Laserfiche WebLink
4~'~ y <br />AS"~~° CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~- ~ Planning Commission <br />..o <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DGtB : July 9, 1975 <br />Time ; 8:00 P.M. <br />PIaCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Commissioner Carrigan concurred with. <br />this recommendation. <br />ACCEPTED. <br />Commissioner Doherty noted consider- <br />able reference to the Agency, and <br />very little specifically to the <br />Boards of Adjustment and Design <br />Review, etc. He felt the redevelop- <br />ment plan should be specific in these <br />areas, and he would not like to see <br />them cut out of redevelopment review. <br />Commissioner Shepherd agreed. <br />t was the general consensus of feel- <br />ng among the Commissioners that <br />he Plan specifically spell out that <br />he Board of Adjustment, Design Re- <br />iew Board and the Planning Comis- <br />ion be named as the bodies who <br />ould review projects within the <br />edevelopment plan. <br />ccordingly, a resolution was passed <br />nanimously determining that the <br />Redevelopment Plan is in conformance <br />with the City's adopted General Plan. <br />Also, they recommended approval of <br />the Plan to the Redevelopment Agency <br />and the City Council subject to the <br />condition that existing boards and <br />the Planning Commission be utilized <br />for redevelopment review. <br />Foothill Reservoir Site - conformity <br />with the General Plan. <br />Secretary Harris explained that under <br />State requirements, the Planning <br />Commission must make the finding that <br />the reservoir property is in confor- <br />mance with the General Plan. Accord- <br />ingly, a motion was adopted to that <br />effect. <br />-7- <br />