18 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

IrF ~,( h"1 r~ I i November 2. 2006 To the Planning Commissioners for the City of Pleasanton. Neighbors are against any expansion of Trinity Lutheran Chwch's parking lot off of Golden Road. Golden Road is a residential street and should not have to beaz the brunt of additional traffic on it from the church. Trinity thinks that it will solve the street parking issue. It will not. The streets will still be parked on because it will be easier for people in the congregation ,private day care and preschool to arrive and leave from street parking. Entering and exiting a 100+ car parking lot in this inconvenient location will take too much time and is dangerous. Traffic and people aze coming from too many directions to make this a safe and viable option. An expanded parking lot off of Golden Road creates a distwbing life and traffic safety issue on a residential street that doesn't need to happen. For safety and neighborhood auto and pedestrian traffic, it makes more sense to expand the parking lot on the Del Valle side. Del Valle is a larger feeder street that is set up to accommodate more traffic. The greatest, but not only danger, appears to be when people are exiting the parking lot off of Golden. It would be significantly safer for the community if people would exit Trinity on to Del Valle. It leads du•ectly to a main road in town. There is only one way to exit and there is no interference with any homes. There is a four way stop sign already located there to direct the flow of traffic effectively in many dvections. The road is already set up well there to accommodate traffic. Neighbors are not against building a permanent strnctwe for Sonshine Preschool at Trinity. We understand that there will not be any increase in numbers of students attending the preschool. It is important to know that although Sonshine is limited to 99 students, it is based per session of which there are two. So, daily 198 students attend the preschool. We question the necessity of the size of the planned structwe. It is nice, but is it necessary? Is the planned location in the best interest of [he neighborhood given parking concerns? There is also a concern that there will be an expansion of programs, particularly in the evenings. I know that there are no current plans now, but Trinity has said that it has doubled in size in just the past five years. What about the multi purpose room that is currently serving as a classroom that is not located in the modular building? I am swe that there are plans to use that room for new and cwrent activities. Those activities just mean more traffic. Golden Road should not have to endwe that traffic. To make changes to Trinity's plans will increase costs for them [t is unfortunate. The bwden, fmancial or otherwise, of Trinity's plans should not be inflicted on the neighborhood. We are concerned with life safety, traffic, property value and aesthetic issues and are not comfortable with how things currently stand. At the September 13~' Planning Commission Public Hearing, Planning Commissioners advised the representatives from Trinity Lutheran Chwch to work with the neighbors and make changes. On September 27 some neighbors met again with Trinity, Jenny Soo and Donna Decker from the Planning Department. No changes or attempts to cooperate with the neighbors were made at that time. Pastor Dave then again set up a meeting with the neighbors on October 13 at Trinity. It did not go well, because Trinity continued to not work or cooperate with the neighborhood. I have included in this letter the correspondence that I had with Pastor Dave after the September 27 meeting at Trinity with the planning department. The Planning Commission has been cooperative with neighbors in the past over many development issues with chwches. I respectfully request that the Commission deny the application for a condition use permit for the expansion and for design review approval of the existing Trinity Lutheran Chwch. Sincerely, Heather Brilihart