PC 112906 - Laserfiche WebLink

same notice but excluded mentioning the 34-foot building height variance. She also recalled that Nielsen Park showed two roads within the park that do not exist bisecting each other through the pazk, thus the location map was unclear. Ms. Decker wished to clarify that the purpose of the notice was to give a broad description of the scope of the project and to provide a map identifying the location of the project. It is not intended to actually define where structures and improvements were planned to go. Commissioner O'Connor indicated that the location map of the notice shows the entire church property and not the 1998 Plan or the current plan. In response to an inquiry from Acting Chairperson Fox clarifying that the text of the notice does not indicate the building locations were moved from the east to the west, Ms. Decker indicated there it does mention design review approval to modify the Plan and construct so that would cue individuals familiaz with the existing approved 1998 Master Plan that this notice states that there is design review approval to modify the Master Plan and that changing the Master Plan and location is via a design review. Mr. Sharma reiterated that the notice was not clear. Milind Joshi, 4293 Diavila Avenue, expressed concern about noise, parking, security, and the change in the original plan. Sharrell Michelotti, 7873 Olive Court, wished to clarify that while she arranged the meetings with the Church representatives, she did not meet with Acting Chairperson Fox regazding the project. She noted that they had conducted a phone conversation. She noted that her history with this project included her tenure as a former Planning Commissioner. She noted that the uses in this conditional use permit were attached to the conditions; when someone has a concern, it may be brought to the Commission, and the Commission could then address the concerns with the applicant. She believed the Church had made an eazly effort to address the existing concerns regazding overflow parking. They had tried to educate the parishioners to be courteous and would also install signage to that effect. She believed the Catholic Community of Pleasanton had tried to be a good neighbor and would like to go forward with the project. She requested the members of the audience who supported this project to raise their hands. She noted that she was a pazishioner and had worked on the fundraising committees. She believed the Church had tried to impose the least impact on the neighborhood. She discussed hours or operation and the impact of a school on a neighborhood and relayed that there is gridlock at 3:00 p.m. around any school in Pleasanton. She indicated that if a school were built on that particulaz property, there would be faz more impact on the neighborhood. She requested that the Planning Commission make its decision tonight. She noted that this application contained 88 conditions that addressed each concern that had been raised by the neighboring residents, including keeping doors and windows closed and adding landscaping. She noted that while a 300-foot notice was required, this project had been noticed to over a 1,000-foot radius each time. She wants 5,000 families to have places to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 29, 2006 Page 16 of 28