CCMIN042187 - Laserfiche WebLink

In addition, the rights-of-way pertinent to these facilities and the design costs pertinent to these facilities have been included in the project cost. Mr. Zullo reviewed in general the rules set forth for the project. The projects overall in the district are being assessed on a net developed acreage basis. When he started out on this project he identified the traffic that would be generated as a result of the build out of these commercial and in- dustrial parcels within the North Pleasanton area. In those traffic studies he identified the improvements that would be needed to mitigate the traffic that would be generated from the build out of these parcels. That initial timing of those original projects was in 1981, at that point in time everybody had an equal interest in the system that existed at that point in time and to get from there to build out was going to require a certain amount of addition- al improvements and that the City was going to put the burden of those im- provements on the commercial and industrial properties as they were develop- ing. The cost as they are distributed to the properties amounts to about $1.35 per square foot; that is approximately the maximum lien figure. That is the amount that is approximately noticed in this Engineer's Report. A more detailed description of the projects is in the Engineer's Report which is on file in the City offices. In general, he noted a couple of modifications that have taken place in the rules since a meeting about a month ago; and that are included in the amended copies presented this evening. The assessable acreage on the Kaiser parcel 20 has been corrected, anticipating action taken by Coun- cil tonight, reducing the net accessible acreage to 11.877 acres. Mr. Zullo stated that on item 10 of the rules we have increased the as- sessable acres on Parcel 19A to 18.66 acres at the request of the Taubman Property to accommodate the anticipated future expansion of 376,000 sq. ft. and that has been incorporated into this report. Mr. Zullo stated there is one addition correction that was not made in the report. Under item D, Special Features on Rule 3 it indicates there that its anticipated that in some point in time that there be some future benefit dis- tricts considered by the City which might provide some additional sources of funding that would give the property owners within the District some relief. One of the areas under consideration was the area north of 1-580 which was the Dublin area. Another area under consideration was the possible redevelopment of some of the properties within the District to a use higher than for which they currently have approval. The thinking being that should a benefit dis- trict be considered by the Council at some future time that those property owners would pay an additional assessment in proportion to the additional benefit that they would receive. Under Rule 3 he put a word in that the par- cel "shall pay" a development fee and he has amended that to read the parcel "may pay" a redevelopment fee. Mr. Zullo stated that lastly, it is understood that the City will use its best efforts to construct the improvements set forth herein with funds pro- vided herein, however, it is understood that final approval and design draw- ings necessary to accommplish this work will require approval by Caltrans, District 4, and FHWA, and modifications may occur during this approval process which may modify the final geometrics and the subsequent cost of these improvements. Mr. Robert Brunsell, Bond Counsel, stated this is a formal protest hearing and for the record the following written protests have been received on behalf of owners or lessees within the Assessment District: Assessment Parcel No. 1, 4-21-87