CCMIN120688 - Laserfiche WebLink

347 be made up in property taxes. Mr. Rathbone suggested that other means to raise revenue should be considered such as other cities have done, i.e., the narrow gauge railroad in Durango, Colorado, or the antique trade in Benecia. He felt the City should help itself. He stated there is a great deal of difference between reasoning that sounds good and good sound reasoning. Ms. Barbara McClure, 75 Castlewood Drive, stated she has been a Pleasanton resident for thirty years. She questioned whether the property owners were properly notified. She stated her property is included in the plan and is considered a blighted area, and blight can be eradicated by condemnation. She favors improvement and she wants to do her part in that. She had some question because these are older homes that are interspersed with residences on both that side of Spring Street and across the street - which are homes and which are businesses? Does a business have more immunity? She stated from the map she could not tell what is happening to the Mavridis property. Is that part of the area for a parking lot? Mr. Lee stated stated a portion of the grocery store, the back portion of the Maviridis lot, and the back yard of the Bianchi property as part of a surface lot consolidation. That parking lot consolidation does not affect any of the properties on Spring Steet. Mrs. McClure stated she was unclear about the earthquake statute and if it would affect her property. She was advised the law applies to unreinforced masonry buildings only, and hers is wooden. She cited the case of a friend whose home was taken by eminent domain, and the friend never adjusted to the change; it is a traumatic experience to have one's property condemned. She is concerned about the reimbursement for condemnations. She does not want dollars wasted as there are other needs such as Senior Center, Children's Workshop, or the Opera and Playhouses. She would like to see these in the plan. Mr. Robert Kourtz, 262 W. Angela, stated he is against plan. He stated he is disappointed there is not a full Council considering and voting on this matter. He stated Council is not up to speed on this whole affair. He took exception to what he feels is a violation. Back when the process was started it was supposed to encompass some 320 acres. He was told that he was not within the redevelopment district so therefore he could not serve on the committee. Now he finds the legal description of the project is 520 acres and he is within that district with three parcels of property. He feels that somewhere in the Health and Safety Code is a section that should be investigated to see why he was not on one of those committees. Mr. Lee advised that the redevelopment agency boundary runs along the median of Peters Street and because Mr. Kourtz' property is not within that boundary, he was not eligible to be on a committee, and his property is not affected by the redevelopment plan. Mr. Thurman Caudill, 4715 Augustine Street, stated he has nothing to gain by this redevelopment scheme. He has been in this town for 46 years, and feels it should stay the way it is now. He - 32 - 12-6-88