My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN012192
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN012192
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:00:17 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.
/
22
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
46 <br /> <br /> Seth Bland, 6233 Alisal Street, representative of Oil <br /> Changers, stated that this proposal was appropriate for Pleasanton. <br /> He believed the traffic circulation and parking was reasonable and <br /> would not cause any negative impacts. He asked for the Council's <br /> support. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner asked staff if the Planning Commission or Design <br /> Review Board needed to review the prepared modifications which had <br /> been made? <br /> <br /> Mr. Rasmussen answered no. He stated that due to the nature <br /> of the changes, it was not necessary for it to go back to the <br /> Design Review Board or Planning Commission. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Tarver, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, that <br /> Ordinance No. 1544 be introduced, to be read by title only and <br /> waiving further reading thereof, approving the application of <br /> Spieker Partners/Goodyear, Oil Changers, and a Retail Shops <br /> Building (PUD-89-6-4M) for (1) a major modification to an approved <br /> development plan to relocate and slightly increase the square <br /> footage of future free-standing pads; and (2) for design review <br /> approval of three proposed buildings to be located within the <br /> existing Rose Pavilion Shopping Center at 4205 Rosewood Drive. <br /> <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor Mercer <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: Councilmember Butler <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> Item 8b <br /> East County Area Plan - Alameda County Planning Commission Policy <br /> Options Report (SR92:42) <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer referred to the letter in the agenda and <br /> requested that the language regarding the Tri-Valley Council be <br /> amended to suggest the three cities in Alameda County and the <br /> Alameda County Representatives discuss the East County Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commented that he liked the idea that the Tri- <br /> Valley Council be able to comment because the cities are connected <br /> geographically. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer agreed, but said that the planning portion at <br /> this time had to come from the three Alameda County cities. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Ms. Scribner, <br /> approving the revised draft letter of response for the East County <br /> Area Plan, Alameda County Planning Commission Policy Option Report <br /> and to delete the Tri-Valley language and replace itwith the three <br /> cities in Alameda County. <br /> <br /> 1/21/92 <br /> 14 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.