CCMIN051804 - Laserfiche WebLink

which is being sponsored by Charter Properties, the developers would oppose such a moratorium and would urge Council not to recommend this go forward for staff analysis. Mike Regan, 1363 Hearst Drive, believed a possible moratorium prohibiting land use approvals pending the General Plan update should be reviewed. Asking for a moratorium is saying the General Plan is even more vital, given that the City is rapidly approaching build out. He believed there would need to be trade offs. Even if a moratorium was not adopted, he believed that staff should be directed to review the possibility of a moratorium so that the groundwork is in place. Philip Blank, 1339 Hearst Drive, said he is a resident of Kottinger Ranch. He initiated the idea of a moratorium by asking the Planning Commission to make a formal recommendation to place a temporary moratorium on all major planned unit development until the update of the General Plan is completed. His request was not specifically related to the developments of Kottinger Hills or Lurid Ranch II; it was about Pleasanton itself. His prime concern was the residents' quality of life. He recognized that developers have made significant contributions to Pleasanton. The City is not obligated to develop every square inch of this City, which he believed was the direction that the City appeared to be going, and in doing so will destroy the last remaining open spaces. The City needs to be more concerned about the deteriorating quality of life and the immediate threat to the community's health, safety and welfare rather than being concerned about developing every square inch of Pleasanton. For this reason, he requested that a temporary moratorium be adopt~l to proitibit all planned major development until the General Plan is complete. He pointed out that staff indicated that the 1996 General Plan does not work from a traffic perspective, and yet the traffic continues to increase. The only way to solve the traffic issues is to stop development, fix Highway 84 and eliminate cut-through traffic. This represents an immediate and documental threat to the health, safety and welfare, and does in fact meet the legal requirements for a moratorium. The General Plan states that if traffic levels go beyond a certain specific point, the City must stop issuing building permits. He asked if the City had adequate flood control plans. Based upon some information he bad received, a 100-year flood would put one third of this City under water. He asked if it was responsible to continue development without correcting the City's lack of flood control? He believed there were options, but these options need to be worked within the confines of the General Plan. The Planning Commission has recommended a moratorium or a halt on issuing building permits until all of the intersections meet the level of service requirements, and until Highway 84 is fixed. The City needs to consider the overall view as there is too much traffic in Pleasanton, and the next developer that comes along cannot just fix the intersection where it develops. He also believed a moratorium should be adopted until the City sees the impacts to the community on the 850 homes that have already been approved, as these additional homes will add thousands of trips per day in Pleasanton causing even further deterioration and further threat to the community's health, safety and welfare. He asked Council to take the critical actions that it has done in the past to preserve and protect the quality of life that the residents of this community all cherish. Pleasanton City Council 22 05/18/04 Minutes