PC 01/22/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

school on this site. They have mitigated the flow of traffic out of the neighborhoods, added a drop off lane in front of the school, added a second means of egress (Stoneridge) or only have entrance and exit on Stoneridge if that is the wish. They have agreed to add more parking, but the paved parking is a trade off from a grassy turf area and ELI doesn't think all the parking is necessary. They've added traffic barriers, a waiting pad for cars, signage for safety, and the buildings can be moved as recommended by staff. However, they feel locating the building as a site and noise barrier is the best alternative and did not change their plans until they were given a fair and unemotional hearing on the matter. They don't think moving the Phase 2 building is the best plan. Regarding the size of this school relative to other schools, ELI has a site on Chabot Drive that is 1.8 acres and a capacity of 250 students. The proposal at issue is twice as large, but with only 60% more children. It is reasonable in comparison to their other site. The Pleasanton elementary schools range from 675 to 938 children, the average is twice the size of their proposed 400. The elementary schools have no additional parking. The new Mohr school is estimated to be 650 students on five acres, this is 130 children per acre; they are proposing 114 students per acre. Mr. Bernstein is asking the Commission for approval with the recommendations of staff, except that Phase 3 be approved at 400 students. Terry Kamp, project planner, wanted this opportunity to explain their site plan as originally drawn. They have looked specifically at some of the suggestions/recommendations made by staff and the neighbors. The applicants wanted the Commission to see their original plan before adding changes to the plan. The Phase I building is located centrally on the site, four feet below Stoneridge grade. This makes the exposure more discreet. Phase 2 building is located to the rear of the property to act as a buffer between the school and the neighbors. The size and placement of this building preserves the second story residential views and it also eliminates the view of pedestrian traffic on site to the first floor residential windows. This also pushes the activity area closer to the Pump Station. The setback area is heavily landscaped. Mr. Kamp advised that a gymnasium has been eliminated from the master plan Steve Harriman, architect, stated the building has a rustic look, materials used are painted lapsiding, cultured stone for the base and column elements, and the roof will be concrete tile to be compatible with surrounding residences. Charlie Abrams, traffic engineer, made a detailed traffic study, and the conclusion is that the traffic impacts from such a school are very minimal. Access options were looked at, and the proposal is to have a single driveway on Stone Pointe, although staff has suggested other options. According to Mr. Abrams, it is the City's policy to minimize driveways on Stoneridge Drive. In the applicant's opinion, the access point on Stone Pointe will generate very little traffic on Stone Pointe or Garden Creek Circle. Traffic management elements will be installed, such as the angle of the driveway, metal bars in the intersection to eliminate the left turn movement, etc. Mr. Abrams noted this school does not operate the same as public schools with a concentration of children arriving and departing within a few minutes at the same time every day. The applicants did not agree with some of the suggestions from staff, such as a second driveway and a one-way plan. The speaker suggested the City monitor the parking of Phase 1 to see how the future phases should be parked. Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 January 22, 1997