08/02/1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L In my opinion, each parcel assessed will receive an enhancement in value in excess of the proposed assessment against it. Each parcel of property will receive a special benefit by the ensuring to it of such capacity rights and rights of service and use in order that a modern, efficient and publicly owned and operated sewer system will become available to the properties when required. Dated: August 2, 1971. Tom rngineer The Mayor then stated it was time to read the written protests. Discussion followec as to the necessity of reading all the protests. It was announced that all persons, including Councilmen, wishing the written protests to be read could have them read. If no one wished them read, they would be summarized and all protests considered by the Council. No one wished the protests to be read in their entirety. The City Clerk was asked to report on the protests and endorsements received. The City Clerk reported that �,7 letters of protest, representing 143 assessment numbers had been received. Of these it was noted that 41 of these parcels were owned by Mr. F. W. Saul, Los Altos, and were zero assessments. In addition, 207 post cards had been submitted, but they were addressed to: Residential Property Owners Los Altos Hills Box 583 Los Altos, California 94022 These cards signed by Los Altos Hills citizens residing within the Sewer Assessment District No. 9 referenced their name and address; their S.A.D. #9 assessment number and the assessor's parcel number of their property. The card provided two blocks for checking -- one protested the S.A.D. #9 assessment, and the other urged repeal of Resolution No. 458 (Town Sewer Policy). The City Clerk stated that of the 209 cards received, 180 of them protested their S.A.D. ;=9 assessment, and urged repeal of Resolution No. 458. The remaining 29 cards protested their S. A. D. #9 assess- ment but did not indicate objection to the sewer policy Resolution No. 458. Council discussion evolved around the legality of the 209 signed cards as to whether they were valid protests since they were not actually addressed to the City Council. The City Attorney and Mr. Phil D. Assaf, Attorney of Work, stated that the cards should have been addressed to the City Council and should have stated the basis upon which the protest was made, either to the extent of the district, the method of spreading the assessment or the acouisitions to be made. Since the cards did not so indicate, but protested only Sewer Assessment District No. 9 and/or the Town policy, the attorney indicated that the cards were not actually technically legal protests. However the Council was advised that they could consider them in their deliberation. Speaking from the floor, Mr. Michael DiLeonardc, 400 Sunnyvale Office Center, Sunnyvale, stated that he was an attorney representing a number of property owners opposing this assessment district, and that his clients had advised him that Staff had led them to believe upon informing them of their intent to solicit protests, that the cards would be a legally effect- ive method of so doing. Staff discussion noted that they had advised persons