Laserfiche WebLink
gv`ASA~Toy CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~ ~ '~~ • <br />`~~~~` Planning Commission <br />`~XMiD f <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />DCt@ : November 14 , 19 72 <br />Time ; s:o5 P.M. <br />PIGC@: Pleasanton Justice Court <br />The City Attorney advised the Commis- <br />sion that he had spent some time <br />determining what improvements, if any <br />have been made on the properties in <br />question, with the view in mind to <br />provide from a legal point of view <br />the extent to which-the Planning <br />Commission is obligated to consider <br />the property owners. The conclusions <br />reached were that it is very possible <br />the Commission could make a rezoning <br />apply. Commissioner Wood wished to <br />know at what stage of construction <br />would this still be valid. <br />The City Attorney replied that the <br />current state of the law in Californi <br />is that there isn't a vested right in <br />zoning acquired until after building <br />permits have been granted, but that <br />this question has not been answered <br />by the California courts as yet. The <br />conclusions are that the Commission <br />has about an even chance to have <br />their rezoning sustained in the court; <br />if the actions were challenged. <br />Opposition was registered by two pro- <br />perty owners - Edward Dienstag, re- <br />presenting the interests of the Morri; <br />Stulsaft Testamentary Trust regarding <br />the Commercial Freeway parcels and ', <br />Harry Elliott III, representing H.C. ~,, <br />Elliott, Inc. on the multiple acreage's <br />Mr. Dienstag stated that Commission <br />rezoning of his client's property wou' <br />amount to "inverse condemnation" and <br />stated that development of this pro- <br />perty as single family is totally out <br />of the question. He recommended that <br />these parcels remain in the Study <br />District for further review. <br />Mr. Elliott spoke to this application) <br /> <br />-5- <br />