My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 012407
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 012407
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:29:01 PM
Creation date
8/17/2007 10:05:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/24/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
the City would pursue growth based on the precedent that may be set at this meeting. He <br />noted that the Church had two parking lots that respectively exit onto a good-sized street <br />(Del Valle Parkway) and a residential street (Golden Road). He inquired whether the <br />City would continue to pursue smart growth where traffic would be managed, <br />neighborhoods were preserved, and the voice of the residents were considered in the <br />planning process. He did not want the City to experience a traffic free-for-all with <br />unchecked growth and destroyed neighborhoods. He believed the Presbyterian Church <br />and Saint Elizabeth Seton Church decisions were fundamentally different from this <br />proposal and did not constitute a precedent. He noted that the Presbyterian Church’s <br />proposal did not meet with neighborhood opposition, nor did it negatively impact <br />neighborhood traffic. Saint Elizabeth Seton Church’s proposal had some opposition from <br />neighbors, but the parking lots moved traffic efficiently onto the streets. He noted that <br />there was considerable opposition from the neighborhood in this application. He <br />requested that this application be denied by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Jacki Martin, 5029 Golden Road, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that while <br />the presentation was very attractive, she did not want to live across the street from it. She <br />did not object to the number of parking spaces but did object to the traffic from the <br />parking lot. She noted that many groups used the facilities, including for concerts, <br />meetings, and as a polling piece. She noted that very few of the parents of the preschool <br />children carpooled. She suggested that the peak-use periods for this property be <br />revisited. She believed that the plan to replace the modular buildings would use extra <br />square footage that could be used for more activities; she was concerned about the extra <br />traffic from those activities. She would like the Del Valle Parkway parking lot area to be <br />increased and designated as the main parking lot for services and events. If the preschool <br />is to be placed as planned, the Del Valle Parkway parking lot would not be used as the <br />main parking lot for that use. She urged denial of this application and added that in 1964, <br />there were no disclosures of a Church. <br /> <br />Fred Martin, 5029 Golden Road, spoke in opposition to this project and noted that most <br />of the proponents of this project did not live on Golden Road. He concurred with Jacki <br />Martin’s comments and added that this was a very active complex, generating people and <br />traffic. He noted that in 1999, there were 34 events per month, not including the Church <br />services, totally 42 events. In January 2007, the events calendar included 104 activities, <br />including services. He noted that even when the parking lot was not full, cars often <br />parked on Golden Road. He did not mind the parking on the road but did mind the <br />constant traffic. He urged the Planning Commission to designate Del Valle Parkway as <br />the primary entrance and believed it could be completed in a timely and efficient manner <br />with today’s technology. He cited the 1999 Planning Commission resolution for this <br />project, which stated, “The existing church operation [has shown to be] compatible with <br />the surrounding neighborhood, and the expansion should also be.” He did not believe <br />they were compatible because of the growth and noted that it was getting bigger still. He <br />noted that none of the Commission’s comments made to Trinity Lutheran Church at the <br />September 13, 2006 workshop had been followed (page 9). He urged the Planning <br />Commission to reject the project as submitted. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 24, 2007 Page 16 of 24 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.