PC 091306 - Laserfiche WebLink

from neighbors had written in support of this project. He noted that the Planning Commission from the 1970’s believed the facility would be a threat to the neighborhood’s quality of life, which had not been borne out. He added that the facility met a vital community need and has had virtually no impact on the neighborhood. He disagreed with the notion of denying a reasonable alternate use in order to get a free half-acre of public open space; he believed it was incompatible with American and Pleasanton traditions of private property and believed it was unneighborly to obtain public benefit without compensation from a private property owner. He believed that at its heart, zoning was about reciprocal neighborliness. He believed the people of Pleasanton deserved the public parks for which they are willing to pay. He believed the issue before the Commission was not whether to make private property into a de facto public park, but whether the homes proposed were a reasonable use of private property. In response to an inquiry by Acting Chairperson Fox regarding whether the City Council wanted to change the zoning from “Public and Institutional” District to “Residential” District, Mr. Iserson replied that the General Plan zoning was “Medium Density Residential” District, and the land use zoning was “Public and Institutional” District. The Council had indicated that it did not desire to change the General Plan zoning at this time; if it remained as “Medium Density Residential” District, staff would clean up the zoning after the General Plan Update was completed and rezone it appropriately. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding whether the other three acres on the parcel would be changed to “Public and Institutional” District in the General Plan, Mr. Iserson replied that it did not necessarily have to do so and that a convalescent hospital was compatible with the “Residential” District zoning in the General Plan. He believed the best action would be to make both the land use and General Plan zonings for the convalescent hospital “Public and Institutional,” but it was not critical that that action be taken. Mr. Steve Black stated his pleasure in being able to participate in the management and investment that Generations Healthcare, Inc. had begun in the facility and the community. He noted that this was a particularly personal interest as he was planning on building the proposed custom home on Lot A, the lot closest to the driveway, in order to raise his family in Pleasanton. He described to the Commission the unique opportunity to be able to live so close to the facility that he manages and felt that it was of benefit to the community as well as staff to have him ‘at hand’ to address any issues that may arise. He provided one example related to the issue of the facility staff using the street and how working together had mitigated that particular issue. He requested the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. He concluded by noting that they had worked very hard to develop house plans that fit into the neighborhood, fit into the Downtown, and reflected the architectural detailing so common in the area. Terry Townsend, project architect, 147 Old Bernal Avenue, Suite 6, noted that they had held a neighborhood meeting on December 6, 2005 at the facility and followed up by sending a substantial information package including a color front elevation to 100 property owners in the immediate area. They held a workshop on January 25, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2006 Page 11 of 23