CCMIN042187 - Laserfiche WebLink

placed on the property yet and cannot be until Council concludes the hearing and determine that it wants to. Councilmember Wilson asked if the total assessment against Mr. McDonald's property $5.00+ per sq. ft. Mr. Zullo stated the way he has assessed the properties is that everything that goes together to make that building site work (building plus the parking plus the landscaping and all the improve- ments), to get a true value of what the acreage is, that is what is assessed. Mr. McDonald's actual developed site is what is being assessed. Mr. McDonald is dealing with just the footprint of the building. The City Attorney stated that in regard to Mr. McDonald's questions about whether or not there was an agreement or some kind of notice, all the proper- ties that developed in Pleasanton after 1981 were put on notice and as part of their development process were told that studies were being done of traffic, of fire needs, of water needs, and that as a condition of approval they would have to sign a mitigation measures agreement, meaning they would pay their fair share of those assessments. Among those developers who developed since1981 was Ashwill Hawkins who was the predecesor of interest. He suspect- ed that on his title report there was probably an indication that a mitigation measures agreement was recorded, as with most of the properties in North Pleasanton. Mr. Hugh Scott, representing Gus Enterprises and the Sheraton Hotel, stated that this firm sent in a letter of protest which should have been in- cluded in those listed by Mr. Brunsell. He stated his concern is one of a relatively small property owner and the ability to pay. He stated that look- ing at the hotel industry in this town and trying to assess its future, and based upon the competition that will be coming up in the Bishop Ranch which will take away close to 50% of the clientele that come to hotels in Pleasan- ton, he is concerned about Sheraton's ability to pay and other land owners ability to pay these bonds. He felt one of the last things the City's wants to do is create an obligation that will result in default. He stated his ho- tel cannot afford to pay layers and layers of assessments. Mr. Brunsell commented regarding the written protests that were not repre- sented by oral statements. The written protest of Pleasanton/Lakewood Hotels Limited Partnership; he stated that if you read the protest you will see that the grounds of the protest are largely addressed to the exclusion of residen- tial properties properties which were already developed at the time this process was initiated in 1981 and what are described as western properties. Council is fully familiar with the process that was gone through in establish- ing the boundaries of the district and the reasons why the properties that were included, were included. The idea of assessing only properties which are undeveloped has been endorsed by the State Supreme Court in cases involving other cities. In general, had it not been for the pendancy of the assessment process that there may have been other mitigation measures taken for all prop- erties which were undeveloped in 1981 and have since developed, which might have been more burdensome than the assessment which have been proposed. The statement generally made that this project is too costly; the project was made as low as possible. Mr. Brunsell stated that with regard to the BART protest, the letter of protest which was filed does not state grounds of objection but he felt the record ought to show some special concerns about the BART parcel because it is 12 - 4-21-87