08/02/1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. R. C. Hall, 12140 Foothill Lane, stated that he was opposed to the project. If there was no capacity available, no high density development could take place. Let us refuse to pay Palo Alto and let them sue the Town. Mrs. Irma Goldsmith, 27330 Elena Road, stated there is no benefit and that the only reason for the project is to pay Palo Alto. Those expressing endorsement of the assessment district included Mr. R. C. Cheney; 10737 Magdalena Avenue and Mr. D. K. Harryman, 26987 Elena Road. Comments were also heard from Mrs. Kathy Woempner, 27690 Briones Court, who expressed her willingness to pay her fair share of the debt to Palo Alto, but she objected to being told that she was paying to receive benefit. The Mayor asked if anyone further wished to be heard. No one further wished to be heard. Counsel Assaf then informed the Mayor that if no one wished to be heard and the Council was satisfied that it had all of the information upon which it could reasonably base its decision, the hearing could be closed. If the Council wished additional information it could keep the hearing open and go ahead with the Council's discussion, continue the hearing or take whatever other action it desired. If the hearing is closed, it would not be able to hear others or receive additional in- formation. He recommended that the hearing be kept open and that the Council pro- ceed with the discussion. There being no further comments from the floor, Mayor Benson requested that the Town Engineer report on the percentage of protests received. Mr. Crabtree noted that there are 1631 acres in the proposed S.A.D. #9. Of these 486 acres or 29.806 protested by letter; the 209 cards represented 392 acres or 24.020; thus the percent age of protest within the District (which excluded those already in S.A.D. #3 or i/5) was 53.82,% (29.80 + 24.02) or a majority protest. Councilman Grabowski remarked that of the written protests some 28 to 30 reasons for protest were other than protesting against the District or repeal of the policy resolution; 43 of the letters were not bonafide protests against the district but protested on the ground they were satisfied with septic tanks, didn't want sewers, intended to place their property under the Williamson Act, don't want to spend the money or don't have it or want to pull out of the Tri-City Plant. Counsel Assaf explained that the reported majority protest percentage did not go into the reasons for the individual protests or their technical validity but were all counted as protests as were the Dent cards nreviouslv discussed. Councilman Davey explained that the Tri-City Plant was a Town obligation. Counsel Faisant stated that this was true because the Town signed the contract but that this was a generalization. The contracts with Palo Alto and Los Altos were different in that the Palo Alto contract guaranteed capacity to the Palo Alto Basin properties, whereas the Los Altos contract guaranteed capacity to the Los Altos Basin properties and each contract covered a different part of the Tom. 4W -11-