CCMIN071905 - Laserfiche WebLink

there were be another neighborhood meeting. It was stated by staff that it decided not to conduct another neighborhood meeting because it believed all of the neighborhood concerns were listed. The staff report to the Planning Commission listed four different bullets of what the concerns were after that second meeting and none of these bulleted concerns have been satisfied. He pointed out that the northern most part of the site is owned by the Masons and there are several stipulations in terms of shared parking and frontage of the sanctuary in that the sale which stipulate that the foremost part of the sanctuary be no further towards Hopyard Road than the western most section of the Mason's building, which reduces the amount of land available to the Church and impacts the Valley Trails neighborhood. He noted that the parking for the seating of the expansion of the church did not include 250 seats as mentioned by staff. He has never seen where a church is required to have its multipurpose room in exact alignment and adjacent to its worship center as shown in this project. He expressed concern about the parking/circulation pattern and traffic on National Park Drive, particularly during the holidays and believed that 80 percent additional parking spaces should be included. He believed Council should consider having parking restrictions for residents only in this area where residents are provided bumper stickers or placards to provide to their visitors so that they are not impacted during the holidays. While noise meters read and address a constant noise, it does not detect peak-to-peak noises and, therefore, not a correct way to measure such noises. After reading the staff report, he believed there was no new evidence that changes the reasons for the appeal. The appellants strongly believe that if the City approves St. Clare's application, it will have a negative impact on input and is a violation of the General Plan. There will also be future negative impacts from which past experience shows that the Planning process does not adequately protect the neighborhood. The appellants believe that the staff recommended resolution contained approvals that go further than the intent of the Planning Commission, and the approval of this plan is unjust in the fact that part of the design problem is caused by the fact that St. Clare's sold part of its land to the Masons. He asked Council to uphold the appeal and deny the approval of the applicant's application. He believed that if St. Clare's took the Valley Trails neighborhood inputs seriously, the neighborhoods' interest could be protected while at the same time arriving with a design solution that would solve the problem, mainly that the buildings be rearranged and that the northern segment of the parking area is removed to eliminate crime and other problems, and that the school area is not expanded thereby eliminating noise and other nuisances. Phillip Sayre, appellant, opposed the current plan because it places a parking lot in his neighbors' backyard. He concurred with Mr. Pretzel's comments and noted that he attended all the Valley Trails Homeowners meetings with the Church with the exception of one. He noted that the parking lot does not add to the Valley Trails neighborhood. He was not opposed to the expansion of St. Clare's in general but was opposed to the expansion of the parking lot. He was hopeful that the expansion could grow in the interest of the Church and the neighbors. He believed that the approval of Phase I would lock in Phases II and II1. Mr. Sullivan asked the appellants its thoughts on Options 2 and 3 as viable approaches. Mr. Pretzel said Phase I as proposed and if approved, makes the design problem worse. If Phase I is approved, it locks in Phases II and II1. If Phases II and III can be done and eliminate the two northern sections of the parking lot it would not be a problem. He noted that land is available south of Valley Trails and is owned by Harvest Valley Church, which he did not believe had been explored as a parking option. He noted that there is parking available across the street in the vacated Zone 7 and at Valley Sports Park. The current major objections are the parking area and the playground and if approval of Condition 10 can be made now instead of just for expansion, it would go a great deal to alleviate the neighborhoods issues. Pleasanton City Council 8 07/19/05 Minutes