PC 032404 - Laserfiche WebLink

that context, there must be a "significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions." Ms. Nerland advised that projects with vested rights such as a development agreement or vested tentative maps would not be subject to a moratorium. Accordingly, she noted that most of Hacienda Business Park, Stoneridge Mall, Bernal Property, as well as some of the projects on Vineyard Avenue, would not be subject to the moratorium. Furthermore, a moratorium does not stop projects from being processed; it is only the approvals that are stopped. Ms. Nerland indicated that if there were an interest in pursuing a moratorium, thought should be given to whether exemptions are appropriate, such as renovations, rebuilding of similar structures, existing lots, or smaller subdivisions. It is not appropriate to adopt a project or site-specific moratorium, but there may be certain areas, such as Specific Plan areas, that have recently undergone substantial planning review, which might be exempted from the moratorium. A discussion of the nature of public welfare issues ensued. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Ms. Nerland advised that although staff did not have a recommendation with respect to this item, the Commission may take action if it so desires. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Vanessa Kawaihu, 871 Sycamore Road, expressed concern about the fiscal impacts to the Happy Valley Specific Plan area residents that would result from the loss of two funding developers and the approximately 200 PUD units. She requested that those PUD units not be included in the moratorium. She noted that the judge denied the case with the recent Alisal Improvement Club/ Terry Wagner lawsuit against the City. In her ruling, the judge found that the Bypass Road was a mitigation for the Happy Valley area. The loss of Future ability to develop on the Spotorno property would affect the ability to pay for the Bypass Road, acourt-recognized mitigation on the City of Pleasanton and their taxpayers. She believed that issue should be considered. She believed that the development in the area increased the traffic in the neighborhood and that the safety of the children and other residents were being affected. Ashley Perkins stated that she was a sophomore at Amador Valley High and noted that the cost of housing is directly related to the supply of housing. She noted that when her mother moved to Pleasanton in 1975, her home cost $40,000; by the time she went to college, it was worth $250,000. She noted that when they moved back to Pleasanton in 2003, the cost of that same home was $500,000. She expressed concern that if the City did not allow housing to be built, the cost of housing would be too high for her to afford. She was concerned that they would be forced to move farther away, take longer commutes, and have less time with their families. Commissioner Arkin noted that the proposed moratorium was a temporary hold on development, not a cessation of building. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mazch 24, 2004 Page 9 of 22