23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Saint Elizabeth Seaton Church - Against Proposed Development - , Page I of2 Steve Otto From: Jeff Green Sent: Tuesday, October 10,200612:41 AM To: Steve Otto Subject: Saint Elizabeth Seaton Church - Against Proposed Development Mr. Otto, My family and I have lived in Pleasanton Village since July 1984. I am a past past President of the Pleasanton Village HOA and served on the board for 10 years in various capacities. My address is 2204 Oakland Avenue. I am writing to you regarding the proposed plan change and development at the Saint Elizabeth Seaton Church property. I attended the meeting on October 5th regarding their desire to build conference and gymnasium facilities along Rheem Drive. I am opposed to this plan because: 1. The buildings are too large (height/bulk) given the proximity to Rheem Drive and homes of Pleasanton Village. 2. The plan would remove 10% of existinq parking spaces. We already have issues with overflow parking that have not been addressed. 3. The church already has a traffic problem at the Rheem Drive exit and this plan will eliminate options to address that issue. During the meeting, several suggestions were made that would have lessened the impact of these additions. However, all were effectively dismissed for reasons of cost or "reduced site potential". These suggestions included: 1. Shift the proposed buildings further east to have a greater setback along Rheem Drive. Replace lost parking spaces lost by adding spaces on the east side of the church. This was quickly dismissed as too costly to replace the lost parking spaces. Additional parking...at parity with or greater than the existing space count...on the other side of the property...would lessen the need to park along Rheem Drive and Bowen Court and would also better split the traffic flow between Stoneridge Drive and Rheem Drive. 2. Keep the buildings on the east side of the church as per the approved plan. The priest seemed adamant that this would not be considered because it would limit church plans for the site. Why was it OK in 1989? Why does the city feel compelled to OK the increase the site density now? 3. Lower the buildings...especially the gymnasium... to reduce the imposing 34 ft. height. ADA ram requirements and existing grading were given as reasons why nothing could be reasonably done. The discussion then lost focus with people saying that a 2 ft. reduction would have little impact on 34 ft. building. I agree, but no one said that only a 2 ft. reduction was the goal. Of course, everyone made assurances that the church and athletic program would be good neighbors if this project is approved. I see two problems here...first, we have existing issues (parking, traffic) that have not been addressed in the past. Why now is the situation going to be different? Second, how will even the best of intentions matter if hours of operation, usage, etc. are changed down the road...possibly by others...during the 50-60 year life of these buildings? It appears that the church is opposed to using part of the other end of the property (near the park) because they want to either maximize the school potential (if they can get approval and funding)...or keep that end of the property clear so that they can off a contiguous chunk of prime real estate (should they not go forward with their own development plans). I feel more like we are dealing with Donald Trump than a neighborhood church. Looking to the future, I do not believe this property is appropriate for a school because it is too small / too close to existing homes. Yes, there are schools in all of the neighborhoods in Pleasanton. However, those schools are generally separated from the homes by either large fields or streets. They are not across the fence from the backyards of homes. During the meeting, I asked why the plan had been changed from what I had heard would be office space similar to what is currently in place on the west side of Rheem Drive. The priest responded by saying that plan had not been approved. However, the handouts from that meeting include what appears to be an approved document from 1989 with a section H indicating "retail". That same document also shows the multi-purpose & gym on the other end of the property. Please explain. 1011 0/2006