PC 10/23/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Tom Terrill, 1200 Concord Avenue, Concord, CA, represented Reynolds and Brown, and was speaking as a NPID property owner. He noted that his major objection to the application is related to the fact that the applicant is asking for rezoning of the property due to the benefits and value that the area has received from the NPID project at Stoneridge Drive. He said they are looking at a fairness issue. NPID owners have paid handsomely for the right to build within the capacity created by the mitigations. He felt to encourage owners to rezone and intensify the use at the expense of traffic capacity and the NPID owners pocket book is inappropriate. He also expressed surprise that there were no conditions of approval attached to the application. He felt a whole series of issues need to be addressed in this application, such as traffic, signage, etc. He asked that if the application is approved that the applicant be required to pay its full share of NPID expense, which is an amount related to square footage. The NPID property owners are in full agreement that new owners should pay their full share of NPID. On the other hand he felt that a larger study of this situation could be done so that it can be properly addressed by the other NPID property owners and staff. In response to Commissioner Michelotti's question, Mr. Terrill replied that property under one acre is exempt from NPID fees, as is property that was existing before the NPID was formed. He cited Denny's restaurant as an example of an existing exemption. Lengthy discussion ensued between the Commissioners and Mr. Terrill. Mr. Terrill noted that should the rezoning be changed to a PUD that the value of the land would greatly increase as it increases the uses for the land. In addition, he felt that staff had primarily focused on traffic issues. He concluded that new owners should either be required to pay their share of NPID or more study should be done regarding the matter. Mr. Etnire returned to the podium. He noted that Mr. Terrill had brought up a number of issues, such as sign illumination, etc, that can be addressed at a later date. He felt a change to a PUD zoning would increase the uses for the land; however, he felt it would be unfair to hold up the application for more study on the matter. Even though the application of 0.92 acres would be exempt from NPID fees, Mr. Etnire did not think it would make a great impact on the NPID. In response to a question from Commissioner Hovingh, Mr. Etnire agreed they are asking for a change but felt it was a change without an impact to the existing property owners. He felt it was a small area with a minor change to a PUD zoning. He felt the impact would not warrant having the new property owner being thrown into NPID. Chairman Mahern expressed concern that in the sense of fairness what would happen when the next person comes along and wants the same change, with a subsequent chain reaction. Mr. Etnire said they are only talking about four or five parcels, not the rest of Commerce Circle. He felt the issue needed to be addressed since 1984, but this has not happened. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting October 23, 1991 Page 4 ,. .