My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN111991
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
CCMIN111991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:12 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:28:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
113 <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if the applicant would have any objection to <br />a condition to participate in NPID in the future when the policies <br />are formulated? <br /> <br /> Mr. Etnire responded that the NPID Steering Committee has <br />shown no flexibility in its position and his clients can't commit <br />to this property and cancel other leases when the numbers are still <br />unknown. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr referred to the written narrative, which seems to <br />imply that the applicant recognized there would be a benefit from <br />the improvements that have already been made. <br /> <br /> Mr. Etnire did not deny that there has been a benefit from <br />improvements, but stated the proper test should be whether the <br />property is an increased burden on the infrastructure. <br /> <br /> Peter Schnugg, member of the NPID Steering Committee, was <br />under the impression from the last meeting with Mr. Etnire that a <br />lot of progress had been made in coming to some decision as to how <br />to handle those properties which wanted to intensify their use or <br />change zoning. Prior to forming NPID and selling any bonds, a lot <br />of time was spent talking about how to spread the cost among the <br />properties involved in the NPID. It became clear that there was <br />not one good way but that if everybody benefits, everybody should <br />pay equally. The Committee has been working on a policy. The <br />Committee is very close to resolving this issue and will continue <br />working on it. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked Mr. Schnugg how close the Committee was in <br />resolving this issue and if the applicant were to pay the normal <br />fee, how much would they be required to pay. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schnugg replied that perhaps there would be a decision in <br />the next two or three weeks. The assessments vary from parcel to <br />parcel, but the total for NPID 1 and NPID 2 is roughly $3.00 per <br />square foot, or for this building, $120,000. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr questioned Mr. Roush if it is the NPID Committee to <br />set those fees or is it the City's authority? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush responded that the Committee makes a recommendation <br />but the Council would set the fee structure or policies. <br /> <br /> Mr. Etnire confirmed that there was progress at the meeting <br />with the Steering Committee. It was agreed if a vacant parcel was <br />developed it would be subject to NPID fees but if an old building <br />were knocked down and rebuilt for a more intensive use, that too <br />would be subject to NPID fees. If there was an addition to a <br />building, then only that addition would be subject to NPID fees. <br />The fourth point discussed was a change in zoning or use. Staff and <br /> <br />11/19/91 <br /> 5 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.