CCMIN021081 - Laserfiche WebLink

significant off-site public improvements that must be completed to get these developments started. He stated that all four developers are in a position to make a commitment to do the improvements set forth in the North Pleasanton Traffic Study through an assessment district, and added he felt there was no reason to delay Reynolds and Brown's project, and that it would be beneficial to have them establish a market in this area. Mr. Callahan stated that one assessment district could include the gross acreage of the four projects and be pro-rated among the developers according to traffic volume. Mr. Edward S. Levine, Industrial Development Engineer for Southern Pacific Indus- trial Development Company, One Market Plaza, San Francisco, owners of approximately 290 acres of undeveloped industrial property Just south of 1-580 between Hopyard and Santa Rita Roads, stated this firm has reviewed the North Pleasanton Traffic Study and noted the serious traffic problems projected for this area when all developments are completed. He stated he had concerns about how and when improvements will be provided, how the costs will be allocated, and freeway congestion problems that might cause downzoning or rezoning some of the industrial properties. He stated that Condition #8 in the staff report for Reynolds and Brown is a good first step; that by conditional approval on participation in an assessment district the City is protecting its future financing options, however, the Condition is not clear on the responsibility of new owners in the event of property transfer. Mr. Levine stated that Southern Pacific Industrial Development Company feels that the requirement of assessment district participation should run with the property, and that the approval conditions should clearly reflect this. He added that while assessment district financing is probably the most equitable and familiar approach, some other form of developer participation may prove to be more practical and in any case the basic allocation principle should be that improvement costs are spread proportionate to project traffic generation. He stated that similarly, if the projected 1-580 con- gestion problem requires downzoning or rezoning of industrial properties, then all undeveloped properties should be equally affected. Mr. Levine concluded by stating that there are obviously a number of inter-related planning, engineering, and financ- ing issues involved in dealing with North Pleasanton's long-term traffic problems and that Southern Pacific will work with the City and other developers towards their satisfactory resolution. The following persons spoke in opposition to the project: Mr. Paul Ebright, 5416 Blackbird Drive, stated he did not feel Pleasanton needs this kind of development and that the proposed projects are increasing in number than first proposed. Mrs. Susan McKee, 4693 Denker Drive, stated that now the City is being confronted with vast amounts of acreage for industrial development and the citizens have not been kept informed of these actions or to express their feelings on this issue. She stated she favored an assessment district so that the homeowners would not be taxed for the public improvements involved in these projects. She concluded by stating she felt the people of Pleasanton should be advised of what is being planned in Pleasanton. Mr. Brown rebutted the opponents by stating that industrial development in Pleasan- ton will bring Jobs closer to people, and will reduce energy and pollution problems. He stated this acreage had previously be approved for development by Flying J, that the proposed project is a relatively minor portion, and is a straight-forward proposal for an office industrial park. He stated this is a low density development with 33% coverage. Mr. Brown advised that he has the sewer permits for this project, that they expire in December, and he does not want the development to be delayed because of further study. 9. 2/10/81