Laserfiche WebLink
Appeal of John quindimil, 590 Mission Drive, Pleasanton, of the Pian~____ing Commis- <br /> sion decision approvin~ a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of the <br /> Pleasanton Joint School District Administration Office to be located on the <br /> district school site in the Mission Park Development <br /> Mayor Reid declared the public hearing open. <br /> <br /> Mr~ Castro presented the staff report and displayed maps showing traffic <br /> patterns. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rudy Gatti, Superintendent of Schools, stated the present School District <br />Office was being leased, and that permanent quarters must be found immediately~ <br />After looking at several alternatives, the School District Board Committee found <br />the Mission Park school site to be the best choice and location, and the most <br />economical° <br /> <br /> Mr. Marteen, Architect, displayed maps and architectural drawings of the <br /> proposed School District Office. <br /> <br /> Mr. John Quindimil, 590 Mission Drive, stated his home was directly behind <br /> the proposed office site and presented pictures to the City Council showing how <br /> this structure would affect his property. He further stated his opposition to <br /> the school district office site for the following reasons: <br /> <br /> 1. Traffic <br /> a. Primary access, Mission Drive, 36 feet wide, curves, has two elevations <br /> b. Congestion and noise <br /> co Safety factor, hazardous <br /> <br />2. Land Value <br /> ao Depreciation instead of appreciation <br /> b. Blacktop parking lot in our midst <br /> <br />3. Location vs. Homeowners Privacy <br /> a. Direct view into homeowner's property <br /> b. Night meetings <br /> c. Security night lights, etco <br /> d. No buffer zone <br /> <br />4.Expansion - "Foot-in-the-Door Policy" <br /> a~ 7,400 square feet today, tomorrow? <br /> b. Possible bus yard and maintenance center if not next month or next <br /> year, what about the following year? <br /> <br />5. Land Use Contrary to General Plan <br /> a. Plan calls for K-5 school <br /> b. Zoned accordingly <br /> c. Homeowners support school site <br /> d. District Office not compatible with plan <br /> <br /> Mr~ Ronald Bolt, 576 Mission Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed school <br />district office site, stating that this is a commercial enterprise and would pre- <br />sent traffic hazards, was a misuse of a residential area, was a poor location for <br />such an office, it was not centrally located, it would require much excavation, <br />and he felt this type of office should be retained in the downtown area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Richard Cole, 333 Mission Drive, stated he was opposed to the proposed <br />school district site because it took away from the school site for the needed <br />school, that the streets were not wide enough to handle traffic, and it would <br />deter from property value. <br /> <br /> Mr~ Bill Durham, 493 Mission Drive, expressed opposition to the proposed school <br />district site because it took away from the residential and rural atmosphere of the <br />Mission Park area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Dave Kiilsgaard, 506 Mission Drive, spoke in opposition to the school <br />district office site because it was not a good choice for location, or zoned <br />for such, and urged the Council to retain the entire acreage for a school site. <br /> <br /> 4. 1/29/73 <br /> <br /> <br />