Laserfiche WebLink
4y$~s"N~°y CITY of PLEASANTON <br />~~o <br />~.:o~-~ Planning Commission <br />MINUTES ~OF REGULAR MEETING. <br />Data ; August 8, 1972 <br />Time ; 8:00 P.M. <br />PIGCe; Pleasanton Justice Court <br />Mr. Mariani then concluded that this <br />amendment is a General Plan revision. <br />Mr. Castro indicated that this is not <br />a General Plan amendment but a zone <br />change to the current zoning map. <br />Regarding the General Plan review, <br />Mr. Mariani wished to know whether <br />all requirements per State law are <br />being followed. Mr. Mariani cited <br />certain sections of the Government <br />Code referring to circulation element <br />transportation roads, public facili- <br />ties, BART and proposed major thor- <br />oughfares, seismic hazards, etc. <br />Mr. Mariani referred to the seismic <br />report prepared by Harding, Miller, <br />Lawson & Associates which indicated <br />that the Willow West site was the <br />better of the two. That report cite <br />a rupture in the Calaveras Fault in <br />1961 on the Stoneson site. <br />Mr. Mariani did not believe this <br />application should be considered wit; <br />out reviewing Livingston & Blayney's <br />report and the new General Plan; als <br />that the Planning Director's report <br />and recommendation should be written <br />after these findings have been made <br />as to his position; that a report <br />should be received from the Division <br />of Highways regarding the interchang <br />that the findings presented by Homar <br />should be reviewed; that considerate <br />should be given to traffic circulate <br />seismic hazard report. Mr. Mariani <br />concluded his remarks by indicating <br />that no action should be taken by th <br />Commission until the appeal pending <br />before Council has been resolved. <br />Mr. Mariani emphasized that such a <br />matter should be determined by <br />Council. <br />-10- <br />