Laserfiche WebLink
q~~8"Nr~ CITY of PI.~~ASANTON <br />-~ Planning Com~misslon <br />MINLI'~~$ ~pF REGUi_AR MEETING. <br />pOt4 ; November 21, 1973 <br />Time; 7:3o P.M. <br />FIOGe~ Pleasanton Justice Court <br />The Chairman explained that there ar <br />e <br />a lot of areas which would fall in <br />the category of the City owing them <br />a "moral" obligation when historicall <br />that land could be considered for low <br />densit ~sV~ o ment. In addition, <br />this to ~- cTev~lopment should have in- <br />significant impact on the holding <br />capacity and on the environment and <br />ecology of the area. <br />Commissioner Pons suggested using <br />the wording "due consideration." <br />j, The Chairman felt quite strongly <br />!about making some provision for <br />,the property owners who fall in this <br />',category since recent State legis- <br />lation enacted indicated that the <br />zoning map must conform to the <br />adopted General Plan of a City. <br />He feared real problems if the <br />Element were written as a document <br />with no flexibility added to it. <br />The City Attorney stated that the <br />map does make reference to the land <br />use element which would probably tie <br />in this element, but does not spell <br />it out definitively. <br />Commissioner Pons wished to know <br />whether this element can be approved <br />without this point being "nailed <br />down" to the land use element. The <br />Chairman stated that once the map is <br />approved, all these elements relate <br />to that map, and that will be it. <br />,The City Attorney indicated that his <br />,'position is that there must be con- <br />formity between zoning and the <br />iGeneral Plan and if the elements are <br />iin a rather strait-jacketed approach <br />'this might be detrimental. But with <br />'the proposed language, sufficient <br />flexibility can be introduced. <br />~~\\\ <br />\\\\ <br /> <br />-27- <br />_,..__. v _ ...... _ .... _....__. ,.____.. _ .... _ ._ <br />