01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Brown said she has heard concerns from the public that the proposed buildings will be very large and out of proportion to the surrounding area. She asked Mr. Otto to comment on the proposed building heights both in this context and within the city as a whole. Mr. Otto presented a table of surrounding building heights, noting again the tallest structure is proposed at 87.5 feet at the top of the parapet and 105 feet at the circular screen wall. The existing building at Stoneridge Corporate Commons is admittedly shorter, standing 65 feet at its parapet and 85 feet 5 inches at its roof equipment screen. Pleasanton Corporate Commons houses a slightly taller five story building. He stated that the tallest building in the adjacent area, as well as the city, is the nearby Safeway building at 76 feet at its parapet and 85 feet 10 inches at its roof equipment screen. He noted, however, that a large portion of the roof screen is against the building wall and actually looks like building mass when viewed from Stoneridge Mall Road. In Hacienda the tallest structures are 85.5 feet at their roof equipment screens, which is the maximum height allowed at Hacienda. Councilmember Brown asked if the proposed height fits within the maximum allowed for this area. Mr. Otto clarified that there is no height limit here; each project is reviewed on a case by case basis. Councilmember Brown requested clarification on the circular screen wall. Mr. Otto provided a graphic representation, noting that due to its location in the center of the building it would not be visible to anyone at ground level in the immediate area. Councilmember Brown asked Mr. Otto to discuss how run off from the project is treated. Mr. Otto stated that the project will fully comply with all storm water requirements, meaning it will generate no net increase in runoff from its existing state. Councilmember Brown asked if the Workday campus would be fenced to prohibit pedestrian access. Mr. Otto said the applicant wished to create a secure campus. He demonstrated locations throughout the project where fencing will be installed, though noted that it would not enclose the entire complex. Councilmember Brown asked the City Manager to discuss the fees generated by the project. Mr. Fialho referred her and the public to the staff report for a full list of fees, specifically listed in the Development Agreement and Workday Fiscal Impact Analysis. He explained that the project would generate several different revenue sources, both one-time and ongoing. Upon issuance of building permits, the project will be paying approximately $7 million in impact fees to be generally dispersed as follows: affordable housing fund ($1.2 million), traffic impact fees ($2.6 million), regional transportation fees ($1.7 million), school impact fees ($200,000), and various building permit and plan check fees ($850,000). The applicant will be receiving a $2.2 million fee credit, primarily due to their commitment to build and equip the shared police substation that will help to serve the general population locating in north Pleasanton. The net fiscal analysis, which he stressed is very fiscally conservative, assumes annual property sales tax and property tax net revenues of approximately $172,000. The project will generate approximately $2.4 million in annual property tax revenues, of which the city and school district which each collect about $500,000 annually. Staffs general view is that these contributions, as well as those revenues generated by increased economic activity in the area, make for a strong economic project that will help to sustain the services valued by this community. Councilmember Brown asked him to comment on why an office/commercial project like this would be contributing to the affordable housing fund. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 17 May 20,2014