PC 032404 - Laserfiche WebLink

care how much grading was done, especially with respect to the golf course. She noted that the Council's action angered the residents, resulting in the referendum. She believed the Planning Commission would consider the timing of enacting a moratorium two or three times and noted that both South Pleasanton projects were in the middle oftime-consuming EIRs. She noted that the safety and welfare questions would be addressed in the EIR. James Frost wished to take issue in an editorial in the most recent Pleasanton Weekly, which stated that Pleasanton was founded on 5,000-square-foot homes on half- to two-acre lots. The editorial stated that without those building standards, Pleasanton would suffer negative impacts. He believed that was a foolish stance and stated that the community was founded on sustainable building and growth. He noted that approximately 900 permits were left to issue and believed that if the General Plan did not increase the number of properties that could be built in the Pleasanton area, the building requests could never be met. He believed that it would be difficult for his children to be able to stay in Pleasanton and that if only the two-acre projects were allowed, the available building permits would not allow smaller, more affordable housing. He requested that the Commission plan for a livable community that could be sustained into the future. Padi Peyrovan, 696 Sycamore Creek Way, spoke in support of the moratorium and expressed concern about the safety issues in the neighborhoods due to speeding drivers. She noted that her six-year-old son was nearly run over by a truck and noted that nothing had been done to mitigate the risk to children by traffic. She noted that because their neighborhood did not have a park, the children often played in the street. She noted that the construction by Summerhill Homes nearby .- brought heavy truck traffic on their street. She urged the Commission to consider the traffic in the neighborhood streets, not just in the major intersections. She inquired whether there was a flood control plan that would mitigate the grading of the hillsides. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, spoke in opposition to the moratorium and did not believe it was necessary. He inquired who decided the size and location of the upcoming projects and how a moratorium would affect the future planning calendaz. He inquired whether seniors, the workforce, inclusionary, and low-income housing would be affected and possibly precluded because of the moratorium. He inquired whether the moratorium was designed to stop development in one's own neighborhood. He believed that if one area could not be developed, it would impact other pazts of the community and the region. Greg O'Connor, Hidden Creek Court, agreed with the other supporters of a moratorium. He believed that the residents were tired of the over-grading of the hills for big homes and would like to see higher density, affordable housing for seniors or for younger families neaz the freeway corridors. He believed the General Plazi could address those issues. He believed that the current needs of the City should be examined, not eight-year-old children's needs. He believed the City would benefit from waiting an extra yeaz. He agreed with Ms. Roberts' comments on the EIR process. Michelle LaMarsh noted that the City Attorney's report emphasized public safety and an immediate threat to the residents. She thanked Ms. Nerland for clarifying public welfare and agreed that quality of life and the chazacter of the community were very important aspects of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2004 Page 13 of LG