Laserfiche WebLink
WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />WHEREAS, <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br />ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 90-161 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION DETEI~ININ~ THAT THE EXISTIN~ <br />BUILDIN~ PER~IT AND PLANS FOR THE PLEASANT <br />VILLagE CENTER ARE IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE <br />WITH MEASURE X ~ RESCINDIN~ RESOLUTION NO. <br />90-X44 <br /> <br />in November, 1988, the voters of the City of Pleasanton <br />approved Measure X to permit the commercial development <br />of the property located at 6700 Santa Rita Road at <br />Pimlico Drive; and <br /> <br />said development is designated <br />Development (PUD) 80-15-5D-2M; and <br /> <br />as Planned Unit <br /> <br />the conditions of approval to Measure X provide that the <br />Project shall be in substantial conformance with the <br />conceptual drawings on file with the City; and <br /> <br />in July 1989, the City of Pleasanton issued a building <br />permit for the retail commercial complex portion of the <br />Project; and <br /> <br />in response to complaints from neighbors about the height <br />of this portion of the Project, Pleasant Village <br />Asociates, the developer of the retail commercial <br />complex, applied for a major modification to the PUD, <br />which modification, in part, sought to increase a portion <br />of the retail complex by three and a half feet; and <br /> <br />on July 23, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution No. <br />90-144, which resolution denied that portion of the major <br />modification which would have permitted a portion of the <br />retail complex to be increased by three and a half feet; <br />and <br /> <br />at the City Council meeting of August 7, 1990, a motion <br />was made to reconsider Resolution No. 90-144, but the <br />matter was continued to August 21, 1990 because the vote <br />was 2-2 with one councilmember absent; and <br /> <br />at the city Council meeting of August 21, 1990, the <br />Council adopted a motion to reconsider Resolution No. <br />90-144; and <br /> <br />at its continued meeting of August 22, 1990, City Council <br />considered further public testimony and exhibits <br />concerning this matter. <br /> <br /> <br />