My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN040400
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCMIN040400
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:31 AM
Creation date
4/20/2000 3:10:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/4/2000
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN040400
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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
which is the developable area. Anything above 670 feet is designated open space on the <br />General Plan. Because the Planning Commission is concerned about development on <br />legal lots in that area as well as on Dublin Canyon Road, it has scheduled a hearing to <br />discuss expanding the boundary of the overlay district further to the west so it runs to the <br />top of Pleasanton Ridge and along Dublin Canyon Road. That will be heard by the <br />Planning Commission soon. That would come to Council at a subsequent meeting. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to a list of properties affected by this and inquired if <br />Council could see that. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said it was included in the staff report. The overlay district applies to <br />all properties, but has no practical application unless a property is being developed. If it is <br />an existing lot of record that is not being subdivided, it would only apply to an accessory <br />structure, building addition or new structure on the lot. The intent of the guidelines <br />would be applied rather than the standards. There is a list of properties that staff <br />considers under development or undeveloped with subdivision potential. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis said many lots affected by this are in unincorporated areas and she did <br />not think City staff had control of grading before the property was annexed to the City. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said that was correct. The lots are governed by Alameda County <br />regulations. <br /> <br />Ms. Dennis asked if the County regulations were strict regarding grading. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift was not familiar with the County' s grading ordinance, but as a practical <br />matter, the County would probably not know what was done. <br /> <br />Ms. Dennis expressed concerns about properties located in Alameda County. <br /> <br /> Larry Cannon presented the report with regard to how regulations on color were <br />formulated. He explained it was very difficult to select a palette of specific colors and <br />stated that emphasis was placed on color value instead. He explained how to use various <br />types of value viewers. He stated the most obvious colors and those to be avoided were <br />shades of yellow and white. He also stated the background for most houses in that area <br />was the dark trees. He recommended flat paint and low reflective surfaces and avoidance <br />of white trim. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala inquired about the use of shades of red. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cannon said red will not be seen much, but can be used on roofs like tile <br />roofs. Red is complementary to green so it would be good for the area. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti requested examples of what fits into the overlay district <br />guidelines and what would not be allowed. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 18 04/04/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.