|
M I N U T E S
<br />of
<br />THE MEETING
<br />of
<br />THE PLANNING COMMISSION
<br />Pleasanton, California
<br />September 22, 1965
<br />The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commiaeion was called to order at
<br />8:00 P.M., on Wednesday, September 22, 1965, by Chairman Landon.
<br />ROLL CALL showed the following:
<br />Present: Chairmen Landon
<br />Coamieelonesa Antonini
<br />Johnston
<br />Rego
<br />Absent: Secretary Falea
<br />Director of lublic Works Alan Campbell served ae Secretary Pro Tempore
<br />for Chia meeting.
<br />On motion of Coms~iseioner Johnston, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, the minutes
<br />of the mee±ing of September 8, 1965, were approved ae presented by unanimous vote.
<br />Chairman Landon opened the public hearing, continued from April 28, May 12, May 26,
<br />June ~, and September 8, on the application of Mra. Cheater Rossi, 4838 MacArthur
<br />Blvd., Oakland, for a Variance from the requirements of Ord. No. 309, in order to
<br />construct multiple dwelling unite with a reduced site width, rear yard, side yard
<br />and driveway, at 492 St. John St., in an AG-15 Dlatrict. Mr. Campbell stated that
<br />since this had been continued for each a long time Chet some action should be taken
<br />on it. Mr. Struthers pointed out that ae a courtesy to the applicant, they should
<br />be given written notice that Chia application would come before the Planning Com•
<br />mieaion one more time, at which time f1ne1 action would be taken. Chairman Landon
<br />made a motion that the applicant be informed that we will discuss this at the
<br />meeting of October 13, 1965, if he hoe anything to say at that time he should be
<br />present. Commissioner Rega seconded this motion. and it carried. Chairmen Landon
<br />then moved that this item be continued to the next meeting of October 13, 1965,
<br />seconded by Commissioner Antonini, and carried.
<br />Chairman Landon opened the public hearing on the application of the Planning Com-
<br />edeeion for an Amendment to Ord. No. 309 assigning Zoning Districts to the area of
<br />Annexation No. 36, Pleasanton-Sunni Annex "E", continued from August 11 and Sep-
<br />tember 8. Mr. Campbell gave the staff report, at which time it was recomme~ed
<br />that this item be put over to October 27. It was moved by Chairmen Leodoa,
<br />seconded by Commissioner Rega, and carried, that Che above-described public
<br />hearing be continued to the meeting of October 27, 1965.
<br />Chairman Landon opened simultaneously the public hearings on the application of
<br />the Planning Co®iseioa for an Amendment Co Ord. No. 309 assigning Zoning Dietricd
<br />to the area of Annexation No. 38, Stanley Blvd., Annex "B", continued from August
<br />11, and September 8; and the application of J. A. Comer, 1949 West Winton Ave.,
<br />Aayward, for an Amendment to Ord. No. 309. rezoning a parcel of property at 4160
<br />Stanley Blvd., from the interim R•1 District to the RG•15 District, continued from
<br />September 8. Mr. Campbell presented the staff report, and stated that there were
<br />two problems; adjacent land uses, and the proposed parkway, and he recommended
<br />interim no zoning for Chia area. Mr. Lee Amaral, attorney on behalf of Mr. Cosier,
<br />was present and eteted that his client desires RG zoning on this property so that
<br />he will be able to make some use of the land. He went on to say that under the
<br />present interim zoning he 1e unable to develop it in any way, and that RG zoning
<br />complya with the General Plan and neighboring land uses. There was a question on
<br />the boundary and location of the proposed parkway and land dedication of private
<br />property fns public use. The applicant felt that boundaries should be net on the
<br />parkway eo that he would know what land he had to work with. He urged that
<br />immediate action be taken on zoning and boundaries to the street. It was moved
<br />by Cosmiaeioner Antonini, seconded by Commissioner Johnston, and carried, that
<br />the public hearings be cloned. Mr. Campbell pointed out that for precise boundar-
<br />ies to be given on the proposed parkway, that much time and money would be in-
<br />volved in surveying, which had not been planned nor authorized in the near future.
<br />
|