CCMIN042187 - Laserfiche WebLink

the property of Dr. and Mrs. Sylvan Gross; Assessment Parcel No. 14, which was filed on behalf of the Pleasanton/Lakewood Hotels Limited Partnership; First Interstate Bank referencing Assessors Parcel No. 941120146; and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. He stated if there is anyone in the audience with a written protest that is to be filed they should be delivered to the Clerk at this time. No written protests were presented to the Clerk at this time. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing Open on this item. Mr. Irving Loube, representing Dr. and Mrs. Sylvan Gross, owners of As- sessment Parcel No. 1, stated this parcel is a little jet of property extend- ing into a residential area of the City. He thanked Council for their support in past years in trying to move the proposed senior housing project ahead. For various reasons it has not happened; he has hopes that it will happen this year. However, when the property gets assessed $149,000 it means that it eventually will fall upon the senior citizens who will live in this particular development, and it becomes more difficult to move ahead in this situation. This is a unique parcel of property when compared to the balance of properties involved in the Assessment District. It is true that the zoning of the parcel is Commercial but the true character of the property is residential. And the residential characteristics are written into the ordinance that was passed in the development stage and approval of the Planned Unit Development. It is strictly committed to a residential complex for retirement purposes. He stated there is a fixed use of the property and that although it is zoned Com- mercial based on upon City zoning ordinances, it is really only committed to a residential use. In this situation he felt the principle under which the As- sessment District was formed is to include those properties that are commer- cial and industrial and this is committed by ordinance to residential develop- ment and will fall upon a segment of the population that is least equipped to handle this type of an increase expense. Secondly, looking at the location of the property it is almost entirely in the residential area of the City. He stated that studies have shown and the staff report shows that the use of the interchanges proposed in the Assessment District by the eventual users of the Assessment Parcel No. 1 will be very minimal. They do not need, and in fact it would be detrimental to the use of the property, to have the additional commercial and industrial traffic that the overpasses may cause to develop in the area. In terms of actual use and benefit it is a negative benefit to Par- cel No. 1; it would not have a positive benefit. Lastly, Mr. Loube pointed out that the assessment is in addition to other assessments that have been made. This, however, is a significant assessment when compared to the value of the property and compared to its use. He asked Council to take into con- sideration and omit Assessment Parcel No. 1 from the boundaries of the Assess- ment District. In terms of total impact, it is very small when compared to $65 million to exclude Assessment Parcel No 1; spreading the $149,000 among the other parcels would not make any impact whatsoever, whereas the impact on the eventual residents of development would be great - they are limited in their income usually. And it makes it difficult to provide this type of hous- ing if the City piles on to the residential user the commercial and industrial development that the purpose and basis for the Assessment District is for. Councilmember Wilson stated this was the parcel of property that Keith Fraser argued to be zoned for Commercial so it could be exempted from Growth Management in order to get sewer capacity. He stated if it is Residential there is no sewer capacity. - 9 4-21-87