PC 091306 - Laserfiche WebLink

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