RES 93147 - Laserfiche WebLink

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 93-147 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDERAMENDMENTS TO IMPROVEMENTS IN NORTH PLEASANTON IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #1, TO AMEND THE ASSESSMENT ROLL AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS THEREON WHEREAS, on July 16, 1985, City Council adopted Resolution No. 85-351 ordering improvements in and to the North Pleasanton Improvement District #1 (NPID #1); and WHEREAS, in 1992, City Council directed staff to proceed with the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Stoneridge and Chabot Drives with funding to come from NPID #1 funds; and WHEREAS, the resolution ordering the work in this assessment district described the improvement of Stoneridge Drive from Foothill Boulevard to Hopyard Road and from the Arroyo Mocho Canal to Rheem Drive; the Stoneridge/Chabot intersection was not developed under the proceedings of this assessment district, although adjacent land was assessed on account of the benefit derived from other improvements; and assessments were calculated by the Engineer of Work on the basis of the cost of improvements within different benefit zones; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, under which these assessment proceedings were taken, has a provision for "changes," which is defined in California Streets and Highway Code Section 10350 to include additions; Section 10351 authorizes changes in the improvement ordered to be made; and Section 10352 provides that changes shall be made only after notice and hearing, with stated exceptions; and WHEREAS, no hearing is required if the total assessment is not increased, provided that no individual assessment is increased and if an individual assessment is increased, the affected owner must consent in writing; otherwise a hearing must be held; and WHEREAS, the law of special assessments requires that land be assessed on the basis of the special benefit afforded to the land from the improvement being financed and the Engineer of Work cannot certify that this traffic signal, if included originally in the scope of work, would have caused no substantial change in the assessments which were levied.