CCMIN052775 - Laserfiche WebLink

403 3. The building permits should not be issued. until all fees have been paid. 4. Extensions as outlined above be granted to all properties that have paid for sewer connections, but have not obtained building permits. An extension of thirty days to apply for the sewer connection for a triplex be granted to Mr. William Hirst as requested. be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows| AYES: Councilmembers Herlihy, LeClaire, McLain,'Philcox, and Mayor Kinney NOES: None ABSENT: None Mayor Kinney recessed the meeting at 10:35 P.M. Mayor Kinney reconvened the meeting at 10:40 P.M. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Don Savery, 6738 Rancho Court, addressed the City Council regarding the fund- ing of the West Las Positas Overcrossing. He presented a petition, signed by 87 residents, which read as follows: 'We, the undersigned, have become aware of the following facts: The City through negotiations with the developer of the Stone- ridge Shopping Center, which the City feels would be of benefit to the community because of the revenue itwould produce, has agreed to pay for an overcrossing of 1-680 at Stoneridge Drive. Estimated costs would be: Overpass - $1,928,595.00; East StOneridge Drive - $484,249e00; Interest on Bonds - $2,500,000.00; Total - $4,912,854.00. We understand these costs would be paid by the City from the revenue generated by that share of the sales tax ($.0095) from the shopping center which will go to the special fund. There seems to be no disagreement that as far as benefit to the City, the proper place to break the four mile wall (I-680) which divides the City is at West Las Positas, which is why there has been an agreement from May 1971 between the City and the State to buildan interchange there. Everyone would benefit - students going to Foothill High School, children going to the Youth Sports Park, shoppers, delivery people, etc., as well as improved fire and police response. The basic question has been - How do we finance the interchange at West Las Positas? As far as we have been able to determine the City has never asked thru the County that the State build any- thing at West Las Positas and 680. If this is the case, we regard it as incred- ible in view of the safety problem at that location. We understand that a re- quest may go in after the Redevelopment Agency meeting on May 27th. We ask that this request be considered urgent. If, after a proper request the State denies funding for West Las Positas, then we would like consideration for the following: a. For the City to pay for two overcrossings - Stoneridge by sales tax, and West Las Positas by Redevelopment Agency property tax funds - seems like too much of a burden for a City this size, which has other problems; b. We realize the attraction the Stoneridge overpass (later interchange) will have to prospective tenants in the shopping center. But for now wouldn't a West Las Positas cros- sing with a widened Foothill Rd., along with the improved 580 provide suffi- cient access to the shopping center? If later needed based on expansion the Stoneridge Overpass/Interchange could be added, but this City has present pro- blems which should be addressed bef6re we worry about future ones. The same funds which would pay for the proposed Stoneridge overpass could be used to pay for West Las Posita~, using City Bonds rather than assessment district bonds; c. If the West Las Positas overpass/Foothill route cannot in fact handle the traffic, and Stoneridge is in fact an absolute necessity then we want to assure that the Redevelopment Agency maintains the West Las Positas overcrossing as first priority; d. As a last resort a pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing at West Las Positas would reduce the safety hazard there. We feel the City should give priority to existing problems, not future ones, and West Las Positas is the present problem." REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER (Contd.) Report~ Re: Waiver of Water and Sewer Connection Fees for Jerry Aldrich Mr. Campbell presented the staff report dated May 20, 1975, regarding this matter. He stated ~hat due to conflicting paragraphs in the two Water Ordinances he recommended that Mr. Aldrich be refunded the water connection fee. 5. 5/27/75