Laserfiche WebLink
44 <br /> <br /> proposed ordinance .... <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br /> public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer inquired why the ordinance would not apply to <br /> "projects devoted by Federal, State or local public entities to <br /> public uses," as stated under Section 17.40.040 Exemptions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the ordinance would probably not apply <br /> to State and Federal buildings such as court houses or public <br /> facilities because the City has not regulatory control over these <br /> uses. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta stated that the City would not have the opportunity <br /> to review or probably charge fees for County projects that are <br /> developed on County land for public use. She added that the <br /> exemption could be deleted for projects in which the City had the <br /> opportunity to be involved in process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer pointed out that Section 14.40.060 Fee Credit <br /> should read "The City may adjust the fee imposed..." rather than <br /> "The C~t¥ Manager .... " He inquired where the interest of the fund <br /> would go. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta replied that the interest would stay in the fund's <br /> account. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer indicated that the fee amount for commercial- <br /> industrial-office development of $0.40 per square foot was <br /> acceptable to all who attended the meeting, assuming that priority <br /> would be given to Pleasanton and North Pleasanton residents. He <br /> stated that he would like developers to have the option to build <br /> units instead of paying the fee. He commented that if the fee <br /> would be based on square footage, any change in use would not be <br /> applicable. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that it is possible that a company would <br /> request Council to be exempted from the fee because it has only <br /> three employees. If the use for this building is later changed and <br /> the number of employees increases, the City should have the ability <br /> to impose the full $0.40 per square foot at that time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that the fee should be paid at the <br /> building permit stage rather than upon occupancy, as proposed by <br /> some developers, for two reasons: (1) all City fees are normally <br /> collected at the building permit stage; and (2) with the escalated <br /> cost, the developers would have to pay more at a later time. He <br /> asked staff why houses cannot be assessed on a per square footage <br /> rate like commercial-industrial-office developments. <br /> <br /> 10-2-90 <br /> - 16 - <br /> <br /> <br />