My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010792
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN010792
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 9:58:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
28 <br /> <br /> sq.ft. as a medium size house, but was willing to do so because of __ <br /> the conditions and the changes made. He agreed to exclude the 750 <br /> sq.ft. garage. His concern was the visual impacts and design <br /> impacts of the lots. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler commented he still had a problem with "medium" <br /> houses of this size, but that these were the types of houses which <br /> were being requested for this development and for. these 20 lots. <br /> Although this would not solve everybody's problem, he felt that <br /> this would be a workable approach and would give a guideline. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Mr. Butler that <br /> Resolution No. 92-17 be approved as follows: (1) the term"medium" <br /> is deleted from the Guidelines; (2) for the 20 high visibility <br /> lots, the following shall apply: the structure, not including the <br /> garage, shall be 7,000 square feet or less; if the garage exceeds <br /> 800 sqaure feet, then that excess footage shall count towards the <br /> 7,000 square foot number unless by the way the structure is <br /> designed, the excess footage is not visible. <br /> <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner, and Tarver. <br /> NOES: None <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: Mayor Mercer <br /> <br /> Item 12a <br /> East County Area Plan - Alameda County Planninq COmmisSion POliCy <br /> Options Report (SR92:06) <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver preferred that the County not move on this until <br /> the regional issues go through ABAG and through the Governor's <br /> office. He proposed that the Council inform the County that the <br /> Council wants to continue the effort put into the Tri-Valley <br /> Council. He requested staff to make some revisions to the letter <br /> to the County to include a stronger statement urging cooperation <br /> among cities and counties, rather than coordination, and urging <br /> delay of the Plan until the Bay Vision 2020 Plan and the Governor's <br /> Plan proceed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler had comments similar to Mr. Tarver's. He stated <br /> that he's not opposed to having different levels of government <br /> involved, but wanted to be sure that the Tri-Valley has input on <br /> that. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer indicated the letter should be redrafted and <br /> brought.back to the Council at the next meeting. <br /> <br /> 1/7/92 <br /> 28 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.