CC Min 1985-04-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 1 (continued) Phil Assaf, Bond Counsel, Wilson, Morton, Assaf & McElligott, San Mateo, confirmed Mr. Smith's statements, noting that the assessment spread is based on the estimated landscaping costs. Peter Bohley, Engineer of Work, Brian - Kangas -Foulk & Associates, presented the method of spreading assessments. Mr. Bohley also described the meetings conducted with property owners regarding assessment for landscaping costs, noting that there was redistribution based on perceived benefits with Lincoln Property and Portside agreeing to take increases and that there was consensus among property owners as to the figures presented in the final Engineer's Report proposed for adoption this evening. Mr. Bohley said that the method of assessment in relation to benefit was determined by the distance from the center of the property owner's business to the landscaped boulevard, noting there is a minimum amount based on basic ownership. Discussion followed and Mr. Bohley and Mr. Assaf replied to questions and commented concerning questions relating to the landscaping assessments and means of requiring property owners in the area who are not assessees now to contribute to the cost of the landscaping which benefits them at a later date when their properties may be developed. Mr. Bohley reported two written protests were received: 1. from Richard E. Gardella on behalf of John H. and Mary Lyngso (Assessment Parcel 5), owners of 2.75% of the district property 2. Stanley Ziganti, Secretary- Treasurer, Peninsula Building Materials Co. (Assessment Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4) owners of 10.01% of the district property Mr. Bohley observed that the combined protests represent only 12.76% of the property in the District, significantly less than 50 %. William Brodie, attorney, 2500 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, representing Peninsula Building Materials Co., said that he understands his client would be assessed for 25% of the landscaping cost and believes that is inequitable. Mr. Smith and Mr. Assaf noted that Mr. Brodie was referring to the figures in the preliminary Engineer's Report rather than the current one proposed to be adopted. They also reported that his client was present at the time there was consensus among property owners in agreeing to the current figures which greatly reduce the proposed assessment for landscaping. In response to question of Mr. Brodie regarding possible encroachment of the landscaping on his client's property, Mr. Bohley and Mr. Assaf pointed out that his client had orally agreed to the landscaping concept, but that if he had now changed his mind, the landscaping can be redesigned or other arrangements made. Mr. Assaf reminded Council that the matter before them is only on widening and reconstructing Seaport Boulevard, that changes and modifications with regard to landscaping are to be considered later, and noting the two were combined in order to save money by avoiding use of second lien bonds for landscaping. Reg. Mtg. 4/8/85 Page 3 MINUTE BOOK NO. 45 Page No. 327