Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br /> ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 94-07 <br /> <br /> RESOLUTION ORDERING AMENDMENTS TO <br /> IMPROVEMENTS IN NORTH PLEASANTON <br /> IMPROVEM~NT DISTRICT #1 AND ANfFNDING THE <br /> ASSESSM'F~NT ROLL <br /> <br />WI~REAS, on/uly 16, 1985, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 85-351 ordering <br /> improvements in and to the North Pleasanton Improvement District #1 (NPID <br /> #1); and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, in 1992, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the construction of a <br /> traffic signal at the intersection of Stoneridge and Chabot Drives with funding to <br /> come from NPID #1 funds; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the resolution ordering the work in this assessment district described the <br /> improvement of Stoneridge Drive from Foothill Boulevard to Hopyard Road and <br /> from the Arroyo Mocho Canal to Rheem Drive; the Stoneridge/Chabot <br /> intersection was not developed under the proceedings of this assessment district, <br /> although adjacent land was assessed on account of the benefit derived from other <br /> improvements; and assessments were calculated by the Engineer of Work on the <br /> basis of the cost of improvements within different benefit zones; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, under which these assessment <br /> proceedings were taken, has a provision for "changes," which is defined in <br /> California Streets and Highways Ced~ Section 10350 to include additions; Section <br /> 10351 authorizes changes in the improvement ordered to be made; and Section <br /> 10352 provides that changes shall be made only after notice and hearing, with <br /> stated exceptions; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, no hearing is required if the total assessment is not increased, provided that no <br /> individual assessment is increased and if an individual assessment is increased, <br /> the affected owner must consent in writing; otherwise a hearing must be held; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the law of special assessments requires that land be assessed on the basis of the <br /> special benefit afforded to the land from the improvement being financed; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Engineer of Work was not able to certify that this traffic signal, if included <br /> originally in the scope of work, would have caused no substantial change in the <br /> assessments which were levied; and <br /> <br /> <br />