02 ATTACHMENT 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton 2023-2031 (6th Cycle) Housing Element Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 62 FirstCarbon Solutions Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480022/FOF/21480022 Pleasanton Housing Element FOF.docx improvements specific for that development. Additionally, Policy 29 encourages the community to seek ways to reduce police service demands through the contemporary practice of “Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.” As new development occurs, fees will be collected to ensure adequate levels of service for police protection are maintained. Through implementation of the capital facilities fee, developers would be responsible for their fair share of any improvements needed for police protection services, which would effectively mitigate any increased demand for services associated with development consistent with the Housing Element Update (Draft Program EIR, Page 3.13-27). Potential Effect Impact PSR-3: Development consistent with the Housing Element Update, rezonings, and General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for schools. (Draft Program EIR, Page 3.13-29). Findings: Less than significant impact. Facts in Support of Findings: Prior to development on Sites 1 (Lester) and 22 (Merritt), those sites would be annexed into Pleasanton and would be served by school facilities within the PUSD. If all the sites were to develop at their maximum density, a total of approximately 2,532 K-12 students could be generated, including approximately 1,379 students in Grades K-5, approximately 598 students in Grades 6-8, and approximately 557 students in Grades 9-12. New students associated with development consistent with the Housing Element Update could require the need to build additional capacity or new schools to accommodate growth. Elementary schools in the northern area of PUSD (Donlon and Fairlands) are currently impacted, and any further housing would require students to be assigned to another campus. A PUSD representative noted that the current level of developer fees set by State law is not sufficient to cover the full cost of facility impacts associated with additional housing. Program 7.2 of Policy 7 in Chapter 6, Public Facilities and Community Programs Element, of the General Plan provides acceptable enrollment sizes for elementary, middle, and high schools, and Policy 8 requires the City to coordinate with PUSD to maintain elementary schools within student walking distance where feasible. Program 2.1 of Policy 2 of Goal 3 in Chapter 6, Public Facilities and Community Programs Element, requires development to pay its fair share of costs related to the purchasing of sites and financing of improvements for existing and future municipal facilities, including schools. Notwithstanding these General Plan policies and programs, while State law encourages coordination between cities and school districts related to planning for school siting, State law is also clear that long-range master planning for school sites is ultimately the responsibility of the school district (see Cal. Government Code Section 65352.2). Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code (SB 50), clarifies that the payment of statutory fees “. . . is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property.”