Laserfiche WebLink
In response to an inquiry by Acting Chairperson Fox regarding grade changes and <br />whether the facility received Federal funds was indeed American Disability Act- (ADA) <br />compliant, Mr. Townsend replied that they designed the facility and surrounding grounds <br />to be as flat as possible to accommodate residents who required the use of wheelchairs <br />and walkers. He also noted that the sidewalk area leading up the grade to the proposed <br />home sites was currently fenced off and not in use. He added that the sidewalk area in <br />discussion could be looked at and additional seating provided. <br /> <br />Bonnie Krichbaum, 303 Neal Street, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that at <br />the last hearing, she had presented material from the 1970’s pertaining to the approval and <br />building of the hospital. Since then, she had read many pages of Planning Commission, <br />staff, and City Council documents that addressed this issue from 1970 to 1973. Richard <br />Castro, Planning Director at the time, stated, “Rigid control and very strict requirements <br />would be necessary for this type of facility. It is the Department’s opinion that the facility <br />proposed is not compatible with the surrounding development. We feel that the <br />development proposed is entirely too large, there will be excessive traffic generated, and <br />there is an insufficient amount of open space provided for this facility. Extensive <br />landscaping must be provided around the periphery.” She noted that landscaping and open <br />space played a prominent role in the approval of this facility, and the project was finally <br />approved after 1.63 acres were added to the site to allow for more open space and 129 beds. <br />She did not believe it was excessive land. In May 2006, she had requested that Associate <br />Planner Jenny Soo have the file reviewed by the City Attorney and received the following <br />reply: “Ms. Harryman, Assistant City Attorney, stated that although the original approval <br />was to retain the landscaped turf area for the convalescent home, the owners now are <br />requesting to modify that proposal through the PUD process.” Although it was the owners’ <br />right, she did not understand why City staff would encourage that modification. She quoted <br />from the Town of Danville’s philosophy regarding this subject: “A zoning change will be <br />evaluated on its community-wide benefit and enhancement of orderly growth, and not <br />whether it increases property value.” She believed the Pleasanton City Council and <br />Planning Commission affirmed this statement during the April 2006 land use joint <br />workshop. She believed the neighborhood had been tolerant of the traffic generated by <br />ambulances, fire trucks, 18-wheel trucks, and employees. They had been appeased by fact <br />that the half-acre grassy front obscured the large building, but afforded the neighbors and <br />patients a buffer zone of greenscape. She did not believe that should be changed. <br /> <br />Fred Krichbaum, 303 Neal Street, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that they <br />had received a letter from Mr. MacDonald, who referred to the neighbors wanting a “public <br />park… de facto public park … public benefit and public view easement.” He disagreed with <br />that characterization and noted that neither he nor any of the neighbors had spoken of this <br />half-acre as a public park. They did appreciate the view, which would be lost to him and the <br />neighbors if the two homes were to be built on that lot. He suggested that Generations <br />Healthcare put up “No Trespassing” signs if they did not want people to walk on that green <br />space. He disagreed with the applicant and believed that the residents did need exposure to <br />the open space for their health and healing. He noted that when Generations Healthcare <br />bought this land in 2003, they were aware of the long-standing zoning and land use of the <br />site. He believed the applicant wished to change the zoning for financial gain and disagreed <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 13, 2006 Page 13 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />