PC 01/22/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

similar Castro Valley facility has only three occupants that have allowing cars would not affect the occupancy rate. David Sharp, 4145 Crisfe1d Lane, states he lives directly behind th residents was a major increase in occupancy from 70. He express were approved at 70, that the upper limit might go as high as 140 s; he felt that not project. He felt that 90 concern that even if it esidents. Chairman Mahern responded to Mr. Sharp's concern, noting that e applicant has always requested 90 residents and 90 would be the maximum allowed. M. Sharp again expressed concern that they would wish to increase that figure. He was remi ded that an application would again have to be filed. Mr. Sharp noted that 142 neighbors have signed a petition, not op osing the project, but opposing the density of the project. He felt the site was too small for the density, and that this was one reason that financial backing is difficult. He agreed at a facility of this nature is needed by Pleasanton, but that it is too dense as planned. He fi t that 90 residents was a 30 percent increase in any problem that might occur--from traffic d parking problems to an increase in cooking odors. Mr. Sharp also presented a letter from a neighbor who was oppos to the project density and felt the entire project was out of place. Mr. Sharp asked the Commission if approval is granted tonight, wether he and the neighbors will have another opportunity to express their opinions. Commissioner Michelotti replied that this application would go on to City Council. Gwen Vanelle, 4117 Crisfeld Lane, expressed concern about traffi issues. She said she has lived there since 1989 and has seen a substantial increase in traffic since that time. She has even had a car go through her neighbor's fence and many that go t a high rate of speed. She felt that staff s recommendation to monitor the traffic conditio s for six months is prudent and feasible. In response to her question, Chairman Mah rn noted that if they go with staffs recommendation for a six-month monitoring period, th applicant would not have to have another public hearing. Mr. Swift noted this was correct, but that the application could be conditioned to address the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Shutts returned to the podium. He noted that from the begin ing the application has always been for 90 residents, and that the applicant has no intenti n in increasing that figure. He further stated that the building is sized for only 90 residents, s it cannot be increased. He addressed the concerns stated by Mr. Sharp and Ms. Vanelle: (1) For increased traffic safety, the applicant is going to widen Mohr Avenue near the site. (2) Parking will not be allowed on the front of the site on Mohr Avenue. (3) A soundw I will be installed on the opposite side of the project to mitigate any sound, which would al 0 provide a crash barrier. Minutes Planning Commission January 22, 1992 Page 4