CCMIN030299 - Laserfiche WebLink

will be allowed subject to the approval of the Planning Director and found to be in conformance with the approved exhibits. He asked if the double sandstone shade of tan was in conformance to what the city previously approved. He said contractors make minor changes all the time, yet isn't he allowed the same courtesy. He asked how many times a citizen must submit colors to the City for approval. He felt in his case, he could be submitting colors forever. The color he applied is darker than what was submitted. He has fulfilled the conditions of approval, yet the City will not approve the color. He understood the final approval of the color would be done at the final inspection for occupancy. He has one year to complete the exterior. The City has no right to stop construction inspections on the house because we had not filed an appeal as to the color. The color is not due on the house until final inspection. He saw nothing wrong in putting on a coat of stucco any time during the construction. He darkened the color that was originally submitted but the City refused to approve the color. The City is not allowing life and safety building inspections to continue. The Foothill Overlay District guidelines were created through a series of public meetings. He asked where his home was conditioned to include those guidelines. There have been three public processes and not one citizen has said the color is inappropriate. When the guidelines were adopted in 1990, the City Attorney said the ordinance would provide legislative history in case the color issue was raised in the future. At that meeting it was decided that lots of record would be exempt. He believed his home was not subject to the guidelines, that his home meets the requirements by blending into the grassland and there has been no objection to the house color. He has asked for a tolling agreement to provide a way out for Council to change the West Foothill Overlay District requirements. The appeal process was about the color. He voluntarily darkened the color. He refutes, denies and resents the letter sent out to the public. He asked for an apology and that correction letters be sent. He said the best time to start telling the truth is now. Mayor Tarver hoped Mr. Nelson felt satisfied with his ability to communicate his opinion to the public and did an excellent job in setting forth the differences of opinion. Jan Batcheller, 644 Saint Mary Street, commented on the proposed no-growth initiative. She said the people in Pleasanton are very fortunate. The City did not get the way it is without planned growth. She asked where the growth in the City was improper. The City reports that 98% of its citizens responded favorably to a recent poll regarding growth. Her concern is the large amount of open space that surrounds the City and that must be preserved. She also believed the General Plan was a good plan. Hundreds of people spent thousands of hours working on the General Plan and a few people want to overturn that work. The proponents of the initiative want to politicize the remaining development by putting all future development before the voters, which cost the taxpayers a great deal of money. That money could be used towards much needed amenities. She believed the Council has listened to both sides and that Council is doing what is right for the City of Pleasanton. She felt there were other issues that needed attention, e.g., affordable housing. She hoped the City Council would not put the initiative on the ballot. Leslie Simmons, 3937 Kern Court, had concerns about the year 2000 and embedded computer chips that are hard to find. It has been estimated that there are over 25 billion embedded Pleasanton City Council 5 03/02/99 Minutes