14 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 13 parcel make the site unsuitable for a park. The city should remove this park and the associated funding from the list until a suitable parcel is identified. • The park facility projects list includes$8.1 million for improvements to joint use school facilities. Has the city checked to ensure that the school district is not charging development for these same improvements through the payment of school impact fees? If the answer is yes,the projects should be eliminated from the list. (See Table 9 on Page 13 of the Pleasanton Development Impact Fee study.) • A 3 percent administrative fee to manage the capital facilities and transportation impact fee programs is excessive. A 1.5 percent fee is more than adequate. (Page 3, Pleasanton Development Impact Fee study.) Lastly,we would ask that the city mitigate the impacts of only absolutely necessary fee hikes by spreading out small adjustments over a minimum of two years.This will allow development applicants sufficient time to factor the added costs into their pro formas and financing plans.Applicants with projects already in the pipeline should be grandfathered under the existing fee structure,as they have been working on their developments for some time and cannot absorb the extra costs. Without such a provision,applicants may have to abandon or substantially postpone these projects. Thank you for your time and consideration. Feel free to call with any questions or comments. Sincerely yours, Va4 Lisa A. Vorderbrueggen BIAjBay Area 1350 Treat Blvd., Ste. 140 Walnut Creek,CA 94597 925-348-1956(cell) Attachment: Pleasanton Residential Permits: 1996-May 2018,per California Construction Industry Research Board cc: Pleasanton City Manager Nelson Fialho Pleasanton Assistant City Manager Brian Dolan Pleasanton Director of Community Development Gerry Beaudin Pleasanton Planning Manager Ellen Clark