CCMIN061284 - Laserfiche WebLink

June, July~ and August City Council ASenda Planning Report Mr. Walker presented the City Council Agenda Planning Report for the months of 3une, July, and August, for tile information of the Council. 7~EPORTS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Ke~uest for Development Deferment Agreement, Taubman Company (Contd. from 5-22-84) Mr. MacDonald presented his report (SR 84:319) dated June 7, 1984, regarding this matter. Mr. Bob Gibney, Attorney representing Stoneridge Properties and the Taubman Company, stated the main thrust was to take stock of the Stoneridge sewer capacity that has gradually been allocated to other uses in the Center. He stated that Doubletree sewer needs caused these discussions. He stated that what he has done is quantify the sewer capacity already allocated, what remains, and what is expected to be needed for future use. Mr. MacDonald stated he has reviewed the revised agreement and concurs with the changes. It was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Brandes, that Resolution No. 84-303, approving the Development Deferment Agreement for the Taubman Company, with modifications as described in Staff Report 84:319, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None Consideration of TSM Ordinance Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 84:323) dated June 7, 1984, regarding this matter. Mr. Bennett Woll, representing Kaiser Development, Oakland, expressed opposition to the proposed ordinance, stating it was not proper. He cited the following reasons: it would cause excessive traffic on residential streets; increase air pollution and noise; the ordinance affects all roads equally, he felt roads near the freeway should be exempt; the ordinance affects only Pleasanton - he felt it should be County-wide; the ordinance penalizes certain types of jobs such as realtors and salesmen; the ordi- nance penalizes local people who live close to their jobs; the ordinance requires the landlord to be responsible for its tenant employees; he is concerned that the ordinance will require the landlord and employer to be responsible for his employee on private time; and the ordinance will hurt Pleasanton in their competition for employment. Mr. Woll concluded by stating the proposed ordinance is a drastic approach to a problem that does not yet exist. Mr. Doug Bosma, representing Clorox, stated that he supports a systematic approach to traffic control but he is opposed to the proposed ordinance as it will adversely impact his company's ability to schedule work for their employees and use of equipment. He stated it is his belief that Pleasanton should control growth and to assure quality employement, but he felt additional time is needed to review the ordinance and what impact it will have on local businesses. He stated he would like to meet with other affected employers to gain understanding of the traffic problems and the impact this will have on employees; and he felt this effort should be undertaken before adoption of the ordinance, the results will be a more effective TSM ordinance. He concluded by stating that Clorox looks forward to participating in such a meeting. 13. 6/12/84