Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Scheidig explained the legal requirements necessary to establish the <br />Parking District. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brunsell, of Sturgis, Den-Dulk, Douglass and Anderson, presented the <br />procedure to be taken for formation of the District. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mori declared the Public Hearing open. <br /> <br /> Mr. John P. Corley, Attorney representing Wallace H. Mayer, St., and Mary <br />Mayer, owners of the parcel at 374 St. Mary Street, stated his client protested <br />Joining the proposed parking improvement district because of the following: <br /> <br /> 1. Objection to proposed improvements and acquisition -- <br /> No benefit would inure to protestors. Protestors <br /> have at present six (6) parking places for their <br /> exclusive use. In the proposed district protestors <br /> pro rata share would be five (5). <br /> <br /> 2. Objection to proposed assessment -- <br /> Parking obligations are computed in an unequal <br /> manner using a different formula for lands within <br /> the proposed district. Protestors pro rata share <br /> is computed unfairly. <br /> <br /> Mr. Corley requested that the Mayers be excluded from said district, and <br />protested its formation. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mori declared the Public Hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Scheidig advised Council that there were two alternatives available: (1) <br />Proceed to form the district with all property owners with possible legal com- <br />plications if a protesting party sued - with probable loss of the entire district; <br />and (2) Allow the protestor to be removed and face possible "precedent" arguments <br />from future protestors. <br /> <br /> Council discussion ensued regarding the importance of forming the Assessment <br />District for the Parking District at this time, therefore, they were willing to <br />abide by the request of Wallace H Mayer, St., and Mary Mayer to be excluded from <br />the District, even though they felt unanimous participation in the District would <br />have been better. Council also indicated that although excluded, the Mayers, in <br />the future, will point with pride to the existence of the Local Improvement Dis- <br />trict and the benefits stemming from it. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Councilman Kinney, and seconded by Councilwoman LeClaire, that <br />the following resolutions, with modifications excluding Wallace H. Mayer, Sr., and <br />Mary Mayer from the district, be adopted, in connection with Assessment District <br />No. 1974-10, Peters Avenue Parking Local Improvement District, City of Pleasanton, <br />Alameda County, California: <br /> <br /> Resolution No. 74-228 - Overruling Protests. <br /> Resolution No. 74-229 - Amending Agreement with Engineer of Work. <br /> Resolution No. 74-230 - Directing Engineer of Work to File anAmended Engineer's <br /> Report, Including Amended Plans, and Amended Cost Esti- <br /> mate to conform to bids received and changes in the <br /> work. <br /> Resolution No. 74-231 - Resolution and Order approving Amended Engineer's <br /> Report, ordering the improvements and acquisitions <br /> to be made, and confirming assessment. <br /> Resolution No. 74-232 - Authorizing Engineer of Work to make changes in the <br /> Work. <br /> Resolution No. 74-233 - Award of Contract to Gene Caldeira Grading and Paving, <br /> Inc., of Livemore, in the amount of $38,308.05. <br /> <br /> 3. 11/25/74 <br /> <br /> <br />