My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
19 ATTACHMENT 3
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2022
>
071922
>
19 ATTACHMENT 3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2022 2:48:22 PM
Creation date
7/14/2022 2:47:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
7/19/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
19
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2022\071922
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
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
Page 2 <br /> Comments on the staff report: (Housing Commission Staff Report, Pages 2-5) <br /> There's a lot of room to increase LIHF fees on commercial development,even without the <br /> expense of a new nexus study. You can see from the 2018 study that commercial development <br /> was charged a tiny fraction of the maximum allowable. <br /> Nonresidential Housing Linkage Fee Nexus Study <br /> Draft Report 02/26/18 <br /> Table 1 Summary of Maximum Allowable Fees and EPS Recommended Fee Levels <br /> Land Use Maximum Fee Previoiusly Recommended Fee Range(1) <br /> 1Qc.. 15% 20% <br /> Per so h re,sq h rer sq R per so R <br /> HotelsrMotel $49 69 $5 12 Si 68 $10.24 <br /> Retail 5211 08 $21 74 532 61 S43.48 <br /> Officer fight Industrial/R&D $82 56 $8 50 $12 76 $17.01 <br /> (1)includes staled share o1 2016 maximum fee plus 3°j-administrative costs <br /> Please raise fees for commercial development! Pleasanton today has a HUGE jobs/housing <br /> imbalance that burdens our region with in-commute traffic and emissions from outside the Tri- <br /> Valley. Do we really need to attract even more business with the lure of inadequate fees? Let's <br /> attract businesses that value housing benefits for their employees and opportunities for long term <br /> financial partnership with an emerging carbon neutral city in the carbon economy. Providing <br /> employers with the ability to secure nearby,attractive, housing for their workforce should be the <br /> new goal. <br /> In terms of the uses of the LIHF, I strongly believe this money should be reserved for building <br /> affordable housing only. For instance,why was Covid-19 rent supplement grant program LIHF <br /> funded as opposed to using some of the $8 million Pleasanton received in Covid relief? Enforcing <br /> reduced rents charged for IZO units in perpetuity seems cumbersome and expensive, especially <br /> considering the small number of units provided. Some of the fund expenditures, such as the rapid <br /> rehousing program,housing counseling services, legal eviction services,and homeless <br /> intervention services, seem to be the direct result of failing to invest LIHF funds in a enough <br /> affordable units. If businesses are required or asked to make increased contributions to the LIHF, <br /> they will rightly expect their money to provide affordable housing opportunities for their <br /> employees. Pleasanton housing policy should support that expectation. <br /> Facilitating nonprofit development should be the primary use of the LIHF. While initially more <br /> costly, nonprofit development is also the most well-managed and designed,especially if it includes <br /> Moderate Income units. Furthermore, nonprofit development is the best way for Pleasanton to <br /> assure efficient use and planning control of its limited land <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.