|
T
<br />nn the Proposed General Plan. Mr. Fates reminded the Commission that Mr. Blayney
<br />said that cemeteries should be located, if possible, in areas somewhat secluded
<br />from general view, from which Mr. Fales said he assumes Mr. Blayney'a attitude
<br />would be somewhat negative toward this particular proposal. ~e City staff has no
<br />very strong feeling regarding iocatior. of ce:r_eteries of this nature, Mr. Fales
<br />stated. Tt may very well have come merit if properly maintained. T'nia kind of
<br />land use would not necessarily be detrimAn:ai to any of the surrounding land uses.
<br />After discussion by the Cotcnisaion, it was moved by Cocc~iasioner Rega, seconded
<br />by Coamissioner Antonini, and carried, Chat the Ci¢y Manager communicate to the
<br />Alameda County Planning Commission the Pleasanton Planning Coaenisaion's apprecia-
<br />tion for referral of the above matter, and that the location of a cemetery on the
<br />subject site would be compatible caith the low density nature of the area in
<br />question; and also, if properly designed, landscaped and maintained, a cemetery
<br />in this area could provide a pleasing view from the adjacent Route 84 freeway.
<br />Chairman Landon proceeded to referrals from the City Council re: modifications or
<br />additions to the Proposed General Plan as adopted and recommended to the City
<br />Council for adoption by the Planning Commission on January 27, 1965. Mr. Fales
<br />reviewed the progress to date of public hearings and transmittals of recommenda-
<br />tions to the City Council. On February 23, 1965, the City Council concluded their
<br />public hearing and refered eight items to the Planning Commission for recommenda-
<br />tion or reconaideretion in the following areas: Commercial, Industrial, Community
<br />Facilities and Circulation.
<br />After discussion by the Commission, upon motion of Commissioner Rega, seconded by
<br />Commissioner Antonini, the following resolution was adopted by unanimous vote of
<br />those Commissioners present:
<br />RESOLUTICN N0. 392
<br />RESOLVED:
<br />The City Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council
<br />that the language in the Proposed General Plan, dated November 5,
<br />1964, under Commercial Areas which refers to Neighborhood Shopping
<br />Centers be changed with reference to their size, from "4 to 6 acres"
<br />to "5 to 8 acres", and further, that language referring to a general
<br />limitation as to the total floor area involved be added, to wit:
<br />The total usable floor area of such centers should be from 50,000
<br />to 80,000 square feet as a general rule.
<br />Mr. Fales stated that the City Council, by a 3 to 2 vote, referred back to the
<br />Commission the land use designation for the area on the east Bide of First Street
<br />between Vineyard and Kottinger Avenues. Mr. Fates read a letter to the Commission
<br />dated February 24, 1965, from Dr. Douglas Huntze, a property owner in the subject
<br />arEa, stating he is opposed to commercial zoning for this area. Following dis-
<br />cussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that ample commercial zoning has
<br />been provided, much of which has not yet been developed. Upon motion of Commis-
<br />sioner Lozano, seconded by Conmissioner Rega, the following resolution was adopted
<br />by unanimous vote of those Commi.ssionera present:
<br />RESOLUTION N0. 393
<br />RESOLVED:
<br />The City Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council
<br />th?t the Land use designation for the area east of First Street
<br />between Vineyard and Kottinger Avenues remain as "High Density",
<br />multiple family residential, as indicated on the Proposed General
<br />Plan, dated November 5, 1964.
<br />Mr. Fates stated that, with regard to the General Electric Vallecitos Laboratory,
<br />Mr. Blayney has recommended an abstract-type circle inserted on the subject site
<br />indicating some "General Industrial" within the "Limited Industrial" designation
<br />for the majority of the site. After discussion by the Commission, upon motion of
<br />Commissioner Rega, seconded by Co®issioner Antonini, the following resolution was
<br />adopted by unanimous vote of those Commissioners present:
<br />RESOLUTION LxO. 394
<br />RESOLVED:
<br />The City Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council
<br />that the General ELectri~ Vaia.ecitoa Laboratory be designated as
<br />"Limited Industrial" for the majority of the site, but with an
<br />abstract-type circle inserted on the site on the General Plan
<br />indicating acme "General Lndustxial" use.
<br />
|