CCMIN120605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Hosterman asked if there were a timing issue in making a decision this evening? Mr. Fialho believed there was from the standpoint that this issue was mentioned as part of the Berlogar development and while Council had not made a decision on how the fee should be collected, it approved the project in the context of establishing some type of financing structure that would enable the collection of the fees to be bifurcated between Hillside/Low Density/Open Space Lots. Under Option 1, Ms. McGovern believed the City would not be repaid until development occurred. Mr. Fialho said that was correct. Ms. McGovern believed that Option 2 provided reimbursement to the City earlier because it would allow some development without the payment of all the fees, which is why she supported Option 2. If Council approved Option 1, Mr. Thorne asked if it would create a situation where it would encourage developers to build quicker? Mr. Fialho believed it was a cash flow issue and depending upon the perspective, there are two different conclusions. If Council agreed to retain the existing Program, when the developer is ready and has the appropriate financing to support its development, a larger sum of money is realized up front. It could be argued that it took the developer longer to develop because it had to raise the capital to pay the Specific Plan fees; however the City would be reimbursed a larger pro-rata share than Option 2. Option 2, on the other hand might encourage development because the financial obligation would be less. Option 2 would allow for a smaller pro-rata share to come in versus the alternative, which is the developer would have to wait longer to develop because it is raising capital. Mr. Sullivan did not want to give anyone any expectation that he would agree to bifurcate the collection of fees between Hillside/Low Density/Open Space as it pertained to the Berloger development. Mr. Roush believed Council considered the notion of bifurcating the collection of fees between Hillside/Low Density/Open Space and there was no guarantee. Council directed staff to bring this matter back so that it might have this policy discussion. As previously indicated by staff, there is a possibility of being reimbursed a larger amount under Option 1 but on the other hand if Council went with Option 2, the funds might come in quicker because people might be more apt to develop rather than wait until it had enough capital to develop all the lots. Ms. McGovern asked if the reimbursement fees were the same if a developer/property owner developed all of the units it was entitled to? Mr. Roush said yes. Mayor Hosterman said she would not support the motion. She would prefer to direct staff to provide Council with the full picture so it could understand the funding development position of the City and what it would look like in the future. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 20 12/06/05