|
` Mr/Mrs. B. Hrubesch, 27644 Natoma Rd., #1016; Mr. E. K. Dole, 27197 Black Mt. Rd.,
<br />#958; Ms. Bettie Adams, 12375 Melody La., 41989; Mr./Mrs. F,, C. Cooley, 27261
<br />Elena Ave., #978; Mr/Mrs. R. Butera, 27446 Black Mtn. Rd. #974; Mr/Mrs. G. E.
<br />Austin, 27600 Edgerton Rd., #964; Ms. B. M. Dreesen, 27447 Edgerton Rd. #981;
<br />Mr. J. S, MacKay, 13030 Cumbra Vista Ct., #898; Mr. T. P. O'Donnell, Attorney for
<br />Monastery of Poor Clares, Natoma Rd., #858, 997, 996, 994; Ms. Kathleen K. Collins,
<br />28135 Natoma Rd. #872; Ms. J. Stiles, 26012 West Fremont, #746; Mr. N. W. George,
<br />Mgr., Fremont Hills Country Club, Viscaino Place, #654; Mr/Mra• Leland Lewis,
<br />12723 Canario Way, #623, 626; Ms. M. Boardsnes, 26041 Fremont Rd. #517; Archie
<br />Dellamaggiere, at al adress unknown, #595; Mr H. E. Brownback, 26656 Parissima Rd.
<br />#1142; Mr. R. E. Lee, 26430 Purissima Ave. #1153; Ms. Jayne E. Tabor, 26640
<br />Purissima Rd., #1148; Mr. G. 0, Argall, 14371 Manuplla Rd. #237; Mr/Mrs. John M.
<br />Lenzen, 13810 Campo Vista Ia. #749; Mr/Mrs. H. Broekhoff, 14545 Manuella Ave.,
<br />#235; Me. L. C. Bogle, 2000 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, #38; Mr/Mrs. J. B. Chown
<br />13822 Page Mill Rd., 938; Mr. W. Brelo, 13820 Page Mill Rd., #573, 582;
<br />Mr. C. A. Bittmann, 14350 Manuella Ave. #518; Ms. E. Andriano, 27580 Arastradero
<br />Rd. #109, 376; Mr./Mrs. B. Upton, 26431 Elena Rd., #7120; Mr. H. C. Faber,
<br />2254 Williams St. Palo Alto, //840; Mr. L. Tyler, 20710 Carmel Ave., Saratoga,
<br />Ca. #808; Mr/Mrs. D. J. Avila, 27881 Elena Rd. #616; MrlMrs. R. Kane, 27700 Lupine
<br />Road, #597; Mr/Mrs. K. Young, 14470 Manuella Rd., 11338; Mr. Frank W. Saul
<br />P.O. Box 871, Los Altos, #60, 78, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 29, 68, 67, 836, 53,
<br />83, 86, 90, 91, 95, 96, 824, 825, 826, 83o, 831, 832.
<br />4W
<br />The above letters objected to the S. A. D. #9 assessment for one or more of the
<br />following reasons:
<br />1. Their septic tank was adequate and they neither desired sewers nor the
<br />capacity guarantee for which they were assessed.
<br />2. They were receiving no benefit, in that the capacity assessment did not
<br />guarantee sewer trunks to which they could connect and receive benefit.
<br />3. They wished Resolution No. 458 to be rescinded and sewers also provided.
<br />4. They did not intend to develop their acreage, but for economic reasons,
<br />their assessment would require them to do so and thus retention of "open
<br />space" was discouraged.
<br />5. Find another solution to the financial dilemma.
<br />6. They were assessed for more sites than would be allowed under current
<br />zoning and subdivision ordinances.
<br />7. No specific reason other than they protested the assessment.
<br />8. No construction of sewers.
<br />9. The property was already connected.
<br />-8-
<br />
|