CCMIN12152020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Associate Planner Campbell noted the project does not require additional environmental review per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. She stated with the December 8th revisions, staff feels the project is appropriate for the site and recommends City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval. City Attorney Dan Sodergren clarified this is a new hearing independent of the Planning Commission's hearing and decision. He stated the Council can approve, condition, or deny the project. In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, City Attorney Sodergren confirmed if no decision was made, the matter would not return to the Planning Commission. In response to Councilmember Narum's inquiry, City Attorney Sodergren clarified if the application was denied by the City Council, the applicants would have to wait one year before resubmitting it. He added if the Council took no action, the applicants would not have to wait one year to resubmit. In response to Councilmember Narum's inquiry, City Attorney Sodergren clarified this matter is no longer an appeal of the Commission's decision. He stated it is because it was a part of the Zoning Administrator's Report on the Consent Calendar at the December 1, 2020, meeting and the item was pulled before the Council voted on the Consent Calendar. He stated staff brought it back under the City Council review provisions of the zoning ordinance. Councilmember Narum expressed regret for not hearing the simple appeal and making this an entire report. City Attorney Sodergren stated if the previous meeting did not reflect the Council's intent, it can be clarified before the public hearing. Councilmember Narum noted this is a new Council, complicating this matter of intent. In response to Mayor Brown's inquiry, City Attorney Sodergren confirmed the City Council remains the governing body even though it now has different members. Associate Planner Campbell continued her presentation with a discussion of the Affordable Housing Fee, reminding the Council this provision is not under the Planning Commission's purview. She noted for background the fee exists to assist the City in meeting moderate and low-income housing goals established in the General Plan. She added the fees were reset in 2018 by EPS to be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). She stated Public Storage would be classified as industrial use at a rate of $13.02 per square foot. She added the project would increase the site by 165,660 square feet, leading to a total Affordable Housing Fee of$2,156,893 for the project. Associate Planner Campbell noted the EPS study assumes 400 square feet per employee for uses like the storage facility which would translate to the equivalent of 414 employees. She stated the applicant will only have a maximum of five employees and also have an on-site manager's unit. She stated Pleasanton Municipal Code Section 17.40.05 says the Council can reduce the Affordable Housing Fee if the project developer can demonstrate the proposed use will generate substantially fewer workers than the uses which have established the fee and the building design is unable to house another use without substantial renovation. Associate Planner Campbell stated the applicant requested a reduction in the Affordable Housing Fee of 98.8%, dropping the rate to about $26,000. She noted the City has previously approved fee reductions for storage unit projects, citing examples from 1997 and 2002. Based upon a nexus analysis and other research, she presented five options including: 1) no reduction, 2) a reduction consistent with the City's 1997 and 2002 precedents (23.4%), 3) the applicant's request (1.2%), 4) a hybrid approach (1.3%) and 5) the typical methodology (3.2%). Associate Planner Campbell stated staff suggests a fee reduction for this property would be appropriate based upon the low worker density, design of the building, and historical precedent of approval. She City Council Minutes Page 8 of 17 December 15, 2020