CCMIN120605 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Roush said the City under Option 2 would be deferring receipt of approximately $1.3 million dollars. Ms. McGovern asked if staff was opposed to Council moving in the direction of Option 3, to modify the Program by deferring the payment of the fees until a building permit was obtained? Mr. Fialho said there was some truth to the fact that the Planning Commission or the City Council might not approve staff's recommendation as it related to design review. He pointed out there is a built in mechanism for reimbursement and if and when things change, the City could always reimburse developers/property owners its full amount that it paid up front. He preferred to stay consistent with how developments are typically handled which would be that these fees are typically collected at the time the subdivision map was approved as outlined in Option 2. It was moved by Ms. McGovern, seconded by Mr. Thorne, to approve Option 2 to (1) amend Financing Program #7 (a) to allow a property owners/developer of certain lots within the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area to pay, under certain circumstances, Specific Plan fees for just the buildable lots and (b) to clarify when Specific Plan fees will be paid by property owners with an existing residence who subdivide or with a vacant lot who want to obtain a building permit for a single residence; (2) amending Financing Program #8 to clarify when Specific Plan fees will be paid by property owners with an existing residence who are not subdividing but want to connect to the shared infrastructure improvements; and (3) direct staff to prepare a further amendment to the Financing Program to remove the current inequity in the Program by which the City is last in line to be reimbursed. Ms. McGovern wanted Council to direct staff to ask Signature Properties to reimburse the City for its portion of the roadway. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Roush said the developer/property owner for Lot 22 is Berlogar; Lot 23 is Chrisman; Lot 24 is Brozosky; Lot 25 is Resnick; Lot 26 is Roberts; and Lot 27 is Sarich. Mr. Sullivan recalled the Planning Commission reviewed the Financing Plan but did not recall it had much discussion of treating the Hillside or Low Density lots from a fee standpoint. He asked if Council had this discussion. Mr. Roush did not recall any Financing Program state the developer/property owner would pay all fees at the time of the first subdivision occurring. He believed as Hillside development came forward, such as the Berlogar project staff believed it was more equitable to treat the Hillside Residential different than the Low Density/Residential. Mr. Sullivan pointed out the staff report mentioned the City was originally envisioned as the funding developer for the water tank improvements that was originally estimated at $1.5 million dollars. Mr. Roush said that was correct and part of the rationale for the City funding the water system improvements was the fact that under the Financing Plan, the City was responsible for a large portion of it by reason of the Community Park. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 18 12/06/05