CCMIN051804 - Laserfiche WebLink

Guy Bjerke, Chief Operating Officer of the Home Builders Association, of Northern California, P.O. Box 5160, San Ramon, said the specific effect of adopting a moratorium is being conveyed to the outside world the fact that there is a very specific problem with Pleasanton. He encouraged Council to consider how much time in staff resources it wished to put into this versus moving the General Plan forward. A moratorium is a time consuming process. If enacted, the initial moratorium is valid for 45 days. After notice and a public hearing, the ordinance may be extended for an additional 10 months and 15 days. Thereafter, the ordinance may be extended for one additional year. The Council may not adopt or extend any interim ordinance unless the ordinance contains certain findings. Ten days prior to the expiration of such an ordinance, a written report is to be issued describing the measures to be taken to alleviate the condition that led to the adoption of the ordinance. He wondered if this was the best use of staff time, or would staff be better off focusing on the completion of the General Plan update, particularly the two proposed major projects that could affect the City. He noted that the City of Pleasanton revised its housing element last year and it promised the State that it would focus on, and by June of 2004 redesignate sites in this community to meet the housing obligations that Pleasanton has under the regional housing needs. By adopting a moratorium, does this send a message to the State that Pleasanton is moving and keeping faith with that agieement? He noted that the City has documents that it has produced that counter the arguments that traffic is a current threat to the public health, safety and welfare. The Home Builders Association does not believe that Council can makes the findings that justify a moratorium. He urged Council to focus on completing the General Plan update. Paul Mooney, 2434 Minivet Court, supported the adoption of a moratorium. Because of the severity of the traffic problems, he would like to have a more integrated plan before any further development is considered in Pleasanton. He did not see how there would be a negative business affect by imposing a temporary moratorium. He believed a moratorium sends a message that Pleasanton wants to put the General Plan first and base development on the General Plan. Given the collision of various issues that are currently occurring, land use approvals need to walt. Karla Brown, 1326 Benedict Court, did not believe the economy would slow down because of fewer homes in Pleasanton. She believed it would enrich this community. She pointed out that Applied Bio Systems moved to Pleasanton because this town was a slow growth community. She reminded Council that it had already approved 850 homes, and she asked how this would affect the overall traffic in the community. She encouraged Council to prntect this community and the residents of this community by adopting a moratorium until the General Plan is finally approved. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, opposed the proposed study of a moratorium, as he believed the General Plan would address many of the current issues and provide a growth cap. If a moratorium is proposed by Council and it causes any problems with the development in south Pleasanton that may defer the bypass road, it will create a health, safety and welfare issue on the streets in the Happy Valley area, which are not equipped to handle the traffic issues. Pleasanton City Council 23 05/18/04 Minutes