CCMIN032090 - Laserfiche WebLink

116 courts by putting in a solid wall so'that either the family room or the master bedroom would back up to the turn-arounds. The developers have also kept the lighting down to a maximum height of 12 feet. She indicated that she was in favor of the project. Ms. Iris Harvey, 3106 Weymouth Court, stated that she would not want to see tall buildings in the site. She mentioned that the design is aesthetically pleasing, environmentally sound and appropriate for the area. Ms. Earnestine Schneider, representing the Pleasanton Unified School District, expressed concerns that the development could have very negative impacts on the school facilities in the area. She stated that the School District does not have the facility to handle the number of children that will be generated by this project, nor the finances to provide another school site. She requested Council to take this into account before making any decisions regarding the project. Ms. Mohr stated that she did not want the lack of schools to prevent the City from responding to any development proposals for an indefinite period of time. She asked Ms. Schneider if there were any indications of when the issue of providing facilities would be addressed by the School District. Ms. Schneider replied that at present all facilities except those designated for bond financing are dependent on development fees. Mr. Mercer stated that two projects on Foothill Road were conditioned that the developers should meet in advance with the School District representatives and that building permits for the projects would not be issued, even if the projects have gone through growth management, until such time as the School District ensures that there would be adequate facilities available to accept the children. This same condition could be placed on the Bren project as well as other projects in the area. Ms. Buxton commented that the staff recommendation to have a combination of detached and attached units would not be aesthetically pleasing and re-designing the project as medium density would mean additional time and expenses. The cost of the units would go up and make them less affordable. She commented that the reasons for denial, indicated in the staff report, include sidewalk widths, setback requirements and open spaces that are less than those required for single-family detached projects, which this project is not. In fact, the project exceeds all the standards for medium density. Another reason given is that the project appears monotonous, but the project has four different elevations with four different color schemes, resulting in 16 different types of units. There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the public hearing closed. - 8 - 3-20-90