PC 032404 - Laserfiche WebLink

_ living in Pleasanton. She disagreed with Mr. Buran's comments that there was no immediate safety threat and noted that speeding traffic on neighborhood streets did compromise the quality of life and safety. She supported the building of affordable housing over million-dollar homes and would like her own son to be able to afford to live in Pleasanton. Bob Roman, 862 Summit Creek Lane, believed that it would not be feasible to make future planning decisions with the 1996 General Plan, which did not anticipate the current traffic problems. He believed that the old General Plan contains a set of assumptions and findings that are now antiquated. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Ms. Nerland noted that with respect to the findings necessary to support a "threat to public safety and welfare," it would be possible that the development community could feel differently if the Planning Commission or City Council believed there was a current or immediate threat. If the development community felt that the facts did not justify a moratorium, the City could become involved in a lawsuit. Commissioner Sullivan noted that the community, Planning Commission, and City Council have a crucial job in finishing off the buildout through the General Plan, and he would like to do that in the right way and make the right decisions for the community as a whole. He did not wish to be limited because the process was short-circuited. He noted that 33 intersections had a traffic Level-of-Service F that must be dealt with. He believed that was an immediate threat to public - health, safety, and welfare. He believed that abuilt-out General Plan should be driven by the needs and desires of the community and not by special interests. He believed that some projects could be passed with an EIR and go to Council before the General Plan was completed and that those projects could limit or prevent the achievement of the City's goals. He did not wish to see those goals thwarted and would like to see those questions put on hold until the General Plan Update is completed. Commissioner Sullivan supported a temporary moratorium, which should be framed appropriately to the kind of projects that would negatively impact the City. He did not want every development or house in Pleasanton to be stopped. He believed that the traffic data from Hearst Drive and Sycamore Creek Way, as provided by staff, could be included in the findings for a moratorium. He noted that there were 1,954 daily trips on Hearst Drive as of August 22, 2002. He noted that the 98 units in the Oak Grove development, at nine trips a unit, would yield 882 trips per day, a 50 percent increase over the existing trips. He believed that was a significant health and safety issue. He suggested limiting the moratorium to projects that would cause a problem in finishing the General Plan and would like to find out how the Bypass Road and the Happy Valley Specific Plan may be pursued. He noted that if the Spotorno development needed to move forward and that he would not want to include that. He noted that the City had made a commitment to the Bypass Road and did not want the moratorium to interfere with it. Commissioner Fox advised that she supported a moratorium because of the timing issue. She noted that when the City Council first laid out the General Plan process, it believed that it would _ be completed in 18 months. She believed that it was clear that it would take longer than that, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2004 Page 14 of 22