CCMIN042187 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Mercer commented that during the discussion of the project it was stated that the rents would be about $1,500.00 per month; he felt that anyone who could afford this price housing could afford to pay any additional fees created by the assessment district. He stated the City has continued the sewer permits on that site a couple of times, and were granted because it was Commercial. Councilmember Brandes stated he agrees that it is residential, and he vot- ed that way, but it has been designated Commercial in order to get sewer capacity and he felt that is the way it should be classified at this time. Councilmember Mohr stated she originally voted for the parcel to be Residential but after talking to Keith Fraser and considering the types of uses that would be provided such as beauty shops and other commercial uses etc., she asked this development be reconsidered for Commercial zoning, which is was zoned for Commercial two weeks later. She felt it should stay Commercial. Mr. Tom Terrill, representing Reynolds and Brown, speaking on behalf of the Steering Committee, stated they are thankful that something is moving ahead that will get the freeway improvements that all the properties in North Pleasanton signed originally to provide. He expressed a concern regarding the cumulative effect of the exemptions of Valley Memorial Hospital and Kaiser Permanente, and he has heard of other requests for exemptions. It is easy to look at those individually but in cumulative impact it is a substantial number that those exemptions come back to be paid by the other NPID owners. He asked Council to continue their good support of such requests as are heard tonight upon behalf of the other property owners in the NPID. Secondly, he expressed concern over some of the protests such as the BART exemption tonight. It was one they had worked hard to avoid and it is frustrating to the other property owners because if there is a use that is in need of freeway facilities it is the park and ride lot for BART. Thought he is not against having transporta- tion such as the park and ride lot come to North Pleasanton they should pay either through their property value or through assessment the need for freeway improvements. BART has paid those in Pleasant Hill and he could see no real difference to Pleasanton vs. Pleasant Hill in what they should be paying for their property. He asked Council to give some support to that and to the benefit districts that are requested in the staff report. Mr. Ken McDonald, building contractor, stated he brought his contracting company to Pleasanton in December; he bought a piece of property at Stoneridge and Santa Rita. At that point he was led to believe in reading his CC&R's that there would be an improvement district and assessment established and that would basically involve the extension of Stoneridge Drive from Las Posi- tas across Santa Rita in and on past his property. He noticed that his is the only one excluded from this particular improvement district. He wanted to know when this improvement scope was established. Mr. Walker stated that project was with an earlier assessment district which will be done sooner than the project that is being considered tonight. As a matter of fact, the Stoneridge Drive extension is authorized to go to bid as approved by Council tonight; it is not a part of the assessment district being considered at this meeting. Mr. McDonald stated the $1.35 that Mr. Zullo commented on is the figure that he was given; he has 5,000 square feet and he has been assessed $24,000.00. His assessment parcel number is 11182 and he is trying to figure 10 - 4-21-87