08/02/1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It was explained that certain properties included within the assessment district were assessed zero because they were included in other assessment districts for capacity chargee, and were found to benefit in those districts. They had been included only for convenience. In addition, certain properties had connected to the Gardner Bullis School line and had paid capacity charges to the City of Los Altos, or had connected to that line prior to the imposition of capacity,rights charges by the City of Los Altos. Letters endorsing the formation of the District were read from Mr. William Ross Aiken, 10410 Magdalena Ave., Mrs. Marie B. George, 12881 Viacaino Place and Mr./Mrs Gary B. and Vicki Jones, 12600 Page Mill Road. Certain protests were not identifi ble and the properties could not be located. It was explained that the protests to be valid must contain some way of identifying the property proposed to be assessed. The Mayor then stated that those wishing to be heard orally would now be heard. Mr. Jerome Long, Jr., 14146 Amherst Court asked that the boundaries of the proposed district be defined. The Town Engineer then outlined the boundaries of the District and referred to the boundary map posted on the wall, and on file in the office of the Clerk and of record in the office of the County Recorder. He stated he was opposed to the District on the ground the District was being formed to fulfill the Contract with Palo Alto which was an obligation of the Town as a whole and the Town as a whole should pay for it. It was pointed out that the Contract was a Town Contract but that its purpose was to provide capacity for those properties within the Palo Alto basin and not for the entire Town. Those properties in the Los Altos Basin were covered by contract with the City of Los Altos and that both contracts were limited to specific areas of the Town benefiting from each contract. Mr. Michael DiLeonardo, attorney, representing several property owners, stated that the contract with Palo Alto was a Tom contract; that the Municipal Improve- ment Act of 1913 and the Improvement Boll Act of 1915 did not mention sewers; that there are sewer acts in the Government Code authorizing sewers, that there has been no study as to what sewers will cost, when property will be developed, what total system will cost, etc., and the lack of such a study has created confusion. With no such study, the Council is dealing with generalities. This project is an easy way to fulfill the contract with Palo Alto. No one can tell when sewers will be available. This is the wrong solution. It was stated by Counsel Assaf in reply that the Contract with Palo Alto was not in issue. The only thing in issue at this hearing and the only legal basis upon which an assessment can be levied is on the basis of the benefit to be derived by the properties to be assessed. The question is: Does the acquisition of the rights proposed in this project and the guarantee of capacity to those properties to be assessed when and if they desire sewers or need them benefit these properties? This is the only question at issue before the Council. Counsel Assaf then stated that the Acts mentioned by Mr. DiLeonardo did authorize the project, that, as previously reported by the Engineer, the assessment vias spread on the basis of approved tentative maps and slope density ordinances and other ordinances of the Town in determining the number of building sites for each parcel under present ordinances of the Town. ( Mr. R. E. Morton, Jr., 12570 Roble ladera Road, asked to be heard. He referred V to Resolution No. 458 and stated that if there is a majority protest the project should be abandoned. The project is not for the construction of sewers.