CCMIN110981 - Laserfiche WebLink

/ Planning Commissioner Wilson stated he felt strongly that all residential pro- perry should be excluded from the assessment district including high density; that any properties that do not have an assessment should not be included within the boundary lines; that small parcels be assessed proportionately; and that the City Council should carefully review the letter from Mr. Brunsell and not obligate the City in any way. He added he felt an assessment district is the only way to go for the necessary improvements in the North Pleasanton area. Planning Commissioner Doherty requested that all property owners in the proposed assessment district be legally noticed and made fully aware of all actions being con- sidered in this area. Mr. Doherty stated he had concerns regarding interest rates and the sale of the bond, as well as sewage capacity. Mayor Mercer asked ifa developer would be assessed for a bike trail that had been required by the-City but the City had accepted the money for improvements of the bike path, anticipating construction to be done at a later time. Mr. Zullo advised that the developer could be credited with this amount. Mayor Mercer asked if police and fire stations could be included in the assessment district. Mr. Zullo stated this is not usually done. Mayor Mercer asked if non-profit hospitals could be exempted from the assessment district. Mr. Zullo stated this could be a decision of the Council; but that the report includes all parcels that would benefit from the improvements of the district. Councilmember Mohr expressed concern regarding the unknown costs that might be incurred by the City. Councilmember Butler also expressed concern about liability of the City for un- anticiphted costs, stating he does not want the City to be obligated. Mr. Robert Brunsell, representing Sturgis, Ness, Brunsell and Sperry, stated it is impossible to predict interest rates now, or five years from now. He reviewed the contents of his letter to Council dated November 9, 1981, relative to the formation of an assessment district proposed for the North Pleasanton area. He stated that the development of North Pleasanton in accordance with the general plan will require the construction of substantial improvements to the existing street system, including additional freeway lanes and freeway interchange improvements. Engineering studies show that these improvements are not needed today, but will be needed to permit further development in the northern area. One way of financing these improvements is to levy special assessments on the undeveloped land, since new development will not be workable without the improvements. Both the City and the North Pleasanton property owners would benefit by some immediate legal and financial assurances. The City, before approving development in the north area, needs to know now that it will have the authority to finance the street improvements as they become necessary. The property owners, before they develop their land, also need to know that the City w~ll have the financial ability to keep the traffic system workable as development occurs. In addition, the property owners need to know their maximum share of the cost, and they are entitled to have this maximum reduced to a certainty within a reasonable time. The proposal for an inclusive North Fleasanton Assessment District is an attempt to meet'these ~eeds, as follows: The property owners in North Pleasanton will petition the City Council to form a special assessment district for the construction of the street and freeway improvements sufficient, according the engineering studies, to accept traffic loads through 1995.' 3. ll/9/Sl