My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020
>
121520
>
12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/15/2020 3:01:16 PM
Creation date
12/9/2020 1:54:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/15/2020
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
12
Document Relationships
12 ATTACHMENT 1 EXHIBIT B
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\121520
12 ATTACHMENT 1-3
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\121520
12 ATTACHMENT 4
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\121520
12 ATTACHMENT 5-11
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2020\121520
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
to calculate fees for storage projects in other communities. Additionally, staff <br /> recommends no fee is charged for the square footage of the unit provided on-site. <br /> Letter from Holland & Knight, November 30, 2020 <br /> The City received a letter dated November 30, 2020 from Holland & Knight, on behalf of <br /> Public Storage (Attachment 11). The letter alleges that the City's Affordable Housing <br /> Fee is subject to the requirements of the state's Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code, <br /> section 66000 et seq.) and that several of staffs proposed options are inconsistent with <br /> the Act. Staff has reviewed the letter and continues to believe that the Mitigation Fee <br /> Act does not apply to the City's Affordable Housing Fee based on current case law. <br /> (See: California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435; <br /> and 616 Croft Ave., LLC v. City of West Hollywood(2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 621.) <br /> CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION <br /> Staff does not recommend Option 1 (no reduction) since it would be significantly out of <br /> proportion with the project's actual employee generation, and would not correspond to <br /> past precedent, or common practice in calculating impact fees for these types of <br /> projects. <br /> Although the applicant's requested Option 3 is supportable based on its employee <br /> generation, staff finds there is also a supportable basis for Options 2, 4, or 5. Each of <br /> these options would provide an additional increment of benefit to the City in helping to <br /> meet its affordable housing needs. <br /> However, in consideration of the purpose and intent of Chapter 17.40 and the specific <br /> provisions regarding fee reductions, staff believes Option 5 reflects the most balanced <br /> approach. It provides benefit to the City's affordable housing fund, addresses housing <br /> need generated by the project, and staff recommends that this option be selected, if the <br /> Council does not support the applicant's request. <br /> Based on the above discussion, staff recommends the City Council adopt the draft <br /> Resolution, Attachment 2, approving a reduction to the Affordable Housing Fee for P19- <br /> 0128/P19-0129, reflecting staff recommended Option 5. <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br /> The assessment of fees is not a project as defined under CEQA. Therefore, no <br /> environmental review is required. <br /> PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS <br /> Notices of this application and hearing were sent to surrounding property owners and <br /> tenants within a 1,000-foot radius of the site. Staff has provided the location and <br /> noticing map as Exhibit H of Attachment 4 for reference. <br /> Page 17 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.