|
M I N U T E S
<br />of
<br />THE MEETYI:G
<br />of
<br />THH PLANNING CObL~1YSSI0N
<br />Pleasanton, California
<br />January 27, 1965
<br />The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at
<br />5:00 P.M., on Wednesday, January 27, 1965, by Chairman Landon.
<br />ROLL CALL showed the following:
<br />Present: Commiealoaere Antonini
<br />.Lozano
<br />Raga
<br />Chairman Landon
<br />Secretary False
<br />Absent: Commissioner Johnston
<br />Upon motion of Commissioner Lozano, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, the minutes
<br />of the meeting of January 13, 1965, were approved ae presented by unanimous wte.
<br />Chairmen Landon opened the public hearing on the adoption of the new Pleasanton Area
<br />General Plan, being an amendment to the General Plan dated April 25, 1460, and
<br />covering an enlarged area, bounded by Interstate Highway 580 the Pleasanton Township
<br />Boundary and Isabel Avenue, Vallecitos Road (SR 84), and Pleasanton Ridge. Chairman
<br />Landon called upon Mr. John Blayney, of Livingston and Blayney, who explained the
<br />difference between a general plan and a zoning ordinance. He stated that a general
<br />plan is a long-range, comprehensive plan which looks ahead 25 years, and is not a
<br />zoning map. A zoning ordinance, on the other hand, is a law which precisely
<br />regulates land use. The general plan is a statement of policy adopted by resolution;
<br />it ie not a law. Gradually zoning will be brought into conformity with the general
<br />plan or the general plan will be changed.
<br />Secretary False presented a list of communications received at the public hearing on
<br />January 6, 1965, and read communications received since that time and the present
<br />public hearing, as follows:
<br />Letter from James 8. Aitken, A.I.A., to Murray School District Trustees, dated
<br />December 22, 1964, including 13 criteria for future selection of ell proposed
<br />school sites, and a letter of transmittal from Michael M. Lindemann, Superintend-
<br />ent of the Murray School Districted, dated December 28, 1964. Mr. Blayney stated
<br />that all the criteria are covered by the General Plan with the exception of Item
<br />No. 6, which states that a school cite should be bounded by a maximum of two
<br />streets. Two schools proposed in the Murray School District have streets on three
<br />aides. This could be revised.
<br />Letter from Eeaenar Investments, 155 Montgomery St., San Francisco, dated Jan. 20,
<br />1965, and indication from discussion with Eeaenar representatives and the staff
<br />re location of a neighborhood shopping center on Santa Rita Road somewhere be-
<br />tween Black and Valley Avenues.
<br />Letter from Mr. Mark E. Garton, dazed January 6, 1965, opposing Safeway shopping
<br />center at Santa Rita Road and Black Avenue for the reasons that it would be too
<br />close to the downtown area and to a school. Mr. P.M. Scales, representing
<br />Eeaenar Investments, waa present in the audience, and stated that they have had
<br />surveys made which indicate the subject area would be ideal for this type of de-
<br />velopment. Safeway ie willing to move their site to the southwest corner of
<br />Santa Rita Road and Valley Ava., and bor. Scales asked the Commission if this
<br />would be in conformity with the General Plan as a neighborhood shopping canter.
<br />Chairman Landon answered in the affirmative.
<br />Letter from William H. Gale, Jr., dated January 5, 1965, and subsequent letter
<br />dated January 27, 1965. Mr. Gale, ae attorney representing six property owners
<br />on the east aide of First Street between Spsing St. and Vineyard Ave., requested
<br />commercial designation for the subject area. Mr. Blayney recommended no change
<br />in the General Plan which designates this area as R-G. He stated that the Central
<br />Business District hoe to have a boundary. First St, is a major heavy traffic
<br />
|