CCMIN051590 - Laserfiche WebLink

245 flexibility rather than retroactivity should be utilized to accommodate the vagueness of the market and the building program that has become very minimal in the existing system. Mr. Peter MacDonald, 400 Main Street, stated that he was in favor of the small project exemption provisions but that he did not agree with the retroactivity provision. Mr. Bob Silva, 3766 Oakbrook Court, indicated that he was not in favor of the retroactivity provision and added that a subdivision should be vested at the time a developer puts in custom lot subdivisions, improvements, financial resources and files his final map. He stated that when a developer starts a project and brings it through the entire process, he needs the assurance that the project will continue. Mr. Nate Meeks of Ponderosa Homes, 6671 Owens Drive, stated that his company has been building in Pleasanton since 1982 and that it still has 65 lots to build on. He expressed concern about the provision on retroactivity. He said that the market is slowing down, and since they have a standing inventory in their lots, they would prefer to have a vacant lot to a finished house. He mentioned that there are so many unknown factors in the housing business that adding another one like this would make it virtually impossible for a credible lending institution to extend financing to build infrastructure and houses on a turn-around basis. He stated that his company has been able to work well with the existing ordinance and requested Council not to adopt the proposed revisions. Mr. Martin Inderbitzen, 62 West Neal Street, stated that he was opposed to the retroactivity provision and that 18 months is not realistic to get all the requirements for growth management approval completed. He said that a 22-unit custom lot subdivision was required to do a thorough and extensive water study and develop a water system on a gravity flow basis satisfactory to the City's Public Works Director, as well as a geotechnical study that establishes that each lot can be built on, to be reviewed by the City's geotechnical consultant, before it can file the tentative and final maps. In addition, each of the custom lot structures would have to come back to the Design Review Board (DRB) for approval. He said that Council should deal with specific requirements for specific projects based on their individual growth management agreements. Mr. Art Dunkley, Castlewood Properties, indicated that he was not in favor of the revisions. The possibility of having growth management approval revoked and the slow market make financing almost impossible and will not serve the City's purposes. He requested Council to continue working with the existing growth management ordinance with the exception of the five-unit exemption. - 15 - 5-15-90