My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010290
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN010290
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:34 AM
Creation date
11/3/1999 10:08:19 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.
/
17
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
27 <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler indicated his support for filing a suit. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Mercer, and seconded by Mr. Brandes, that <br />the cities of Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore file a joint <br />injunction against Alameda County before January 11, 1990, to <br />delay the adoption of the ordinance in order that an EIR may be <br />done and public hearings held; that, if possible, participation by <br />other cities in the County be solicited before January 11, 1990; <br />and that should the other cities show no interest in taking any <br />joint action, the City of Pleasanton will proceed on its own. <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />8. MATTERS INITIATED BY COUNCII24EMBERS <br /> <br />Discussion on the Use of Sidewalks for Business Purposes <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes stated that, in relation to an Agenda item which <br />was continued, the request by Strizzi's Restaurant, he was not <br />aware of any Council decision which allowed businesses to come out <br />and use the sidewalks. He inquired whether or not it was possible <br />for Council to revoke the use of sidewalks if it never had the <br />chance to deal with the matter in the first place. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that there has been no Council decision <br />allowing businesses to use the sidewalks. The reason why the <br />request by Strizzi's Restaurant was on the Agenda is because no <br />permit has been issued for Strizzi's to use the sidewalk, whether <br />for food or alcoholic beverage. <br /> <br />Discussion on Vineyard Avenue and Fertile Crescent Studies <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that he has received numerous inquiries <br />on whether the City will have typical subdivision developments all <br />the way down Vineyard Avenue or if the McDowell property would be <br />the end of such development. He requested City staff to initiate <br />a study of Vineyard Avenue from the McDowell property all the way <br />down Vineyard Avenue to find out what the Planning Commission and <br />the staff would like to see done there. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes expressed agreement with Mr. Mercer but <br />suggested that the Vineyard Avenue study be delayed until the <br />Fertile Crescent study is completed and a public hearing on it <br />held, because there could be a possible overlap of the studies, <br />which would result in a duplication of information and EIRs. <br /> <br /> -14- <br /> 1-2-90 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.