CCMIN071586 - Laserfiche WebLink

453 Ms. Ernestine Schneider, 1855 Hacienda Park, stated the proposed ordinan- ces are the results of 7-8 months work by Councilmembers, City staff, School District representatives, and the residential development community. She stated it is something that is desperately needed if the School District is going to meet the needs of students in Pleasanton. She urged Council to vote positively for the ordinances. Ms. Elizabeth Glickman, 3229 Flemington court, stated a lot of time has been spent on the proposed ordinance in order to meet the needs of the stu- dents. She stated the residential fees have been thoroughly discussed and everyone should be aware of this issue; there has been opportunity for input. She stated there is legislation being proposed in Sacramento along the same lines as is being proposed here for commercial impact fees. She felt Council should adopt both ordinances tonight. She added the middle school is needed now and the impact fees should be on fast track in order to provide the facility as soon as possible. Mr. Brad Hirst, 2456 Minivet Court, stated he is not against adoption of the school.impact fees and is not opposed to a fee on commercial building, however he would like to urge against action tonight on the commercial or- dinance. He felt the matter should be postponed in fairness to the small builders who have not had an opportunity to address this issue. He stated the ordinance will also have an adverse effect on first time home buyers. He recognized there is legislation at the State level regarding this matter and he would prefer to keep it locally. He also felt full City Council should be presented to vote on this item. He expressed concern regarding the way the ordinance affects different levels of housing; there should be more equity in levying the fee. He added it wi31 have a devastating effect on rentals. He asked that Council set a public hearing when all Councilmembers can be present to consider the commercial portion of the school impact fee. Mr. John Van De Roovardt, 4300 Del Valle Parkway, stated that as a small developer he supports the comments of Mr. Hirst. He stated he supports the tax for school fees but is concerned about how it is to be administered. He asked if the Pleasanton Elementary School on First Street would be renovated. Councilmember Mercer stated that consultants were hired by the Residential Developers of the Subcommittee; the results revealed that it would be more costly to renovate Pleasanton Elementary School than to construct a new facility at a different location. He stated that Pleasanton Elementary would be difficult to provide for handicapped access, and the terrain was not ap- propriate for school grounds. Mr. Bill James, School Superintendent, stated the school district is strongly in favor of the proposed ordinance for school impacts fees. He ad- vised he is willing to meet with the commercial builders to discuss the issue. He stated that pending legislation will create difficulties for the school district regarding placing children in schools that will be close to the their parents work, etc. Mr. Jack Hovingh, 4250 Muirwood Drive, stated he supports the proposed school impact fees. He questioned the language in the ordinance regarding senior citizen low or moderate income houseing, stating he thought it should be senior citizen and low or moderate income housing. He felt the fee schedule for number of bedrooms is regressive; he suggested the fees be set by the number of bedrooms. He felt that all fee monies should be used for the benefit of students, not for any school district administration building. - 9 - 7-15-86