My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN080796
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN080796
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:56 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 11:00:26 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.
/
13
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
Ms. Michelotti wanted to keep the title as simple as possible. She was concerned <br />changing the ti~e would add confusion. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr believed the City Attorney's analysis could explain the issue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated the entire text of the initiatives will be part of the voter pamphlet. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked for the preferred wording for the housing cap initiative. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush felt B. 3 was the most succinct. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the analysis would include the fact that a court could overrule the <br />measure. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated that is always the case. Any initiative can always be challenged. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the challenges would be similar to those against the Coastal <br />Commission. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated those dealt more with conditions of approval as opposed to denial of <br />an application. If there is a finding of an unconstitutional taking and the Council cannot remedy <br />the situation, the court could require compensation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Weinberger thought Ms. Mohr might be referring to the Nolan case which involved <br />an unconstitutional condition. However, preceding that for many years, the courts repeatedly <br />have upheld the right of the Coastal Commission to place development restrictions on properties <br />which have greatly limited development opportunities. In all of those cases the courts have <br />upheld the State's authority when faced with a taldng challenge. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis indicated 29,000 units was purposely chosen to account for all the properties <br />within the urban growth boundary at the midpoint, plus a few additional units so that as the <br />29,000 unit cap is approached, there should not be a challenge because there are no units left <br />for a particular application. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated staff would be monitoring the number of units to be certain there <br />is advance notice that the limit is coming close. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis believed that if all projects are approved at the midpoint of the range, then <br />there will be a cushion for many years to come and we may never reach the 29,000 cap. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked what happens if the San Francisco property is developed in the <br />County and there are 2250 units instead of the 1900. <br /> <br />08/07/96 <br /> -6- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.