PC 080807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Milani stated that their office had prepared a diagram addressing concept plans on how the widening would occur as well as the turning movements at the main entrance. He indicated that would require a left-turn pocket for east-bound traffic as well as a deceleration lane into the project to be coordinated with a bike lane that was already striped. Mr. Milani described the speed limits and route characteristics on various portions of the roads and noted that the facility, when built out, would have a maximum attendance of 250 members. He noted that their office, the M.T.O. design team, and the congregation were very sensitive to the traffic safety issues in that particular area. He advised that the left-turn pocket size was small because they did not believe there would be a large demand for that particular turning movement for eastbound traffic from Alameda County into the project. Commissioner O’Connor noted that when he drove that road at a speed of 45 miles per hour, it was difficult to see another car in the left-turn pocket lane. He inquired whether the facility could be re-designed to make the secondary entrance the main entrance in order to gain better visibility. Mr. Milani replied that had been discussed but would detract from the overall site plan utility of the project. He noted that there were ways to make the striping more enunciated in that area, such as using raised buttons instead of striping. He added that lighting along that corridor would be very important. He stated that they would work with West Jost and the City’s Engineering staff to develop an appropriate mechanism. Peter MacDonald noted that Pleasanton had long been a community of character, demonstrated by respect for others. He noted that the issues before the Commission are land use issues and should be addressed as such, without regard to the background and religion of the applicants. He noted that some people, many not from Pleasanton, had publicly stated that their opposition was based upon the religion of the applicants. He believed that they had publicly advised their partisans to use other arguments, such as traffic, parking, and noise, to substitute their real motivations. He believed it was important for the Commission to look to the professional analysis as prepared by staff as a neutral, unbiased source of information for findings and decision-making. Commissioner Olson noted that the staff report referenced three other locations where an M.T.O. facility was located (Virginia, Dallas, and Los Angeles) and inquired whether staff planned to do any due diligence relative to those locations. He would like to get an idea of how those facilities have operated in those locations, and how the community reaction has been in those locations. Ms. Decker replied that staff had discussed those facilities with the applicant in a general sense but anticipated looking at the operations of the other facilities in relation to how they may be similar or different to the facility at this location. She noted that they appear to be similar in terms of sizes and classes. Commissioner O’Connor noted that one of the applicants had indicated that parking would be more than what is required by the Code and inquired what the Code requirements were. Ms. Decker advised that the required parking for a church facility is one parking space per six patrons. She estimated that approximately 40 spaces would be required for this use. Commissioner Blank noted that the facility had 84 spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2007 Page 7 of 24