My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN070792
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN070792
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:02 AM
Creation date
10/28/1999 11:53:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
125 <br /> <br /> Mr. Tollefson stated that between January through May of 1992 <br />there were six calls made to the Hopyard Center (4/fights, <br />2/noise). He did not believe that a gate or chain would not make a <br />change in the amount of calls made. The emergency access issue was <br />not a problem for the police department to respond. <br /> <br /> Mr..Butler explained that he understood the economic problems <br />of trying to lease space in this climate but he felt that the <br />property managers should be responsible for that, not the <br />neighbors. A lot of time and careful consideration was put into <br />building the center to eliminate the parking and noise problems for <br />the residents. Mr. Butler stated that it was never intended to <br />have service oriented commercial business that would be open after <br />7:30 p.m. He believed that the management of the center was <br />looking for video businesses and others such as that which would <br />only generate exactly what was not intended. He would not consider <br />changing the traffic restrictions on area four but would reconsider <br />the restrictions for the other areas. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked Mr. Swift if this area was conditioned to <br />be office and not retail. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered yes. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer explained the history which led to conditioning <br />the property to be restricted to office use only. He did not <br />support changing any of the conditions for the property. He <br />believed that the control of the property should be the Code <br />Enforcement Officer's responsibility. He was not suggesting that <br />any of the retail businesses be removed from this center but did <br />believe that no more should be allowedto move in. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Butler, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, that <br />Ordinance No. 1568 be introduced, to be read by title only and <br />waiving further reading thereof, approving the elimination of <br />Condition 12 of Ordinance No. 1227 (pertaining to the elimination <br />other "cap" on high parking demand uses) but retaining Condition 10 <br />(pertaining to the parking control and time restriction int he la <br />Petite Academy parking area). <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner, and Mayor Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: Councilmember Tarver <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />7/7/92 7 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.