Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes of the Continued Planning Commission Meeting of 8/27/86 <br />Held on 9/3/86 <br />Parcel 25 - Reynolds C. Johnson <br />Mr. Lee stated it is recommended this parcel be removed from <br />Pleasanton's Planning area. <br />Vote: Remove from planning area 5-0 <br />~arnsal 9f, - Rucch parc[37 27 - Rusch <br />No one addressed either of these parcels. <br />Commissioner Innes asked if it had been definitely decided there <br />will not be any sand and gravel harvesting on the properties. <br />Mr. Lee said it had been so decided. Commissioner Innes then <br />addressed the value of the parcel for its resources. Mr. Lee <br />stated it is recommended overriding considerations be recommended <br />because the cost to harvest sand and gravel would prohibit the <br />site's use for that end. <br />Parcel 28 - Kaiser <br />Mr. Lee presented the staff report. <br />Vote: CFA 5-0 <br />Parcel 29 - Runkle <br />Chairman Lindsey stated he would abstain from discussion of this <br />parcel because of potential conflict and Commissioner Innes would <br />act on his behalf as Chairman. <br />Art Dunkley, purchaser of the property spoke for himself and John <br />Caroline, the present property owner. He asked for a <br />clarification. He felt the staff recommendation to be unclear as <br />the recommendation is to not change the General Plan until the <br />entire downtown area, including the subject parcel, has a <br />specific plan. This will probably take 12 months or so. <br />Mr. Dunkley indicated they had made a General Plan amendment <br />application in October 1985 as a result of recommendation by the <br />City staff. This property was clearly designated Commercial on <br />the prior General Plan. There was no specific General Plan <br />change, but on the 1976 map a color change occurred. At staff's <br />request to clear up the matter, Mr. Dunkley submitted a request <br />for General Plan amendment. It is an error in color on the map <br />and not a General Plan change. The application was filed only as <br />a result of staff's request. Staff then asked that the matter be <br />put off until the entire General Plan comes up for review. Now <br />they are recommending it be put off for a specific plan for <br />Downtown. Mr. Dunkley read from a document dated December 17, <br />1985 wherein it stated "staff and the applicant have agreed to <br />continue this matter for the General Plan review." Mr. Dunkley <br />asked out of fairness that the matter be considered at this time. <br />Mr. Dunkley felt that he has acted in good faith and it is unfair <br />to ask him to carry the cost of the property with an unclear <br />future. <br />- 16 - <br />