4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Motion: Agenda Item: 15.3 Presentation: Community Comments: Discussion: It Weaver, and seconded by Oll, and motion carried 5-0, to Acee 's 6-12 Counseling' n ancements on ~~~~e ~~~~ B Report, Discussion, and Possible Action to Provide Input on the Report by Sandra Impact of the City General Plan Update Lepley In response to the Pleasanton City Council's request for Board input regarding the three proposed development scenarios being considered for the General Plan Update, details regarding the proposed scenarios were review~ at the meeting of Oct. 10,2006. The information reviewed at that meeting regarding the proposed scenarios, a map locating the propos~ developments, information from the District's January 2006 demographer's report and the project~ impact of the three options on the schools that could be affected by this future development is included in this agenda. Ms. Lepley reviewed the projected impact based on current student generation factors for the various types of development anticipated in the scenarios, the potential impact of affordable housing requirements that might affect the student generation from the propos~ scenarios, and the potential reduction in developer fees. It can be concluded that the student generation from the current proposed scenarios for the General Plan Update can be accommodated with minimal changes in classroom space, as long as support and special facilities (such as gymnasiums and lab classes) can be enlarged and improved to meet the needs of the additional student populations. The potential reduction in developer fees would provide less funding for the necessary facilities to address the additional students generated from those developments. Ms. Lepley pointed out a correction in the 3n1 paragraph of ~ge 15.3. (2). The square feet should be 7,000 (not 5,000). The current fee charged per square foot up to 7,000 square feet for development within Pleasanton (with the exception of the Cooperative Fee Developers - Signature and Standard Pacific) - is $7.75. The amount that can be levi~ on affordable housing is $2.63, the state statutory mitigation fee. To the extent development shifts from market rate to affordable housing, that difference of $5.12 per square foot would be lost and limit the funds available to address student growth. A further concern would be the location of these additional housing units. It is important that they be dispersed as much as possible throughout the community to continue to provide a balanced experience for all students and to balance the numbers of students to be served from one neighborhood to another. In addition to providing input on the impacts on future student enrollment, the Board was asked to review language in the proposed update to the Public Facilities and Community Programs Element of the General Plan. Janise Stem from the City Planning Department was present and thanked the Board for input. Discussed the various options and suggested changes to the Public Facilities and Community Programs Element of the General Plan. The board needs to be able to have flexibility on a case by case basis. The City Consensus Preferred Plan Option or the Disbursed Growth Option would fit our needs best, and it is important that any affordable housing be equally disbursed throughout the community to be sure our schools are equitable. They also arrived at the following suggested wording to the Public Facilities and Community Programs Element of the General Plan: Modify the last paragraph of.Schools and Education- (Page VI-19) to read: The School District collects developer fees on building plans for new construction befom the city of Pleasanton issues building permits on those plans. The fees are expected to cover most. if not all, of the facilities' costs cmated by msidential development through General Plan build-out. Modify language in 'Program 14.2- (page VI-39) to read: Encourage school enrollment sizes that maintain neighborhood character. provide facilities for specialized programs, and promote mom personalized education. The current target is 600 students per elementary school, 1,000 students at each middle school, and 2,000 students at each com mhensive DRAFT Minutes of the October 24, 2006, Regular Board Meeting Page 6 of 6 Approved by the Board of Trustees on _ 6.1 (6)