Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Roush said that was correct. He pointed out that Greenbriar Homes paid the fee <br /> that was requested at the time the final map was approved but the fee that Greenbriar paid was <br /> not the correct fee. When the deficiency was brought to Greenbriar and the City's attention, <br /> Greenbriar did not believe it was obligated to pay the higher amount, which was eventually <br /> resolved with some payment from Greenbriar Homes. <br /> Ms. McGovern noted this agreement was based on the Vineyard Avenue Corridor <br /> Specific Plan. She asked if there were any developments where staff believed it would be <br /> necessary for other developers to pay this mitigation fee? <br /> Mr. Fialho said the only potential area that is not within the City's incorporated <br /> jurisdiction is the area located directly behind Ruby Hill (the Foley Ranch area). He noted there <br /> is no area that would pay the fee that is currently slated for development within the City. <br /> Ms. McGovern pointed out the fee is not imposed on land with greater than a 25 percent <br /> slope. She was still interested in looking at that same concept during the General Plan update <br /> process. <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked if Signature Properties paid fees for the Ruby Hill development on a <br /> per lot basis? He wondered if the fees had been paid and how were the fees collected. <br /> Mr. Roush said the fees are collected at the time the building permit is issued. There is a <br /> formula that was initially $10,000 per lot and over time that amount has increased annually to <br /> reflect the cost of living. <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked if the City collected administrative fees for the Ruby Hill <br /> development? <br /> Mr. Roush did not believe the City collected administrative fees for the Ruby Hill <br /> development. <br /> Mr. Brozosky wondered why an administrative fee was accessed for one development <br /> and not another. <br /> Mr. Roush said the City did not have a formal agreement concerning the Ruby Hill fees <br /> with the Tri- Valley Conservancy. The City could take this matter up with the Conservancy. <br /> Mr. Thorne referred to agenda item 4b, PDR -507, City of Pleasanton, application for <br /> design review approval for the Firehouse Arts Center to renovate the existing historical 1929 <br /> Firehouse Station No. 1. By approving the Consent Calendar, he asked if Council was agreeing <br /> to include the 11 comments by the Planning Commission into the final design? <br /> Mr. Fialho said no. He noted that Council would be reviewing the final design for the <br /> Firehouse Arts Center at its regular meeting on March 21 and staff would identify the Planning <br /> Commission's recommendations and the Pleasanton Downtown Association's <br /> recommendations (PDA). Council will then have discretionary review and approval as it <br /> pertains to these items. <br /> Mr. Thorne noted that some of the 11 considerations were costly and he did not want to <br /> overburden this project with additional costs. <br /> Pleasanton City Council 3 02/21/06 <br /> Minutes <br />