My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 09/12/73
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1970-1979
>
1973
>
PC 09/12/73
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2017 11:51:05 AM
Creation date
4/30/2007 3:41:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/12/1973
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 09/12/73
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
CITY of PLEASANTON <br />Planning Commission <br />MINU~'E8 ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />QQte : September 12, 1973 <br />T11'118: 8:02 P. M. <br />Place; Pleasanton Recreation Center <br />Chairman Pereira clarified that according to <br />State law, zoning must be substantially in <br />conformance with the General Plan. The re- <br />zoning and General Plan amendment procedures <br />may not be handled concurrently. Either the <br />land needs to be rezoned and then amended on <br />the Plan to meet conformity; or the opposite <br />procedure - amend the Plan and then rezone <br />the land - must be completed... In essence, i <br />the requested rezoning will not revise the <br />existing zoning by more than fifty percent, <br />it is left to the discretion of the Planning <br />Commission to decide if it is substantially <br />in conformance with the General Plan. <br />The Public Hearing was opened. <br />Mr. Jack Bras, representing Pico Investors, <br />was present. It was his interpretation that, <br />the required procedural steps plus infor- <br />mation to be submitted was a matter of dis- <br />cretion on the part of the Planning Director. <br />He indicated that of the 2.06 acres, they <br />would like .67 ac, zoned to C-N to allow for <br />a convenience market and allied retail uses. <br />There is sufficient population in the area <br />to support such a use. He cited some advan- <br />tages which would result from having some <br />retail there, such as reduced traffic on <br />Vineyard Avenue. <br />As pointed out in the staff report, the staf: <br />did not feel the allied retail facilities <br />attached to the convenience market could be <br />supported. The main concern here is that <br />no detrimental competition to the neighbor- <br />Ihood shopping center site should be allowed. <br />i,A further concern was the ingress/egress <br />Ito the proposed site on Concord Street. <br />(Discussion followed. <br />Mr. Bras further told the Commission that it <br />;is the applicant's intention to keep the <br />architecture compatible with the neighborhoc <br />and that he would be happy to present to the <br />r~ <br />\\\\ <br />,, <br />-4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.