Laserfiche WebLink
from us -- and take the power out of her house, yeah. So they will be removed; but I <br />want to do it carefully with a snorkel type of lift kind of trip. That’s all. <br />ALAMEDA: Okay. <br />CHUN: I want to also say that clearing the property and removing the <br />rubble the way it’s supposed to was a tremendous cost, more than we had anticipated. <br />Our originally quote was $11,000 and it came out to $42,000; $30,000 worth of it went to <br />the County for the recycling portion. <br />ALAMEDA: Mr. Watanabe, follow-up? <br />WATANABE: Yeah, I’d like to follow-up on my original comment with regard to <br />access to Manono Street. Then I was wondering if you had an opportunity to think that <br />over and whether you could agree to removing the subdivision but also having cross- <br />easements such that only one entry to Manono Street would be required for this lot as <br />well as your existing parcel. <br />CHUN: It would be our preference, again, to have two. However, if it is <br />the Council’s wish to only have one, then so be it and we will work around it. But, again, <br />it is for the best interest of the overall development to keep our options open, so we ask <br />that you consider having two. <br />ALAMEDA: Any other questions before we move towards our motion? Seeing <br />none, you may be seated. Okay, this is Agenda Item No. 2. Any of the Commissioners <br />care to entertain a motion, or would you need some discussion first? <br />WATANABE: Mr. Chairman? <br />ALAMEDA: Commissioner Watanabe, go ahead. <br />WATANABE: I move to forward a favorable recommendation for Change of <br />Zone Application REZ 07-000072, and for the record, I guess, we should substitute DMS <br />Investment, LLLP with GHC Family Limited Partnership, and inclusive of the revision to <br />Condition C which describes the requirements to install a fire hydrant fronting the subject <br />property; and also a revision to Condition B, removing the requirement to consolidate <br />these parcels and replacing it with the requirement for cross-easements so that only one <br />access to Manono Street would be required. <br />ALAMEDA: Mr. Darrow, is that an adequate motion? <br />DARROW: I believe so. I think we’re looking at a similar condition as our last <br />application where it would require either consolidation or cross-easements. The actual <br />requirement for the single access is listed on Condition -. <br />WATANABE: E. <br /> EXHIBIT B <br />9 <br /> <br />