Laserfiche WebLink
Page 13 of 17 <br />across peer jurisdictions (Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, Walnut Creek). In order to lower the <br />overall fee burden, each fee amount from Option 1 would be further reduced by about 24%. <br /> <br />Table 11: Non-Residential – Fee Alternatives <br /> <br />Staff recommends the City Council adopt Option 3, which would bring the aggregate multi- <br />family fee down to be more in line with that of the average of peer jurisdictions and ensure that <br />Pleasanton remains regionally competitive as a location for commercial investment. <br /> <br />To the extent commercial development is financially viable anywhere in the Tri-Valley or within <br />peer cities, Pleasanton’s fees will be on a par with peer jurisdictions. Setting the fee higher <br />than this level is not recommended, because it would make Pleasanton less competitive as a <br />location to do business in the region, potentially affecting long-term investment and property <br />and sales tax revenue. <br /> <br />Applicability of Updated Fees to Projects in Process <br />With respect to projects in process and with active applications, it is recommended City <br />Council adopt a policy regarding applicability of the new fees to such projects. While some <br />projects are “vested” to the existing fees pursuant to State law (e.g. SB 330, Subdivision Map <br />Act), it would be beneficial to provide clarity to current applicants as to the fees to which they <br />will be subject. Attachment 3 provides a draft recommended policy with respect to projects in <br />process – this is modeled on a similar policy adopted with the 2018 update, and generally <br />proposes that the following types projects will still be subject to the existing fee, after the new <br />fees are adopted: <br />• Projects not subject to legislative approval (i.e. not requiring a zoning or General Plan <br />amendment, or subject to annexation), if “deemed complete” by the effective date of the <br />fees <br />• Projects subject to legislative approval, if “deemed complete, or have been in process <br />for three months or more, or accomplished other milestones constituting a significant <br />financial investment, such as initiation of a CEQA process, or conducting a City Council <br />or Planning Commission work session, by the effective date <br /> Alternative 1 <br />Increase CFF <br />and TIF to <br />Maximum <br />Allowable <br />Alternative 2 <br />Match Existing <br />Aggregate Fee <br />Alternative 3 <br />Discount Fee to <br />Match Peer Cities <br />Average <br /> Fee per Sq. Ft. Fee Per Sq. Ft. Fee Per Sq. Ft. <br />Capital Facilities Fees $13.41 $13.41 $10.15 <br />Transportation Fees $31.50 $13.41 $10.15 <br />Commercial Linkage <br />Fee <br />$3.71 $3.29 $2.49 <br />Total Fee Burden $48.72 $30.12 $22.78 <br /> <br />Peer Jurisdictions: <br />Average Fee Burden per <br />Sq. Ft <br />$22.78 <br />Page 219 of 893