CCMIN102098 - Laserfiche WebLink

Jim Pease, 4863 Canary Drive, had a concern about the potential impact the development impact rees could have on small businesses. The Pleasanton Chamber of Commerce is made up of 1000 members, of which 80 percent are small businesses. He believed that small businesses are the backbone of the economy. He said most small businesses cannot afford to own buildings and therefore have to rent. He said the increase in fees and the possibility of an increase in rent when his lease is up make it that much more difficult for him to operate his business in the City of Pleasanton. He appreciated staff including the small businesses in the discussions. He understood why each agency needed to raise its own fees, but felt the negative impact on small businesses needed to be looked at. Mark Sweeney, 4309 Hacienda Drive,//550, felt the buy-in option was a good notion. The Hacienda Business Park pays $20 million a year in debt service on the infrastructure that it installed in North Pleasanton. In addition, it pays about $1.7 million to maintain the business park. The fees are being raised on the undeveloped land in the North Pleasanton area. He said this area bought in a long time ago. The area is burdened with approximately $6.00 per square foot of land in bonds. The Hacienda Business Park has been paying its way before it created any impacts. It wanted to look at the buy-in as equity. If the fees are imposed on the North Pleasanton property as proposed by staff, Hacienda will still be paying substantially higher traffic fees than any other development outside the North Pleasanton Improvement District. He mentioned $7.4 million was loaned to the City of Dublin by the North Pleasanton property owners, not by the City. The property owners are not looking for a credit, but would like the $7.4 million taken into consideration when raising fees. The North Pleasanton Improvement District property owners do not relish paying higher fees. It would be reasonable for Council to conclude that the North Pleasanton District had already paid its way entirely. But if additional fees are going to be imposed, he asked that Council adopt staff recommendation as it relates to the properties within the Hacienda Business Park. Mayor Tarver said he received a letter from another business park development regarding the development and public facility fee, objecting to the fees as to that park. Mr. Roush said Parkway Properties feels that because of its development agreement, the new fees that are in excess of what is currently being imposed cannot legally be imposed. A similar letter was submitted with respect to the regional traffic fees. Staff is in the process of responding that we disagree with the conclusion Parkway Properties has reached. Parkway Properties has paid the regional traffic fee but under protest. Time will tell whether the development agreement precludes the fee or not. Mayor Tarver asked what he meant by Parkway Properties paying the fees under protest. Mr. Roush said under AB1600, if a developer believes that fees cannot be legally imposed upon it, but wants to pull the building permit, it pays the development fees under protest and then within a certain period of time, challenges the fees. Pleasanton City Council 20 10/20/98 Minutes