My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 19-1078
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2010-2019
>
2019
>
RES 19-1078
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/22/2019 10:13:50 AM
Creation date
4/22/2019 10:13:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
4/16/2019
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment 1 <br /> Resolution No.19-1078 <br /> SUMMARY OF CASA ELEMENT CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS RECOMMENDED APPROACH TVC POLICY FRAMEWORK <br /> KEY THEMES <br /> 4. Remove Regulatory Barriers to Accessory CONCERN S'T'ATUS: Low,cities have generally supported the Full support and expansion of this element by: Q>NTEXT-SENSITIVE HOUSING <br /> Dwelling Units(ADUs): Extend existing state law production of ADUs by making it simpler,faster and cheaper to • Extending the fee limitation/reduction to all pass <br /> to allow ADUs on single family lots and multiple build these units. through fees(including utility connection fees and <br /> ADUs in existing multi-family buildings with <br /> CONCERNS school district fees),provided that the fees remain <br /> ministerial approval. proportionate to im acts generated. <br /> • This Element indicates a lack of understanding that cities pro p p <br /> Forgives code violations in grandfatherd ADUs. j serve as a collection point for many pass-through fees to I <br /> • <br /> Impact fees to be based on a square foot basis and other public agencies(such as utility connection and school Developing standardized ADU permit plans in a <br /> only on net new living area>500 SF. district fees),which represent the majority of all fees range of sizes,pre-approved at the State level, <br /> imposed on an ADU. For example,in the San Ramon valley, allowing for minimal local plan check <br /> Objective:Increase more affordable units,provide ! these fees represent 79-percent of the fees incurred by a requirements(reduced plan check tune offsets fee <br /> income source for cost-burdened homeowners. typical 742 SF ADU. limitations). <br /> Given their disproportionate percentage of the total fee • <br /> Allowing cities to count,by right,ADUs that are <br /> amount,limitations and reduction should apply to ALL I "affordable by design"in the RHNA process <br /> pass-through public agencies. I (examples:count 5 550 SF ADU as"Low"and 551- <br /> 1,000 SF ADU as"Moderate"income units). <br /> • Removing energy efficiency requirements is contrary to • Advocate for standardized Building Codes for <br /> established State Green House Gas(GHG)reduction goals. ADUs <br /> • Reducing fees across the board without an evaluation of the <br /> impacts to public services and infrastructure is contrary to • Ensure existing structures are brought up to Code <br /> the fiscal sustainability of each city. for legitimate Health and Safety reasons. <br /> • Code violations should not be forgiven if they pose health <br /> and safety concerns. <br /> Page 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.