10/09/58 - Laserfiche WebLink

IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PLEASAN'PON COUNTY OF AIAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Meeting of October 9, 1958 ,~. The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at City Hall on October 9, 1958, Chairman Wetherby presiding. Roll Call: Present - Commissioners DeVor, Hanifen, Lozano and Mitchell. Absent -Commissioner Wharton. The minutes of the meetings of September 18th and October 3iid were approved as for- warded on motion of Commissioner Hanifen, seconded by Co~i.ssioner DeVor and approved by all Commissioners present. Chairman Wetherby opened the public hearing on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. John Boucher, Planning Consultant of the firm of Pacific Planning & Research, was present and stated the purpose of the General Plan end its relationship to the Zoning Ordinance. A letter from the Northern California Council of Outdoor Advertising was presented. A letter from Arthur F. Sekany, 400 Rose Avenue, was presented. Mr. Sekany asked that the property located at 400 and 410 Rose Avenue be considered for a multiple family dwelling development. Mrs. Sekany was present and stated that on Rose Avenue there were two business and eleven multiple dwellings. Mr. Boucher suggested that the Commission should not overzone this area before it was necessary. Chairman Wetherby stated that the matter would be investigated and the Commissioners will take a look at the property prior to final consideration. Mr. H. J. Peetz, 519 Pleasanton Avenue, protested the zoning of his property as agri- cultural. Mr. Boucher explained that, in the future, this land is proposed to be used as a park but present planning law does not allow zoning for park use. Mr. John Larned, 135 School Street, asked the basis of the predicated population, why the General Plan proposed single family residential use across from the sewage plant and asked why the business district is shown in the form of a square. Mr. Boucher stated the predicated population was based on industrial potential and estimated overflow from the metropolitan area. The business district is zoned in a square to provide easier access so that people will use Main Street shopping instead of an outlying shopping center. Mr. Philip Landon, 440 Bonita Avenue, indicated that an aaswer to Mr. Deetz's question was misleading. He stated that the City can force industry out of business through its police power. Mr. Bouhher stated this is true only if he is a nuisance and does nothing to prevent dust, noise, etc. Mr. Landon ob~ect~to the San Francisco owned land being zoned industrial in its entirety. He indicated that he felt that the Planning Commission should go on record Por a State College or at least a Junior. College on a portion of this land and thus hold open this land for this use. Coffiissioner DeVor stated that the pro- posed industrial zoning was only on approximately 1~3 of the San Francisco land. Mr. Victor Lund, 300 Second Street, asked why this land should be zoned industrial if it would be necessary to rezone it if and when a State College should come in. Mr. Boucher explained that this area is not in the City limits and is not being zoned but is being shown as industrial in the proposed General Plan. Mr. Lund asked why the area across from the sewage treatment plant is proposed for residential use. He questioned whether the Federal Housing Authority will approve loans for this area. It was explained that the City plans to move ponds and will help to eliminate the odor problem in this vicinity. Councilman Edwin Orloff asked if this was going to be the only public hearing. Chairman Wetherby stated that all ideas would be taken under advisement and the.t the Planning