PC 012407 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Decker concurred with that request and acknowledged that projects were often delayed, thereby requiring requests for extensions. With respect to the school fees under Condition No. 7, Mr. Mattheis noted that he understood from the Superintendent of Schools that they would be exempt from the fee requirement. He requested that the beginning of the condition read, “If not categorically exempt from the School District fees, the applicant would have to develop a fee program.” Ms. Decker noted that there was a cut-and-paste error on staff’s part in that language with respect to language referring to the Final Map and suggested that a new condition replace it with the following language: “Prior to the City’s issuance of building permit, the applicant shall pay school impact fees as required by the Pleasanton Unified School District.” If the applicant is exempt, they would not need to pay the fees to the School District. Mr. Mattheis noted that substitute language would be acceptable and preferable to the Church. He noted that with respect to Alternative 2, which would relocate the Ministry Building to where the temporary buildings are, they had looked at multiple alternatives, evaluated them against the Church Ministry Program, and came to the conclusion that the Church did not consider that to be a viable option. He noted that in particular, the closure and/or relocation of the preschool would present significant expense and that they would not support that alternative. A recess was called at 9:08 p.m. Chairperson Fox reconvened the meeting at 9:23 p.m. Thomas Milus, 4950 Golden Road, believed the presentation missed a fair representation of what the neighborhood wanted and what had happened at the meetings. He wanted to ensure that the neighbors who opposed this project were not seen simply as whining, misdirected people. He noted that the neighbors who lived across the street from the facility want it to look nice. He believed the main concern was to improve the traffic pattern in the long run, particularly with respect to the size of the school and other facilities, as well as utilization patterns that would impact traffic. He stressed that none of the neighbors objected to the Church or its mission; their main concern was traffic on Golden Road. He described some of the traffic problems generated by the traffic pattern on Golden Road, which he had observed to be hazardous, particularly in the left turns. He noted that one possibility was to move the building, which he did not see in any of the alternatives. He was also concerned about traffic generated by special events. He suggested using mediation if needed. Mike Serrano, 4835 Golden Road, spoke in opposition to this project. He noted that his concerns about the traffic had not changed since the workshops and added that he had submitted traffic projections into the public record at that time. He was concerned how PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 24, 2007 Page 15 of 24