CCMIN112283 - Laserfiche WebLink

285 "The following breakdown of fees would equally divide the cost of improving the downtown area, instead of putting such a heavy burden on the retail license holders: District A: $50.00 District B: $25.00" Ms. Schuren stated she was not opposed to the assessment district but felt it is too much money. She added that not all businesses are in favor of the formation of the district. Ms. Mayhew explained the budget proposed for the improvement district, stating that it has been scaled down as low as possible. She reiterated the advantages of such a district and stated she felt the merchants would benefit far more by a joint effort in the improvements rather than as individual businesses. She cited several stores that have gone out of business and indicated that more would possibly go out of business by the end of next year. She concluded by stating that the Pleasanton. Downtown Association and the Chamber of Commerce are excited about this project and feel it will be a great benefit to improvement of the downtown area. Council discussion ensued regarding the budget. Mr. Walker advised that the budget would have to be approved by the City Council. There being no further testimony, Mayor Butler declared the public hearing closed. The City Attorney advised that Council must rule on majority of protests, and that although the petition only has 31 signatures out of a total of 259 businesses in the district, which probably will not constitute a majority, this matter will have to be precisely checked for total percentage. After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Council- member Mercer, that Ordinance No. 1110, to be read by title only and waiving further reading thereof, establishing the "Downtown Pleasanton Business Improvement District" and providing for the levy of charges, finding no majority protest subject to verifi- cation of "no majority protest" by the City Attorney and Director of Finance, be introduced. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Mercer, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Butler NOES: None ABSENT: None Appeal of C & H Development Company of a decision of the Design Review Board relating to conditions of approval of Case Z-83-212, .a revised sign pro~Fam for the commercial center located at 915 and 925 Main Street. Zoning for the property is C-C (Central Commercial) District Mr. Harris presented his report (SR 83:513) dated November 15, 1983, regarding this matter. Mayor Butler declared the public hearing open. Mr. Brad Hirst, 2456 Minivet Court, representing C & H Development Company, stated this signing is needed to identify the individual tenants as well as the commercial center at this location. He added that with the Del Valle Parkway improvements,and additional traffic, it is important that these businesses be properly identified. No one in the audience spoke in opposition to this item. There being no further testimony, Mayor Butler declared the public hearing closed. 6. 11/22/83