PC 022614 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Kernan stated that very similar to the affordable housing requirement, there are statutory limits as to what a school district can impose on the State of California as there are limits for affordability percentages. He indicated that what this has required is for the Planning Department and the developers, with their legal departments, try to come to some terms that would be satisfactory to both. He added that what the School District has done in all the projects that have been approved to date is to have the same formula: the developer has paid the same rate as that of the previous six projects, based on the generation factor; a statutory amount for the affordable component and an above - statutory rate for the market rate units. He added that if, in the future, those affordability units are converted to ownership or market rate, then there is an additional payment to be made to the School District. He indicated that the School District feels the developers have fully mitigated their impacts. Commissioner Ritter inquired if this was not happening before. Mr. Kernan replied that prior to this, there were primarily single - family development, and from the School District's standpoint, there are three components to this: a demographic report, a fee impact study report, and a capital facilities plan. He explained that those three things become intertwined into the basis. He stated that when he first went on the School Board, they worked routinely with the developers because at that time there were primarily five to ten local developers. He pointed out that these last seven projects have brought in non -local developers from New York and from southern California, and they were not aware of the "Pleasanton way" of developing and how our developers are responsible for the school facilities in this city. He noted that this is remarkable and would not be possible without the developers. He indicated that they have all been very supportive, and the School District's goal is to keep moving forward and keep meeting on an annual basis as the community builds out. He added, as an example, that the City and the School District meet with the developers of East Pleasanton on a regular basis. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allen stated that she has been looking at the designs, specifically the roofline of Buildings C and D facing the Arroyo, and thinks there was good progress with the roofline by adding the dormers and the quality material shown to make the roofline appear less massive. She indicated that she did walk the Arroyo today and spent over an hour walking from Hopyard Road, way past the building, and looked on both sides. She noted that she has a very good perspective of the views from the residences as well, and inquired if there is something more that can be done to make it even appear less massive and add a little more softening and character. Mr. Dolan replied that there is, but it has some negatives and it is an issue that he talked about with the small group he was meeting with that was representing the larger neighborhood. He stated that the pitch of the big slanted roof can be changed to have a lower roof, then actually put a wall in, and then have another roof at the top. He noted, however, that there are some negatives with that, and that is that you would have one section of the building with different roof pitches from the rest of them and it might appear a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 26, 2014 Page 12 of 21