000 1996-1998
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
1996-1998
>
COM 0097.000 1996-1998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2008 4:42:59 PM
Creation date
5/10/2008 8:00:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
1996-1998
Communication
0097
Point
000
Author
Virginia Goldstein, Planning Director
Communications - Referred To
PC
Comments
Presented: PC - 1/21/97
Communications - File Code
ZNG/PN
Document Relationships
AGE PC 01/21/1997 1996-1998
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\1996-1998\Planning Committee (PC)
COM 0097.001 1996-1998
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\1996-1998
COM 0097.002 1996-1998
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\1996-1998
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
<br /> / Takashi Domingo . <br /> Page 2 <br /> November 13, 1996 <br /> request, which required the developer to install a <br /> minimum 4-foot high fence. Subsequent discussions <br /> occurred as to whether the fence should have been <br /> 4-foot or 5-foot high. The final language for <br /> Condition I resulted with the minimum 4-foot high <br /> fence. <br /> 2. In August and September of 1994, we received a <br /> complaint from Mr. Sato, stating that Condition I which <br /> required the construction of the fence was not complied <br /> with. The Planning Department staff conducted a field <br /> inspection on October 16, 1994 and subsequently, by <br /> letter dated November 7, 1994, informed the developer <br /> that compliance with Condition I had not been adhered <br /> to. <br /> 3. In February 1995, the Mayor's Office referred Mr. <br /> Sato's complaint that the developer did construct a <br /> fence as required by Condition I but that it was made <br /> of hogwire and not a chain link fence. Further, that <br /> portions of the fence were less than 4 feet high. <br /> 4. In March 1995, we received a complaint from Mr. Sato <br /> stating that the hogwire fence is not strong enough and <br /> that it should be a chain link fence and up to 6' 8" <br /> high. He further stated that he had problems with <br /> trespassers jumping the fence to steal fruit trees, <br /> defecate, urinate and eat and sleep on his property. <br /> 5. ey letter dated May 25, 1995 to Mr. Jack Bellman, we <br /> informed him that on April 6, 1995 staff conducted a <br /> field inspection and verified that the location and <br /> height of the existing fence satisfied the requirement <br /> to install and maintain a 4-foot high fence along the <br /> eastern boundary. <br /> 6. A September 16, 1996 letter from Mr. Sato to Councilman <br /> Takashi Domingo was referred to our office. Mr. Sato <br /> expressed that the hogwire fence should have been <br /> changed to a chain link fence. He further expressed <br /> that he continues to have problems with trespassers <br /> climbing over the fence and entering his property to <br /> pick orange and pineapple fruits. In addition, people <br /> stuck their hands through the hogwire fence and picked <br /> the pineapples which are grown near the fence. In <br /> response to Mr. Sato by our letter dated September 20, <br /> 1996, we informed him that the subject ordinance does <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.