PC 03/10/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Warnick responded that there have been several meetings with the property owners and subsequently there will be at least two meetings of the City Council to determine definite boundaries for the assess- ment districts and that this project falls within those boundaries. Mr. Warnick indicated that the final boundary will be determined by the City Council 9-12 months from now. He indicated that this pro- perty meets the criteria set forth (unimproved commercial or industrial property over two acres in size). Commissioner Wilson indicated that only City Council has authority to release this property from the assessment district. Mr. Kierstead responded that by this body approving the assessment district they have probably lost their 'day in court.' He spoke to the mitigated negative declaration and asked that the project only have a negative declaration as in the past. Commissioner Doherty stated that the. Planning Commission could not vote on the project if they did not consider the mitigated negative declaration first. Commissioners Doherty, Lindsey and Wilson indicated all projects in the north Pleasanton area are subject to the three mitigating con- ditions and this project cannot be an exception. Commissioner Jamieson and Chairperson Getty concurred with this statement. Mr. Swift, Acting City Attorney, stated it is staff's feeling this project will have an effect on the overall fire and water needs. He indicated, however, that perhaps this project may not carry the same level of dollars contributed as other projects, especially the freeway oriented ones. He said when this matter is before Council it would be the best time for Mr. Kierstead's request to be considered. Mr. Warnick then reviewed the ballpark figure of $40,000/acre and that the projects with street and freeway improve- ments will probably be about $60,000/acre. He said when the final determination is made with regard to traffic generation of this project, it might be less than that. Mr. Kierstead took issue with this as he stated it is his experience assessment districts are usually higher than anticipated. Chairperson Getty spoke to the increase of building sizes. Mr. Kierstead explained the parking ratio with regard to building coverage. Mr. Harris stated that Mr. Kierstead is correct, in that previously staff had recommended a negative declaration; but that in succeeding years we are now in possession of different facts with regard to traffic, water and fire service in the north Pleasanton area, there- fore, a mitigated negative declaration must now be considered. Mr. Swift further indicated that even though the project was pre- viously approved with a negative declaration, if City Council found the project to benefit from the improvements, the City Council could include this property in the assessment district whether or not the project was granted approval previously without it. -4-