|
Industrial Park. This area would offer a choice to potential industries se to
<br />whether they would prefer to lease in the San Francisco Industrial Park or purchase
<br />ad~aceat to it. Mr. Fales said the staff recommended I-P zoning. Vice-Chairman
<br />Tendon asked for comment from the audience. No one spoke, and the public hearing
<br />was closed. On motion of Corrnniasioner Rega, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, the
<br />following resolution was unanimously approvedi
<br />RESOLUTION N0. 173
<br />WHEREAS, the City of Pleasanton has annexed sa area of approximately
<br />fourteen acres known as Annexation No. 19, Pleasanton-Suaol
<br />Annex "A", and .
<br />WHEREAS, interim zoning as an I-P District was granted to the area within
<br />Annexation No. 19 for a period of 180 days Following annexation;
<br />and
<br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has studied the area oP Annexation No. 19
<br />is relation to the City oP Pleasanton General Plan cad Ordinance
<br />No. 309, the Zoning Ordinance;
<br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that
<br />Ordinance No. 309 be amended is order to provide zoning Yor the
<br />area of Annexation No. 19 as an I-P District;
<br />BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said recommendation be transmitted to the City
<br />Council by the Commission Secretary.
<br />The next item on the agenda was the request by Castlewood Futerprises for annexa-
<br />tion, zoning and planned unit development approval, which was cocttauad Prom the
<br />meeting of Aprii 19. Vice-Chairman Tendon opened discussion on the matter by xe-
<br />marking that the Commission held a study session on this subject on April 25.
<br />Secretary Fales read a letter addressed to Mr. $ermea Ruth, City and Regional Plan-
<br />ning Consultant, informing him of questions which had come up in the miade of the
<br />Commissioners as a result oP the study session. Mr. Ruth was present in the audience,
<br />and opened his remarks by saying that since the last Commission meeting the owners
<br />of the property under discussion have.. engnged a leasing agent who has leased and
<br />developed other shopping centers and are specialists in this Field. He said he
<br />a:~l3eved the location at Bernal Avenue and Foothill Road was strategic because of
<br />the interchange of the proposed freeway. He spoke of a larger service area bounded
<br />by U.S. 50, Sunol, Pleasanton Ridge and the Fairgrounds--approximately 7-8 square
<br />miles, and a smaller service area of 3-4 square miles. With regard to the shopping
<br />center, approximately 3F~i oY the gross income is estimmted to be eoaveaience goods,
<br />with approximately 10;$ primary shopping goods, variety Stores and miscellaneous
<br />shops. Secondary goods, such as appliances, TV, etc., would be approximately 496 oY
<br />gross income. A total business of about 4-5 million dollars s year is anticipated
<br />by the ahogping center. The enlarged area contains a population oP about 1,000,
<br />but will hold 40,000-50,000 persons. The smaller area wiill hold about 25,000-30,000
<br />persona. Three properties are negotiating for subdivisioxi ixi the area but may not
<br />get started this year. This subdivision could hold approximately 2,000 persons.
<br />I'9 the end oP 1965, an estimated 8,000-10,000 persons would be in the large trading'
<br />area. Mr. Ruth then answered the question of time and sequence oY development,
<br />estimating an overall development of five years. It 1s the ixitenti.on of the develop-
<br />ers to dispose oP the residential portion and let someone else develop it. He stated
<br />the First development would be three outlets is the retail area and would constitute
<br />the first year's program: gas station, restaurant (there are two possibilities at
<br />this time), and a food market (Lucky Markets have indicated interest). Second year
<br />development would include 10,000 square feet of shops, and a small professional office
<br />building of 3,000-5,000 square Peet. Third year development would be the balance oP
<br />the retail area of 30,000 square feet, perhaps half of the apartments, and another
<br />10,000 square feet of professional offices. Fourth year development would finish
<br />the retail area, start the second half of apartments, add another 10,000 square Peet
<br />of offices, and start the motel. In the fifth year the 'professional offices and
<br />motel would be finished.
<br />City Attorney Struthers was asked for opinion oa a performance bond. He stated that
<br />a pleased unit development calls for a bond not to exceed 10~ of the estimated cost
<br />of the planned unit development. This is to mane certain the public improvements
<br />are going to be constructed. The Conm~ission ec~~7.d require a bond si.ace it is in the
<br />Ordinance, but it might be challenged. Vice-Chairman Tendon brought up the question
<br />oP how demonstration of Financial ability of the applicant is obtained, to which
<br />City Attorney Struthers replied that the Commission is entitled to ask the applicant
<br />for a brief Financial atater~ent.
<br />
|