PC 01/11/78 - Laserfiche WebLink

Regarding Mrs. Severin's concern, Mr. Mullen indicated that HUD would not allow conversion of the units to apartments, if they provide funding for the project. Gladys Burton, 725 East Angela Street, spoke, questioning the need for such a facility, citing lack of occupancy. Mr. Myers disagreed with those comments. Next, Shirley Lutz, 581 East Angela, spoke of the serious traffic problems, and presented a petition with 90 signatures opposing the application. She opted for single family designation. Mr. Bob Reid, spoke again. He objected to the proposal, feeling that the entire property should be considered, rather that just 12 acres. He then discussed the requirements of the HPD ordinance as they relate to this proposal. Vicky Monian, 4577 Las Lomitas Drive, hoped the Planning Commission under- stands how the character of the neighborhood has changed. Many children now live in the area and this poses a serious problem due to the heavy traffic. The Public Hearing was closed on the planned unit development review. Chairman Butler summed his feelings regarding this proposal - the question to be answered is would this development in this location provide a facility needed by the citizens of Pleasanton, or will it create problems this city should not have. Commissioner Shepherd said that as a member of the Human Services Com- mission, he is not unmindful of the housing needs of certain segments of the City's population, but as a Planning Commissioner, he is obligated to consider the whole City. In this particular area, taking into consideration the General Plan designation of medium density residential, he felt the residents had a right to expect single family development with a maximum of five units per acre. This would preserve the character of the existing neighborhood. He stated that although the concept presented with this proposal may be allowable technically, he does not believe it meets the spirit and intent of the General Plan. He sees this proposal as an institutional development. He then touched on the traffic problems, and the possibility that the large bulky buildings would dominate the view. He also commented on a possible problem of a lot of traffic going past the school. He felt that voting for approval of this application would be doing a great disservice to both the present and future residents in the area. On the basis of sound planning, he believed it would be a real mistake to put this project in that location. Commissioner Doherty supported the EIR, feeling that the report is acceptable to him, although there are some unavoidable significant impacts. Regarding the PUD itself, he cited past reviews by the Planning Commission and concerns expressed by the citizens at that time. He sees dual con- cerns of retaining existing residential character of the area, and need to provide senior citizen housing. The property presently is not in accordance with the General Plan and for that reason, he is opposed to the PUD. He shared some of Commissioner Shepherd's feelings. -6-