My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020
>
120120
>
16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/9/2020 12:20:52 PM
Creation date
11/23/2020 3:45:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/1/2020
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
16 ATTACHMENT 1
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
16 ATTACHMENT 2
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
16 ATTACHMENT 3
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
16 ATTACHMENT 4
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
16 ATTACHMENT 4 EXHIBIT B
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
16 ATTACHMENT 4 EXHIBIT C
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
16 ATTACHMENT 4 EXHIBIT D
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
Link Groups
Link
9:
16 ATTACHMENT 4 EXHIBIT B
Last modified:
11/24/2020 10:18:45 AM
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
Link
8:
16 ATTACHMENT 4 EXHIBIT D
Last modified:
11/23/2020 4:04:28 PM
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
Link
7:
16 ATTACHMENT 4 EXHIBIT C
Last modified:
11/23/2020 4:01:33 PM
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
Link
5:
16 ATTACHMENT 4
Last modified:
11/23/2020 3:54:08 PM
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
Link
4:
16 ATTACHMENT 3
Last modified:
11/23/2020 3:51:24 PM
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
Link
3:
16 ATTACHMENT 2
Last modified:
11/23/2020 3:48:56 PM
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
Link
2:
16 ATTACHMENT 1
Last modified:
11/23/2020 3:48:06 PM
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
Link
1:
16
Last modified:
12/9/2020 12:20:52 PM
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\120120
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
number appears to be the most widely used in traffic studies and other analyses <br /> prepared by local governments. On this basis, while the proposed reduction is not <br /> dramatically different from the other studies reviewed, the 98.8 percent requested <br /> reduction, equivalent to 1 employee per -33,000 square-feet, is on the low end.4 <br /> If the SANDAG ratio (i.e., 15,000 square-feet/employee) were applied to the subject <br /> project, 11 employees would be generated (165,756 square-feet divided by 15,000) <br /> which would be 2.7 percent of the assumed employees (11 divided by 414). <br /> As described, there is also some historical precedent for reducing the Affordable <br /> Housing Fee for similar storage projects. The two examples with approved fee <br /> reductions cited above also generated far fewer employees than assumed (i.e., 1.65 <br /> percent and 1.29 percent). Both of those projects received fee reductions for the <br /> storage portion of the projects but not for the office portions of the projects. The <br /> reduction in fees for the storage component alone was 78 percent and 77 percent, <br /> although it is unclear from reviewing the minutes and resolutions of the past approvals, <br /> exactly how these past reductions were established. <br /> ALTERNATIVES <br /> Based on the project-specific information, including an employee rate significantly below <br /> that assumed in the Nexus Study to develop the current fee and design of the storage <br /> buildings, staff believes the criteria to grant the reduction would be met, and provides a <br /> sufficient basis to support the requested fee reduction. <br /> Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that there is discretion available to the Council in <br /> granting the request, and the Council could consider other options with respect to this <br /> request (including no reduction). Staff suggests the following options (please note, all <br /> dollar amounts are based on current fee rates, and rounded to the nearest dollar; actual <br /> amounts would vary based on fee in place at time of building permit issuance, but would <br /> reflect the proposed percentage reductions): <br /> 1. Option 1. No fee reduction: Reduction of 0 percent for entire project. Total fee <br /> would be $2,158,143. <br /> 2. Option 2. Reduce the fee, in a manner consistent with past practice: <br /> Reduction of 0 percent for the office and reduction of 77 percent (the lower of the <br /> two most recent fee requests that have been granted) for the storage. The total <br /> fee would be $505,396. <br /> 3. Option 3. Applicant request: Reduction of 98.8 percent for the entire project, <br /> aligning with actual employee impacts. Total fee would be $25,898. (Applicant's <br /> Request) <br /> Studies reviewed include the San Diego Association of Governments(SANDAG)Traffic Generators Report;2007 <br /> Snohomish County Employee Density Study;and a March 2010 study Logistics Trends and Specific Industries that <br /> Will Drive Warehouse and Distribution Growth and Demand for Space prepared for the NAIOP: Commercial Real <br /> Estate Development Association. <br /> 5 1.2 percent of the employees assumed are being generated(5/414)with this project <br /> Page 10 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.