14 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

a g e 12 must be able to pass on the cost increases to buyers and renters or the project is economically infeasible and cannot be constructed. • Housing production has PLEASANTON HOUSING PERMITS ISSUED: 1996-MAY 2018 already slowed SOURCE:CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RESEARCH BOARD substantially in `" Pleasanton in the past year,as the 729 chart on the right illustrates. Making /\ housing more --51; expensive to produce will lead to , 413 fewer homes being �;` ;5 337 constructed and \ / \ it\ tt` 252�Y9-255 drive up housing 21 129 prices and rents. It \/ 119 is a simple matter of supply and ".-24" demand. ;e c45, , Furthermore,the ; z proposed increases target the more affordable multi-family units and the bulk of the housing that Pleasanton has seen in the past seven years. Of the 2,081 homes permitted between 2012 and May of this year, 1,720 or 83 percent,were multi-family units. Within the specific fee recommendations,we applaud staff for adjusting project cost estimates, allocations of costs to new development and the fee-setting methodology based on public feedback, as identified on Page 3 of the staff report. However,we have a number of additional concerns as outlined below: • The capital facility projects funding list includes$135.9 million to relocate the city's Civic Center. While the city may desire a new city hall,is new growth making its replacement a necessity? If the answer is no,as we believe,then the city should pursue a communitywide source of funds rather than disproportionately burden future homebuyers and renters. Has the city even identified the source of the remaining funds?The California Mitigation Fee Act requires jurisdictions to identify the sources of funds.Without a realistic funding plan, it would be irresponsible to saddle new homebuyers and renters with payments toward a new City Hall that may not materialize for decades and for which funding has not been secured. • The capital facility projects funding list includes$83.9 million for the East Pleasanton Park. The city has shelved the East Pleasanton Specific Plan process with no scheduled resumption date. Furthermore,the study identifies$38 million for parkland acquisition costs when the city made it clear during the last planning process that it expected property owners to donate the land. At minimum, staff should eliminate the value of the parkland it has demanded be donated. • The capital facilities projects funding list includes$44.2 million for the Vineyard Corridor Park. However,the city has maintained for the past 15 years that methane gas deposits on the 20-acre