Laserfiche WebLink
4y~~8A"~°y CITY of PLEASAtU~'~N <br />~~, <br />`~ ~~° Planning Commission <br />..o <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />Date June 9 , 1976 <br />Time : 8:20 P.M. <br />Place: Pleasanton Council Chambers <br />Approve d <br />REFERRALS FROM <br />CITY COUNCLL <br />Review of Land Uses with the area <br />bounded by Main Street, Bernal Avenu <br />Pleasanton Avenue and St. Mary Stree <br />Secretary Harris outlined the staff <br />report, stating that the City Council <br />requested this sutdy. Staff will not <br />be able to get to this within a year, <br />as there is not enough staff time, <br />unless staff is told to drop every- <br />thing else. <br />Motion: <br />Seconded: <br />Ayes <br />Noes: <br />Absent: <br />XI <br />The Commissioners discussed the alter <br />natives presented in the staff report <br />Commissioners Wood, Shepherd and <br />Butler commented that #5 seems the <br />best way to go with the overlay <br />concept. <br />Deputy City Attorney Levine advised <br />the Commission that Alternative #5 <br />would require as much .study as #1 and <br />#1 has more power and will get a <br />better result, however, they could <br />be combined. A specific plan is not <br />limited by time as is a study dis- <br />trict. <br />The Commission concurred that this is <br />not a high priority item; that the <br />Growth Management Plan should be <br />completed first. <br />hairman Wood moved, seconded by <br />ommissioner Shepherd and carried, <br />o recommend to the City Council <br />lternatives #1 and #5 with regard <br />o this Land Use Study. <br />ouncilman Brandes, was present and <br />nformed the Commission that Council <br />s desirous of input regarding re- <br />iew of fees and charges imposed by <br />he City for filing of various appli- <br />ations. All functions within the <br />ity cost money and if we are far <br />-13- <br />