CCMIN071905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Thorne believed it is clear that people on both sides of this issue are people of good will and are trying to do what is best for the community and individual interests. He concurred with Mayor Hosterman's suggestion but wanted to add to it by finding a way to approve Phase I and continue the dialogue, which he believed Options II and III allowed, without delaying the construction of Phase I. Ms. McGovern supported the expansion of St. Clare's and believed the Church is trying to meet the need~ of it~ congregation and the community. She supported the expansion of the existing preschool, as it is needed in the community for working parents. She also supported the building of a multipurpose room, which allows for socialization and adequate space for strong youth programs. She believed the proposed location for the multipurpose room was the ideal place as it is further removed from the homes. She asked what is the use of the current worship area once the new church was constructed within 25 years? Mr. Willmore said the current worship area would be remodeled and the intent was to use this building for youth programs. Ms. McGovern asked if a park was located next to St. Clare's? Mr. Fialho said there is green space where the parking lot is currently located and there is a linear park located off of Sequoia Court and National Park Drive. Ms. McGovern asked if the green belt located next to St. Clare's is owned by the Church? Mr. Fialho said the Chumh owns green belt area. He noted that this area is not a buffer to neighborhoods and is where the on-site hammerhead turnaround is proposed to be located. Ms. McGovern asked if there have been any police reports addressing complaints of noise at St. Clare's or the Masonic Lodge being a bad neighbor to the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Decker said no. Ms. McGovern concurred with Mr. Thorne's suggestion that if Council could approve Phase I and set up a process as proposed by Mayor Hosterman and Mr. Sullivan, that staff be directed to provide an update at its next meeting in August. After hearing public comments this evening, she was not sure whether there is a plan that will meet the needs of the neighborhood and the congregation. She believed parking seemed to be the largest issue and she was hopeful that it could be resolved with discussions with the neighbors. She noted that if the plan included the parking ratio of 1.6 parking spaces, a total of 75 spaces would only be required and the proposed master expansion plan of 104 parking spaces would not be needed. Mr. Fialho noted that the current plan calls for one parking spot for every four parishioners. If Council upheld the City's standard and required one parking spot for every six parishioners, it would eliminate the need for that area of the parking lot and conceivably, the northern section could be reconfigured to address a turnaround area for a fire engine. If Council desired to go back and discuss parking, this would be one option without impacting the current proposal for the master plan. Pleasanton City Council 15 07/19/05 Minutes