2017-06-16 / Letters

Parking, traffic are problems with Oakmont

Regarding your article on the proposed Oakmont Senior Living facility in Village at the Park across the street from Rancho Rosal school, neighbors here attended the recent City Council meeting to share our concerns.

Commissioners “decided” the proposed development complies with “quasi-public” use zoning requirements, despite the fact this was based in part upon environmental impact report data from 1999 through 2004, three years before our neighborhood was built.

It is decidedly a for-profit business. Nothing public about it—quasi or otherwise. This conflicts with the stated intended use for this location, which was a major factor for many who purchased homes here.

Our traffic concerns were dismissed with admonitions that “studies conducted” indicate minimal traffic disruptions. This would be laughable to anyone who would observe the proposed area most any school morning during drop-off or in the afternoon during one of several pickup times. Should any medical emergency require EMT response, timely access would be virtually impossible.

Importantly, similar facilities are serviced by multi-lane roads (Santa Rosa, Las Posas, Carmen, to name a few), while this site is surrounded on three sides by two-lane roads—one lane in each direction only—and backs up to homes on the fourth.

As for parking, again, visiting when the Pleasant Valley fields are hosting a tournament, as they do many weekends, reveals cars parked along nearly all the streets in the area. Will just 54 parking spaces prove adequate for a 93-bed facility and all the employees and staff who must come and go each day? Include visitors and this amount seems extremely low. There’s only one place left to go—along the streets in front of our homes.

We all recognize the need for senior housing. This proposed site is a terrible fit. Oakmont portrays this facility as a transitional housing option for local residents, yet expected rents are unknown until construction is completed and “other factors.” This seems disingenuous at best. I leave it to the Acorn to determine rents at similar facilities and see if Oakmont’s numbers are competitive.

David Hassig

Return to top