CCMIN071685 - Laserfiche WebLink

an agreement with the City that does include participation in this assessment district. He advised that Council can lower the Kaiser assessment if it so desires or can exempt Kaiser altogether; but if they do so there will have to be an adjustment in other assessments. Mr. Jordan stated he agrees that Council has discretion to make determina- ~' tion on any exemptions but feels that Kaiser should be treated no differently ~ than Valley Memorial Hospital. He stated that Kaiser signed the development ~ agreement under duress and that this fact was noted at the time of signature. ~ He advised that it was necessary to sign the agreement in order to get build- .. ing and sewer permits. He stated that circumstances have changed since Kaiser signed the agreement and he did not feel that consideration of the agreement is the same. As to the matter of the Valley Memorial Hospital contribution of 2-1/2 acres, he did not know whether Kaiser has contributed anything but would like to check into that to see if it is appropriate to be exempt. The allega- tion that Kaiser treats only members is not true; they'treat anyone who comes into emergency as does any other hospital. As to the regional draw issue, he stated he is not sure why this is an issue as Kaiser serves 35% of Pleasanton residents. He stated it is his strong feeling that Kaiser is no different than Valley Memorial and that there are changed circumstances relative to the development agreement. Mayor Mercer asked who would pay the assessment if Council lowered the Kaiser assessment or eliminated it altogether. Mr. Sam Zullo, Project Engineer, stated that Kaiser Foundation Health is in Zone 1 which is the Stoneridge Mall area, and that other property owners in this Zone would have to make up the difference if the Kai:~r assessent is ex- empted. He advised that the Taubman Company is the major property owner in Zone 1. He stated the assessments are based on benefit to the property owners and it is his opinion that Kaiser woulc: benefit from these improvements. He advised the Kaiser assessment is $227,~',0.00. He concluded by stating that authough only the roadway improvements are being considered at this hearing, if the assessment is forgiven at this time it will also have to be a matter of consideration when the freeway improvements are considered in November. Mr. Leo Heckathorn, 4202 Stanley Boulevard, stated he was his understand- ing that Mr. Kaiser, of Kaiser Sand and Gravel, donated the land for the Val- ley Memorial Hospital in Livermore and he did not know why it could be sold. Mayor Mercer advised him that Valley Memorial Hospital intends to continue its operation in Livermore even if they build a hospital in Pleasanton. Mr. Tom Terrill, representing Reynolds and Brown, stated that significant rule changes have occurred in the last four years. He stated he supports the assessment district but opposes-the increased costs due to rule changes. It relates primarily to the fact that projects in North Pleasanton received con- ditions of approval and entered into agreements regardings street dedications, etc., recognizing that the assessment district is the financial mechanism by which to spread costs through the general zone. He stated his area of concern is the scope of work and the unit costs. He advised that Reynolds and Brown was required to dedicate street right-of-way within the original development agreement and conditions of approval. Due to timing the Assessment District was forced to acquire property that could not wait to be dedicated. He felt if the Assessment District paid for one dedication then it should pay for all, otherwise it defeats the purpose of those who dedicated for street widening at -8- 7-16-85