My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN032001
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2001
>
CCMIN032001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:33 AM
Creation date
4/13/2001 5:13:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/20/2001
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN032001
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
out, etc. Any conditions regarding timing, additions to a project like photovoltaic panels <br />on the housing, almost anything related to time, place, and manner of the construction of <br />a project is set forth in the conditions of approval. This condition falls into the <br />classification of timing. Council said it wanted the project to go forward only if the other <br />projects in the Happy Valley Specific Plan area linked to the overall annexation of the <br />area also went forward. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell proposed a hypothetical condition for a project to put in a park in a <br />different past of town. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said if there was no property within a project for putting in a park, then <br />the developer would pay fees that could be used for parks elsewhere in the community. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell asked if there was case law that supports cities' imposing <br />conditions outside the realm of a developer's influence. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said yes. What usually happens is ifa developer feels there is no <br />reasonable relationship between the condition and the impact, then those matters get <br />litigated. Sometimes the court finds in the city's favor and sometimes in the developer's <br />favor. There are many cases on this subject. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked Mr. Campbell who brought up the concept of nexus. <br /> <br /> Mr. Campbell said he received a call fi.om Ken Memer to discuss the project and <br />that is when he first learned about nexus. He asked if there is a condition outside the <br />control of the developer, where does the city stand legally. If this is beyond the <br />applicant's control, it seems the City is unfair with the condition. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush said the PUD regulations are zoning regulations and are legislative <br />decisions. Council has a great deal more discretion on what it can impose on a project <br />under the zoning regulations. There was a great deal of discussion and various motions <br />regarding the project. It was only when a condition was crafted regarding the timing of <br />the project, that there was enough support on the Council to approve the project. He felt <br />comfortable in finding a nexus for this condition on the project because it relates to a <br />timing sequence rather than simply paying fees for a particular impact. Without that <br />condition, Council in 1999 would not have approved the project. <br /> <br /> Ms Michelotti said the Greenbriar approval included construction of a road which <br />was the beginning of the bypass road for the golf course, and there was a condition that <br />other development past that had to reimburse Greenbriar. At that time, there had to be <br />agreement by New Cities. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swirl said there was a financing program developed for infrastructure and an <br />agreement was reached by all the funding developers. However CJreenbriar chose to go <br />ahead and install most of the infrastructure in conjunction with its development with the <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 20 03/20/01 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.