PC 121102 - Laserfiche WebLink

permanently close Bonita Avenue to make the project more palatable to the neighbors. She noted that a 20 child day care would be included in the building, and added that this should be included in the traffic study. She would like the Planning Commission to examine the impact of what amounted to a public hospital in a residential neighborhood. Angela Ramirez Holmes, 812 Bonita Avenue, noted that her house had 160 feet of fence backing to the subject property. She noted that while she strongly supported senior services in Pleasanton, and did not oppose a facility behind their property, she was concerned about the size of the project and lighting impacts. She urged the Planning Commission to request further tree study and challenged the current assumptions that trees would block the current view from their property. She would like the zoning to remain agricultural, which would allow the senior housing and would keep the FAR lower. She hoped that the facility would be give preference to Pleasanton residents. She expressed concern about the accuracy of the traffic study. Sam Head, 831 Bonita Avenue, believed that this project fell woefully short of what should be offered. He noted that Program 2.1 of the Land Use Element stated that the City should zone vacant infill sites, and felt that the project design did not respect, and will destroy, the character of the surrounding neighborhood. He expressed concern about the affordability of the housing, and noted at $2,700, the monthly cost ofa low income unit was higher than his mortgage payment. He noted that the low and very low income affordable housing comprised 11 % of the project, which was short of the 15% affordable housing requirement. He was concemed about the density of the site use, and added that the 67% FAR exceeds the limit of 60%. He noted that the project as currently designed was out of character for this neighborhood. Bonnie Shamblin, 762 Bonita A venue, noted that she supported senior services, but was concerned with the scale of the buildings. Paul Henshaw, Lynnewood Methodist Church, urged the Planning Commission to make their decision based on the value for what the community needs. He believed that the community needs a residence like this for seniors that provides continuous care in one place so they don't have to move. He noted that while it would impact the residential community, it was a residential community itself. He believed that the higher values of quality of life were a higher priority than property values and inconvenience, and believed that the neighbors' legitimate concerns should be addressed. Bhupendra Hajratwala, 847 East Angela Street, supported the general purpose of the project, but expressed concern about the heavy volume of traffic on the street during peak hours. He believed that the facility would further impact the traffic on his street. he asked the Planning Commission to protect the best interest of the citizens. Rishi Chowdhury, 854 East Angela Street, noted that his property bordered the church, and would prefer not to have the facility in the neighborhood. He believed that the facility should be limited to one story, and that the rules should apply to everyone in the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 11, 2002 Page 19