RES 12493 - Laserfiche WebLink

4.Written Comments on the Draft OR and Responses to Comments Letter 6. Julie Testa 6-1 The comment describes the current school facilities as being overcrowded and in need of capital funding. The comment states that the fees mentioned in the Housing Element to cover the facility costs would be committed to a current 27 million dollar debt, and would not cover capital costs for facilities. The comment does not raise any substantive issue regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR, but rather the merits of the proposed Housing Element related to school facilities. The concern is noted. The text on page 4.L-12 of the Draft SEIR notes that the Pleasanton Unified School District collects developer fees on building plans for new construction before the City of Pleasanton issues building permits on those plans. This the standard practices of school districts for funding construction or reconstruction of school facilities pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620, as noted by comment 6-4. 6-2 The comment lists General Plan goals, policies, and programs relating to schools and education and provides online links to the General Plan and Housing Element. The comment does not raise any substantive issue regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; the comment is noted. 6-3 The comment restates the paragraph and table under the Schools heading on page 4.L-l2 of the Draft SEIR, which describes the Pleasanton Unified School Districts Developer Fee and breakdown by type of residence. The comment does not raise any substantive issue regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; the comment is noted. 6-4 The comment restates the last paragraph from page 4.L-l2 of the Draft SEIR. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; the comment is noted. General Plan Amendment and Rezonings 4-22 ESA/210016 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report December 2011