My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 06/11/86
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
PC 06/11/86
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:05:26 AM
Creation date
4/23/2007 4:18:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/11/1986
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 06/11/86
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Steve Chamberlain, 2050 Manzanita, Oakland, gave a brief history <br />of Rouse and Associates, an eastern firm which opened a <br />California office in 1984. <br />Steve Fee, of Fee and Munson, San Francisco, reviewed the plan <br />indicated the generous landscaping and use of glass and brick. <br />There was some discussion regarding the~size of the suites and <br />the trellis areas. <br />Mr. Chamberlain reviewed the staff report and agrees with its <br />recommendations, but commented on conditions 8 and 10. He <br />indicated he had agreement with Hacienda Business Park and <br />Prudential that Prudential will take care of the requirements of <br />Condition #8. He felt conditions #10 placed the project in a <br />competitive disadvantage with other prior approved projects. He <br />indicated the relationship between schools and commercial <br />property was tenuous. <br />There was then discussion regarding the application of the school <br />fees to other developments and Mr. Swift indicated the <br />negotiations had been done between the City Council and the <br />School District and they are the ones who will decide. <br />Commissioner Lindsey indicated the Council will have to review <br />this application in any event and the condition should stay as is <br />now and the applicant can bring the matter up before the Council. <br />There was then some discussion as to the type of tenants in this <br />project and the Commission commended the design of the building. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Innes, seconded by Commissioner <br />Wellman, for recommending approval of Case PUD-81-30-34D <br />incorporating conditions shown in the staff report as 1-14 with <br />modifications to conditions 8 and 10 as described along with the <br />Standard Conditions of Development 1-56. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />AYES: Commissioners Hoyt, <br />Chairman Lindsey <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />Inner, Michelotti, Wellman and <br />Resolution No. 2801 was entered and adopted approving <br />PUD-81-30-34D as motioned. <br />MATTERS FOR COMMISSIONS REVIEW <br />There was no discussion on the sign program. The proposal is to <br />go back to staff for revision. <br />There was brief discussion about the proposed antennae for the <br />fire station across from Mountain Mike's in light of the denial <br />of Mountain Mike's application for a satellite dish. <br />- 8 - <br />.. _ r. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.