HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-04-1997 CITY COUNCIL staff reportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM: V
MEETING DATE: JUNE 4, 1997 CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEF T. HEAD:
SUBJECT: Modifications to agreements with Hakone Foundation
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to approve the amended Management and Operations Agreement
between the City and the Hakone Foundation and authorize the Mayor to
sign the agreement.
2. Move to approve the fifth amendment to the Hakone Foundation Trust
Agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.
Report Summary:
Attached for Council's approval are the two agreements between the City
and the Hakone Foundation reviewed by the Council at the May 27
adjourned regular meeting. The agreements amend and consolidate the
existing agreements between the two bodies and are geared towards the
Foundation assuming full control for management and operations of the
Gardens on July 1. No changes have been made to the versions you
reviewed on May 27. As the consensus of all parties is to proceed with
this arrangement, it is recommended that the Council approve both
agreements at this time.
Fiscal Impacts:
Under the proposed arrangement, General Fund expenditures appropriated
for the maintenance and operation of Hakone Gardens, currently
approximately $140,000 per year, will be eliminated. During the 7 year
term of the agreement, the City will amortize the principal and interest
on loans outstanding to the City in the amount of $277,660.85 as of June
30, 1997.
Advertising, Noticing and Public contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The agreements would not be approved. The current arrangement between
the City and the Foundation would continue.
Follow Up Actions:
The Agreements will be signed, and staff will work with the Foundation
to coordinate the transition of maintenance and operation of the Gardens
from City responsibility to Foundation responsibility during the next
month.
Attachments:
1. Management and Operations Agreement with Exhibits.
2. Fifth amendment to trust Agreement.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
MEETING DATE: JUNE 4, 1997
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MGR:
DEPIT. HEAD: ( )f d;LW 1.
SUBJECT: Declaration of surplus property and authorization to
dispose of same
Recommended Motion(s):
Move to declare Vehicles 44 and 78 as surplus property and authorize
their disposal through auction.
Report Summary:
The attached memo from the Street Maintenance Superintendent recommends
declaring two of the vehicles in the City's fleet as surplus property
and disposing of them through the City's auction service, First Capitol
Auction Co.. Municipal Code Section 2- 45.170 prescribes that the City
Council must first authorize the disposition of any property having a
value of more than $500. As both vehicles have been appraised at more
than this amount, it is recommended that the Council declare the
vehicles to be surplus and authorize their sale at auction.
Fiscal Impacts•
Based on the appraised value of the two vehicles, the City can expect to
receive $7,000 from the auction company upon the sale of both.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
Nothing additional.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
The vehicles will not be declared as surplus property and will remain in
the City's possession.
Follow Up Actions:
Title to the vehicles will be assigned t
vehicles will most likely be sold withi n
should receive payment within ten days
Attachments:
o First Capitol Auction Co. The
the next six weeks and the City
thereafter.
1. Memo from Street Maintenance Superintendent dated May 27.
2. Muni. Code Section 2- 45.170.
DATE: MAY 27,1997
TO: LARRY PERLIN
FROM: GARY ENRIQUE
SUBJECT: DECLARATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AND
AUTHORIZATION TO DISPOSE OF SAME
ACTION REQUESTED: Declare vehicle #78 - A 1991 Ford F -350 1 ton
leaf body dump truck and equipment #44 - A 1982 Tennent Motor
Sweeper, as surplus property and authorize their disposal through
Public Auction.
BACKGROUND: 1. Vehicle #78 - A 1992 Ford F -350 1 ton leaf body
dump truck assigned to the Parks Department, was replaced in FY
95/96. 2. Equipment #44 - A 1982 Tennent Motor Sweeper originally
purchased for follow -up during the chip seal program and used to
respond in the removal of absorbents at large Haz -Mat spills. Due
to age and high maintenance costs of the machine and the ability to
have large areas swept under contract.
First Capitol Auction Company was contacted for an appraisal of the
equipment, they are as follows
1. Vehicle #78 estimated auction return of $4,500.00
2. Equipment #44 estimated auction return of $2,500.00
I am recommending vehicle #78 and Equipment #44 be deemed surplus
and request authorization to dispose of the same at public auction
June 12, 1997.
� 9
2- 45.130
of bid opening until the contract has been awarded by
the City Council.
(d) Rejection of bids. If, in the opinion of the City
Council, none of the bids is satisfactory, the Council may
reject all bids and either purchase the supplies or services
in the open market or readvertise for new bids.._
(e) Award of contract. Except as otherwise provided
herein, a contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsi-
ble bidder, taking into consideration the criteria listed
in Section 2- 45.090 of this Article.
(f) Tie bids. If two or more bids received are for the
same total amount or unit price, quality and service being
equal, and if a delay for readvertisement would not be
in the - public interest, the City Council may accept the
bid it c>iooses or accept the lowest bid made by negotiation
with the tie bidders at the time of the bid opening.
(g) Performance bond. The City Council may require
that a performance bond be furnished before entering into
a contract with a successful bidder. The form and amount
of such bond shall be satisfactory to the Purchasing Officer
and in compliance with the contract specifications.
(h) Waiver of irregularities. The City Council may
waive any minor irregularities in the bids, based upon
a determination that the same have no material impact
upon the bidding process or other bids submitted.
(i) No bids. If no bids are received in response to
the notice inviting bids, the City Council may proceed
to purchase the supplies or services without further com-
petitive bidding.
2- 45.140 Request for proposals.
(a) -Tie City Council may utilize the request for
proposatmethod of purchasing supplies or services upon
a determination that competitive bidding is not practical
or advantageous to the City because:
(1) Quality, capability, performance or qualification
is overriding in relation to price; or
(2) Delivery, installation, service, maintenance, reliabil-
ity or replacement is overriding in relation to price; or
(3) In the opinion of the City Council, the marketplace
will respond better to a solicitation permitting a range
of alternative proposals or evaluation and discussion of
proposals before entering the contract.
(b) Proposals shall be solicited in such manner as
directed or approved by the City Council. The identity
of persons responding to the request for proposals and
the content of proposals submitted to the City may be
kept confidential during the process of negotiation and
until a contract is awarded.
(c) The request for proposals shall state evaluation
factors. Discussions may be conducted with responsible
offerors and revisions to proposals, based upon such dis-
cussions, may be accepted.
(d) The contract award shall be based upon the propos-
al determined by the City Council to be most advantageous
to the City, taking into consideration price and the evalu-
ation factors set forth in the request for proposals.
(e) The City Council may reject any and all proposals
if such rejection is deemed to be in the best interests of
the City. The Council may thereupon direct that proposals
be solicited or utilize any other purchasing method set
forth in this Article.
2- 45.150 Inspection and testing.
The Purchasing Officer shall inspect, or cause to be
— inspected, all deliveries of supplies or services to deter-
mine their conformance to specifications set forth in the
purchase order or contract. The Purchasing Officer shall
have the authority to require any tests necessary to deter-
mine quality and conformance with specifications.
26
2- 45.160 Joint purchase with other agencies.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article,
the Purchasing Officer may issue a joint purchase order
together with any other city, county, or public agency
in the State for the purchase of supplies or services,
provided the specifications for such supplies or services
have been approved by the Purchasing Officer if the cost
thereof is less than Fifteen Thousand Dollars, or by the
City Council if the cost thereof is Fifteen Thousand
Dollars or more, and provided further that at least one
of the other agencies has solicited or advertised for bids
- in a manner similar to the applicable procedures set forth
in this Article.
2- 45.170 Disposal of personal property.
The Purchasing Officer shall have authority to dispose
of personal property of the City which cannot be used
by any department or has become obsolete or worn out.
The disposition may be accomplished by negotiated sale,
public auction, exchange or trade in for other supplies
or, upon a determination by the Purchasing Officer that
the property has no commercial value, by abandonment,
destruction or donation to a public body or a nonprofit
charitable or civic organization. The disposition of any
property having a value of Five Hundred Dollars or more
shall fast be authorized by the City Council.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. G' d v U AGENDA ITEM✓'
MEETING DATE: June 4, 1997 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. City Clerk
SUBJECT: Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Public Nuisance by
Removal of Hazardous Weeds and Brush
Recommended Motion:
Adopt resolution ordering abatement.
Report Summary:
The attached resolution represents the second step in the weed and
brush abatement process for this season. The County has sent the
owners of the parcels requiring weed and brush abatement notices
informing them that the weeds and brush must be abated, either by
the owners or by the County. The notice also informed them that
they may present objections at tonight's public hearing.
Fiscal Impacts:
None to City. County recovers costs from administrative portion of
fee charged.
Attachments:
Resolution.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.: J
MEETING DATE: June 4, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: V
ORIGINATING DEPAR NT: Co munity Development
CITY MANAGER: /� DEPARTMENT HEAD: •
SUBJECT: AR -97 -001; Kazemzadeh, 18501 Montpere Way
Appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval to construct a 1,484
sq. ft., 13 ft. tall, one -story addition off the back of an existing
1,756 sq. ft. single story residence.
Recommended Motion
Uphold the Administrative Design Review approval, and the Planning
Commission's initial appeal decision, and deny this second appeal
request. Staff would then prepare a Resolution reflecting the City
Council's action for the next available Council meeting.
Report
Background:
The applicant, Shahrokh Kazemzadeh, submitted an administrative
application in January 1997 to build a one -story addition off the back
of his existing single story home. Pursuant to Article 15 -45 of the
Zoning Ordinance, the proposed addition was considered minor enough that
it did not require a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Administrative notices were mailed by staff to adjoining property owners
and Planning Commissioners acknowledging that the plans hade been
received by the Community Development Department and that a Zoning
Clearance would be issued within ten days. Based on the plans meeting
all minimum zoning standards and the fact that the one -story addition
was set a reasonable distance away from the Wildcat /Vasona Creek bank
and should be relatively unobtrusive to the neighbors, staff was
prepared to approve the Zoning Clearance.
Cheriel Jensen, at 13737 Quito Road, received a notice of the addition
and requested an appeal hearing before the Planning Commission pursuant
to Article 15 -90 of the Zoning Ordinance. Her home is located across
the Wildcat /Vasona Creek from the Kazemzadehs' property. The
Commissioners visited the property and reviewed the plans and heard Mrs.
Jensen's appeal at the May 14, 1997 adjourned meeting. Upon finding
that her concerns had no direct relationship to what was being proposed,
the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the appeal. Mrs.
Jensen is now appealing this decision to the City Council.
Kazemzadeh Appeal, 18501 Montpere Way
Page Two
Bases of Appeal:
Mrs. Jensen's letter to the Planning Commission outlined the bases of
her appeal. Her letter to the City Council has been slightly modified.
Procedurally, appellants are supposed to, and are asked to, submit the
same materials to the City Council as they do to the Planning Commission
- however, since the two letters are very similar staff has attached
them both. The following is in response to her appeal issues as they
are numbered in her letter presented to the Planning Commission. Staff
will be prepared to respond at the meeting to any additional issues
raised:
1. The proposed addition is not governed by Saratoga's General Plan
density requirements; it is an existing single family residential
lot and will remain so. The single story addition meets Zoning
Ordinance requirements in terms of allowable floor area, lot
coverage and building height and minimum setbacks.
2. The addition is located a reasonable distance from the
Wildcat /Vasona Creek bank. Staff has visited the property and the
distances between the creek bank and existing and proposed
improvements appear to be accurate.
3. Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance requires a 25 ft. rear yard setback in
this zoning district, which is measured from the back property
line. There is no City ordinance that requires specific setbacks
from creek banks, nor has there been in the past. On more recent
subdivisions the Planning Commission has required open
space /riparian habitat easements to be recorded to prohibit
development near creeks.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District was also consulted on this
proposal and their attached requirements would become conditions of
approval. Mrs. Jensen's comment that she was required to set her
home back 25 ft. from the creek bank when her house was approved in
1973 may have been the result of the base flood elevation on her
property. The City's file for her proposed home does not include
a specific 25 ft. creek bank setback condition.
4. Mr. Kazemzadeh's home was built in 1954, prior to the City's
incorporation. Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1961 and
did not initially require setbacks for accessory structures located
in rear yards. It is difficult to know when this "potting shed"
was built and what type of accessory structure rules were in place
at that particular time. Concerns regarding this visibly older
structure should have been reported to the City when it was built.
However, this is a discretionary permit request and the Planning
Commission could condition its approval on the removal of the
structure - though the benefit of removing it is not clear.
Kazemzadeh Appeal, 18501 Montpere Way
Page Three
Accessory structures less than 120 sq. ft. do not require building
permits - the "potting shed" is approximately 99 sq. ft. Mr.
Kazemzadeh's pool was built with permits in 1973.
The proposed 13 ft. tall addition meets all Zoning Ordinance
requirements and should be relatively unobtrusive to the adjoining
neighbors. The applicant has agreed to move the addition further from
the creek bank as a condition of approval. This was requested primarily
to keep construction activities and materials away from the creek. The
plans have also been reviewed the SCVWD and they have not raised any
objections to the proposal. Staff is therefore recommending that the
appeal be denied and that the addition be conditionally approved.
Public Notice
Pursuant to Article 15 -90 of the Zoning Ordinance, no additional public
notice is required for an administrative approval application.
Fiscal Impacts
None.
Follow -up Actions
Staff will prepare a Resolution reflecting the City Council's action for
the next available Council meeting.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion
If the City Council grants the appeal, the applicant would not be
permitted to build the one -story addition to their home as proposed.
Attachments:
1. Appeal correspondence
2. Planning Commission action minutes dated May 14, 1997
3. Plans, Exhibit "A"
james \memo.cc \cheriel
Appeal Correspondence
Cheriel Jensen
13737 uito Road, (Saratoga. California 95070 APR 111997
408 379 -0463 PLANNING DEPT.
April 11, 1997
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Dear Commissioners,
I am the neighbor who lives directly across Wildcat/Vasona Creek from the expansion
proposed at 18501 Montpere Way, assessor's property number APN: 389 -26 -030, which
the Planning Director has approved with slight modification.
I hereby appeal the issuance of a building permit. I object to the proposal for the following
reasons:
1. The proposal does not conform to the character of this low density neighborhood as
required by the general plan. The house proposed is far larger than the houses in the
neighborhood. The ground coverage is greater than the coverage in the neighborhood.
2. The house does not conform to the need to keep the creek area natural as required
by the general plan. It infringes close upon the banks of the creek. The plot plan
misrepresents the relationship of the proposed addition to the creek. Wildcat/Vasona Creek
itself, on the north boundary, is not even shown on or mentioned on the plans.
3. When I built my home, I was required as a condition, by both the City of Saratoga
and the water district, to set back from the top bank (the first drop off) of the creek 25 feet.
The proposed addition would be constructed at the roll of the top bank. The Planning
Director has required it be set back two feet from the initial proposal. This is not enough.
It will disturb the fragile bank of the creek and very soon require a construction project to
shore up the bank and public funds to pay for it. This infringment is most unwise and will
very greatly disturb the environment of the creek setting. It will cause an on -going and
expensive problem. A visit to the site will show the slump of the earth begins at the pool,
not at a point closer to the waterway as the plot plan implies. It will also show that the
slope of the site at the pool edge is too steep and friable to maintain. It rolls into the creek
itself (and is unmaintained). The pool protrudes well above the land surface on the north
side as the slope of the bank rolls into the creek.
4. The building labeled "potting shed" is not a potting shed but an enclosed building
that was built down the rolling slope of the bank and on the side property line with no
permits. Nor would a permit have been issued in this location. It should be removed if
there is to be construction of any kind of the site. The pool was also apparently built
without permits. If there is to be no enforcement of the city's ordinances then why should
we as citizens hire planning staff and why should dedicated volunteers bother to sit as a
planning commission. Illegal structures should be removed before additional construction
•
•
is entertained, or should be made legal through a proper process before additional
construction is entertained.
Land from the top roll of the bank is a wetland area. Very slight disturbance of this bank,
at the north east top bank, recently caused a huge old oak to collapse and crush the
neighboring house. The neighboring house had to be rebuilt. There remains another large
oak in the very creek bank area the structure will impact. The plans submitted fail to show
this large oak and fail to show the other trees in the area. The director cannot assess impact
of the construction on the trees when the plans fail to show the trees. The potential loss of
this other large oak from the inappropriate construction proposed would be a major loss to
the creek environment.
The only reason the site is not prone to flooding is that I have let the creek carve deeply into
my own property. It is unfair to allow new owners on the other side to encroach into the
wetland area.
I urge you to deny this proposal and require setback of at least 25 feet from the top roll of
the bank. I also urge you to limit the addition in conformity to the neighborhood.
I do not object to some addition to the house, only that it be in keeping with the character
with the neighborhood, and with care for the fragile creek and the low density
neighborhood environment. The lots are small in the neighborhood. The houses were
very carefully placed by thoughtful architects so there is truly useful open space without
wasting significant side yard space. This proposal would alter this carefully worked out
pattern that has been honored in the neighborhood for thirty five years. If the new owners
desire more house than the lot comfortably accommodates, they should seek a larger lot and
home rather than trying to alter the lower intensity character of the neighborhood and
impacting the creek.
Yours truly
Cheriel Jensen
Encl. (appeal fees)
CC: City Council
2
Cheriel Jensen
0737 uito Road, Saratoga, California 95070
408 379 -0463
MAY 15 1997
May 15, 1997 PLAiv1VjtO
City of Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruitvale Avenue a .
Saratoga, California 95070
RE: Proposed expansion is over 100% increase in interior floor area.
Existing house at 18501 Montpere Way, Kazemzadeh Residence
Assessor's property number APN: 389 -26 -030,
Planning Commission approved at "study session" May 14, 1997.
Dear City Council,
I hereby appeal the issuance of a building permit for expansion, in an old established
neighborhood, of floor area more than doubling lot coverage by house proper and located
too close to the top bank of the creek. I appeal the proposal for the following reasons:
1. The proposal does not conform to the character of this low density neighborhood as
required by the general plan. The interior of the house proposed is more than double the
interior area of the houses in the neighborhood. Land coverage by house proper would be
double the coverage in the neighborhood.
If every house in established neighborhoods such as this were increased by this much, the
character of the city would be radically altered.
In the immediate area of the neighborhood, across the creek from my home, the character
would be radically altered.
The lots are small in the neighborhood, among the smallest single family neighborhoods in
the city. The houses were very carefully placed by thoughtful architects so there is little
wasting of side yard space. This proposal would alter this carefully worked out pattern that
has been honored in the neighborhood for forty plus years.
2. The house does not conform to the need to keep the creek area natural as required
by the general plan. It infringes too close upon the banks of the creek. The plot plan
misrepresents the relationship of the proposed addition to the creek. Wildcat/Vasona Creek
itself, on the north boundary, is not even shown on or mentioned on the plans.
3. When I built my home, I was required as a condition, by both the City of Saratoga
and the water district, to set back from the top bank (the first drop off) of the creek 25 feet.
The proposed addition would be constructed close to where the top bank begins to fall.
Recognizing this disturbance, the Planning Director has required it be set back two feet
from the initial proposal. This is not enough. It will disturb the fragile bank of the creek
and could soon require a construction project to shore up the bank and public funds to pay
for it. This infringement is most unwise and will very greatly disturb the environment of
the creek setting. It will cause an on -going and expensive problem. The role -down of the
bank begins at the pool and at the north side of the pool the bank drop -off is well
underway, not at a point closer to the straight drop off as would be inferred by the plot
plan. The slope of the site at the pool edge is too steep and friable to maintain (and is
unmaintained).
4. The building labeled "potting shed" is not a potting shed but an enclosed building
that was built down the rolling slope of the bank and on the side property line with no
permits. Nor would a permit have been issued in this location. It should be removed if
there is to be construction of any kind of the site. Neither the pool nor the property line
building were built with permits from the water district. Structures should be made legal
through a proper process or removed before additional construction is entertained.
5. Land from the top roll of the bank is a wetland area. Very slight disturbance of this
bank by application of herbicide recently caused a huge old oak within 10 feet of the
existing major oak to collapse and crush the neighboring house. The neighboring house
had to be rebuilt. The remaining large oak is in the very creek bank area the structure will
impact. The plans submitted fail to show this large oak and fail to show the other trees in
the area. The director cannot designate a zone of protection for the root zone of a tree
which does not appear on plans. The potential loss of this other large oak from the
inappropriate construction proposed would be a major loss to the creek environment.
6. The particular site is not prone to flooding because I have let the creek carve deeply
into my own property from its original alignment. The creek is especially hazardous in this
particular area as two creeks come together there and when water is very high there are
eddies which can quickly carve a bank. It is unfair to allow new owners on the other side
to encroach into the wetland area as even more of my land could be needed for creek
purposes if a project is necessary to stabilize the bank due to inappropriate construction.
I request the Council reverse the Planning Commission decision and deny this proposal
with a set back only 12 -14 feet from the rolling drop off. The approval is based upon
inconsistent interpretation of setback requirements.
I request the Council limit the size of the addition in conformity to the neighborhood. If
each home in this old, long - settled neighborhood increased the interior floor area and lot
coverage by this proportionate amount, there would be a sea change in the neighborhood
character and a significant loss of land available to absorb rainwater. An Environmental
Impact Report for such a substantial change in the built environment would be needed. Yet
this increase sets a precedent which makes it very difficult to deny any other such proposal.
I do not object to some addition to the house, but that it be in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood, and properly set back to protect the fragile creek and intensity of the
neighborhood environment.
I ask the City Council to protect the lower intensity character of the neighborhood, and
natural character of the creek. We would expect to see all the buildings right up to the edge
of the creek in San Jose. We do not expect to see such construction in Saratoga.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours truly
Cheriel Jensen \
2
Planning Commission Action Minutes
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
DATE: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 - 6:30 p.m.
PLACE: Planning Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL Present
Absent:
Staff :
Applicant:
Appellant:
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
Commissioners Abshire, Bernald, Kaplan,
Patrick & Murakami
Commissioners Pierce & Siegfried
Interim Planning Director Walgren
Kazemzadeh
Jensen
1. AR -97 -001 - Kazemzadeh; 18501 Montpere Way
Appeal of an Administrative Design Review approval to
construct a 1,484 sq. ft., 13 ft. tall, one -story addition off
the back of an existing 1,756 sq. ft. single story residence.
Staff presented that Cheriel Jensen, at 13737 Quito Road, had
requested an appeal hearing before the Planning Commission pursuant
to Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance. She was
appealing an administrative approval to construct an addition to an
existing home located across the Wildcat /Vasona Creek from her
property.
It was noted that staff had reviewed the plans and visited the
property and determined that the proposed 13 ft. tall addition met
all Zoning Ordinance requirements and should be relatively
unobtrusive to the adjoining neighbors. The applicant had agreed
to move the addition further from the creek bank as a condition of
approval. This was requested primarily to keep construction
activities and materials away from the creek. The plans had also
been reviewed the SCVWD and they had not raised any objections to
the proposal. Staff was therefore recommending that the appeal be
denied and that the addition be conditionally approved.
Appellant Jensen was present and summarized the points of her
appeal. The Planning Commission then deliberated the appeal and
had the following comments:
• Commissioners Kaplan and Patrick stated that they were having
difficulty understanding the issues raised in the appeal and
their relationship to what Mr. Kazemzadeh was proposing.
• Commissioner Murakami also stated he was having trouble
relating the appeal issues to the proposed home addition.
If
Kazemzadeh Appeal; 18501 Montpere Way
Page Two
• It was generally noted that Ms. Jensen's concerns regarding
past events, including conditions placed on her home in 1973
and a tree within the creek that had fallen on a neighbor's
home, had no relationship to the proposed addition and that
the appeal had no factual merit.
Commissioner Kaplan moved to deny the appeal, motion passed 5 -0.
ADJOURNMENT
ssmn5 -14
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITE
MEETING DATE: JUNE 4, 1997 CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEA
SUBJECT: Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 -
Protest Hearing and Tabulation of Ballots
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Open the Public Hearing to receive written protests and any other
testimony on the proposed assessments for FY 97 -98.
2. Close the Public Hearing.
3. Request the City Clerk to declare the results of the balloting
required by Prop. 218.
4. If feasible, consider and tentatively rule on any written protests
received during the hearing.
5. Continue the matter to June 18 for final decisions about protests,
ballot results and levy of assessments.
Report Summary:
At your meeting, you will conduct the Public (Protest) Hearing on the
proposed FY 97 -98 assessments for the Landscaping & Lighting Assessment
District. In general, you will follow the majority protest procedures
you adopted at your previous meeting and which are attached to this
report. During the hearing, property owners may turn in ballots and
file written protests. At the close of the hearing, the City Clerk will
tabulate the ballots and any written protests received, and declare the
results to the City Council. At that time, depending on the results of
the voting and the nature of any protests which are filed, the Council
may want to tentatively rule on the protests and provide any further
direction to staff. The item should then be continued to your June 18
meeting, at which time you would consider the Resolution overruling any
protests and confirming the assessments.
Between now and then, staff will calculate the final assessments which
in all likelihood will be lower than the preliminary assessments for all
zones. If possible, I will have this information available to present
before you conduct the Protest Hearing, although I can't say for certain
that I will. Also, if a large number of ballots are turned in at the
hearing, which I don't expect to happen, it may not be possible for the
City Clerk to tabulate the results upon the close of the hearing. In
that case, the entire matter should simply be continued to June 18.
Fiscal Impacts•
None at this time. Eventually, when you confirm the assessments, you
will fix the revenues and expenditures associated with the District for
the next year.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
All of the property owners whose preliminary assessments have increased
from last year have been notified of the hearing and have received
ballot and protest instructions. A sample of the mailing is attached.
Additionally, notice of the hearing was published in the Saratoga News.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions:
Presumably, you would not conduct the Protest Hearing which means that
the process to renew the District for FY 97 -98 could not move forward.
Follow Up Actions:
The final assessment schedule will prepared. The Resolution overruling
protests and confirming the assessments will be placed on the June 18
agenda.
Attachments:
1. Majority Protest Procedures.
2. Preliminary assessment schedule with notes.
3. History of LLA assessments by Zone.
4. Sample mailing.
5. Letters received since May 7.
LE
MAJORITY PROTEST PROCEDURES FOR SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
The following procedures have been adopted by the Saratoga City Council for
the purpose of conducting this majority protest procedure. These procedures are
intended to comply with Article XIIID of the California Constitution. Where no
specific procedures are imposed by Article XIIID, these procedures comply with the
requirements of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, other relevant statutory
requirements, or basic principles of due process in order to ensure the integrity of the
process.
1. The notice and ballot required by Article XIIID, Section 4(c) and (d) shall be
mailed to all property owners of record subject to the assessment at least 45 days
prior to the date of public hearing on the proposed assessment or increase in the
assessment. The list of property owners of record shall be prepared by using the
Santa Clara County equalized assessment roll as of the preceding March 15.
2. Ballots must be returned to the City Clerk. The ballots may be returned by
persons other than the property owner.
3. Only original ballots, not copies, will be accepted.
4. The City Clerk may issue duplicate or replacement ballots to property owners
(for instance where the original is lost or not delivered to the current owner) if the
owner is able to provide sufficient evidence of ownership, such as a deed or property
tax bill. In order to avoid multiple ballots being returned for a single property, the
City Clerk shall maintain a log of all duplicate ballots issued.
5. Ballots may be returned until the close of the public hearing. Any person who
has previously returned a ballot may withdraw his or.her ballot or change his or her
vote prior to the close of the public hearing, upon providing sufficient proof that he
or she is the property owner of record or the authorized agent who cast the ballot.
6. The City Clerk may begin a preliminary tabulation of ballots prior to the
public hearing as necessary to allow for a complete and timely final result at the
public hearing. The tabulation shall be conducted by the City Clerk and any staff or
contractors, as authorized by the City Clerk, necessary to complete the task. At the
conclusion of the tabulation, the City Clerk shall certify the accuracy of the count.
7. All ballots received by the City Clerk prior to the public hearing shall remain
7. All ballots received by the City Clerk prior to the public hearing shall remain
in the City Clerk's safe and shall only be accessible by the City Clerk and any staff
and contractors authorized by the City Clerk. Individual ballots that are opened for
counting prior to the close of the public hearing shall remain confidential until after
the conclusion of the hearing and the certification of the results. Upon completion of
the hearing, the ballots shall be public records and will be available for inspection by
any member of the public.
8. The City Clerk shall determine the validity of all ballots submitted and shall
exclude any invalid ballots from the final tabulation. The City Clerk shall accept as
valid all ballots except those in the following categories:
a. the ballot returned is a copy and not an original;
b. the ballot does not have an identifiable yes or no vote;
C. multiple ballots returned for a single property where no previous
request for a duplicate or replacement ballot has been made;
d. any other circumstances that reasonably demonstrate that the
ballot has been tampered with or is otherwise invalid.
The City Clerk's decisions shall be valid and binding. All invalid ballots shall be
retained by the City Clerk.
9. The City Clerk shall have notice of the public hearing published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least once, ten days before the date of the public
hearing.
10. At the public hearing, the City Council shall hear any public testimony
regarding the proposed assessment and accept ballots until the close of the public
hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Clerk shall complete the
tabulation of the ballots including those received during the hearing. If the number
of ballots received at the hearing is such that it is not feasible to accurately tabulate
the ballots that evening, the Council may continue the meeting until a subsequent
date for the sole purpose of receiving the final tabulation.
11. Ballots shall be weighted as provided in Article XIII D, Section 4(e).
2
I
12. If the final tabulation of the ballots shows that a majority protest exists, the
Council shall not impose the increased assessments. If no majority protest exists, the
Council may adopt a resolution confirming the assessment for the following fiscal
year. The resolution shall be forwarded to the County for inclusion on the county
assessment roll.
MSR:dsp
F: \W PD\MNRS W\2 73\RES97\PROTEST.PRC
CITY OF SARATOGA
LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FY 97 -98
CAWMLLA9798P
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ZONE 4A
ZONE 4B
ZONE 5
ZONE 6
ZONE 7A
M OF PARCELS
29
85
176
602
94
113
64
470
FACTOR
0.0081
0.0238
0.0494
0.1689
0.0264
0.0317
0.0180
0.1318
EXPENDITURES
3010 WAGES
$175.13
$513.31
$1,062.86
$1,712.28
$567.66
$321.41
$182.04
$1,336.83
Public Works Dir.
36.82
107.91
223.44
764.28
119.34
143.46
81.25
596.70
Parks Maint. Sup't.
92.65
271.55
562.26
300.30
Admin. Sec'y.
17.51
51.33
106.29
363.56
56.77
68.24
38.65
283.85
Sr. Clerk- Typist
28.15
82.52
170.87
584.44
91.26
109.70
62.13
456.29
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint. Worker 11
3030 BENEFITS
$51.85
$151.97
$314.66
$441.58
$168.06
$82.89
$46.95
$344.75
Public Works Dir.
10.00
29.30
60.67
207.53
32.41
38.96
22.06
162.03
Parks Maint. Sup't.
30.58
89.62
185.57
99.11
Admin. Sec'y.
4.02
11.78
24.39
83.42
13.03
15.66
8.87
65.13
Sr. Clerk- Typist
7.26
21.27
44.04
150.63
23.52
28.27
16.01
117.60
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint. Worker 11
4510 CONTRACT SERVICES
4515 LEGAL SERVICES
$4.07
$11.92
$24.68
$84.43
$13.18
$15.85
$8.98
$65.92
4520 ENGINEERING SERVICES
$48.60
$142.44
$294.93
$1,008.79
$157.52
$189.36
$107.25
$787.60
Engineer's Report
48.60
142.44
294.93
.1,008.79
157.52
189.36
107.25
787.60
New Parcel Charge
4530 REPAIR SERVICES
590.00
$180.00
$330.00
$1,800.00
4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES
$600.00
$1,200.00
$2,220.00
$12.000.00
5312 POSTAGE
5320 ADVERTISING
$4.07
$11.92
$24.68
$84.43
$13.18
$15.85
$8.98
$65.92
5351 WATER
$310.00
$135.00
$375.00
$3,600.00
5352 POWER
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$10,000.00
$600.00
$1,975.00
$2,400.00
$5,775.00
Controllers
600.00
Streetlights
10,000.00
0.00
1,975.00
2,400.00
5,775.00
SUB -TOTAL
$1,283.71
$2,346.56
$4,646.82
$13,331.52 $18,919.61
$2,600.35
$2,754.18
$8,376.02
5700 GEN. GOV7. SUPPORT
ac==
$168.97
$495.27
$1,025.50
$1,652.09
$547.71
$310.11
$175.64
$1,289.84
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
c===x occ...
$1,452.68
ccx.
$2,841.83
ccccccca==
$5,672.32
cocc= ccccccc======
$14,983.61
$19,467.32
c.cccxcce
$2,910.46
=c cc= :oe=
$2,929.82
=ccc.x
$9,665.86
( -) ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES
$1,470.00
$285.00
$2,055.00
$19,195.00
$6,560.00
$9,665.86
( -) CARRYOVER FROM FY 96 -97
$533.50
$274.34
($3,581.97)
$9,730.34
$0.00
$11,082.22
($302.80)
$13,286.58
(_) TOTAL TO ASSESS
($550.82)
$2,282.49
$7.199.29
($13 ,941.73)
$19,467.32
($14,731.76)
$3,232.62
($13.286.58)
( +) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED
( +) CARRYOVER TO FY 98 -99
$550.82
$13,941.73
$14,731.76
$13,286.58
(_) NET TO ASSESS
$0.00
$2,282.49
$7,199.29
($0.00)$19,467.32
$0.00
$3,232.62
($0.00)
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
$0.00
$26.85
$40.91
($0.00)
$207.10
$0.00
$50.51
($0.00)
CAWMLLA9798P
CITY OF SARATOGA
LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FY 97 -98
SUB -TOTAL $1,615.95 $5,668.99 $1,464.35 $5,375.77 $1,603.05 $2,152.86 $4,081.11 $2,403.07
5700 GEN. GOVT. SUPPORT
$801.35
ZONE 7B
ZONE 9
ZONE 10
ZONE 11
ZONE 12
ZONE 14
ZONE 15
ZONE 16
$2,417.30
# OF PARCELS
292
48
9
250
9
20
41
55
FACTOR
0.0819
0.0135
0.0025
0.0701
0.0025
0.0056
0.0115
0.0154
($4,289.07)
EXPENDITURES
($834.89)
$122.72
($3,598.95)
($798.15)
(_) TOTAL TO ASSESS
($0.00)
$6,869.11
$5,805.86
3010
WAGES
$830.54
$289.87
$54.35
$1,509.75
$54.35
$120.78
$247.60
$332.14
($626.17)
Public Works Dir.
370.71
60.94
11.43
317.39
11.43
25.39
52.05
6943
Parks Maint. Supt,
153.34
28.75
798.67
28.75
63.89
130.98
175.71
$5,219.74
Admin. Sec'y.
176.35
28.99
5.44
150.98
5.44
12.08
24.76
33.22
$64.03
Sr. Clerk- Typist
283.48
46.60
8.74
242.71
8.74
19.42
39.80
53.40
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint. Worker II
3030
BENEFITS
$214.19
$85.82
$16.09
$446.97
$16.09
$35.76
$73.30
$98.33
Public Works Dir.
100.66
16.55
3.10
86.19
3.10
6.89
14.13
18.96
Parks Maint. Sup't.
50.61
9.49
263.59
9.49
21.09
43.23
57.99
Admin. Sec'y.
40.46
6.65
1.25
34.64
1.25
2.77
5.68
7.62
Sr. Clerk- Typist
73.06
12.01
2.25
62.55
2.25
5.00
10.26
13.76
Park Maint. Leadworker
Park Maint. Worker 11
4510
CONTRACT SERVICES
$2,100.00
$90.00
$1,000.00
$200.00
4515
LEGAL SERVICES
$40.95
$6.73
$1.26
$35.06
$1.26
$2.81
$5.75
$7.71
4520
ENGINEERING SERVICES
$489.32
$80.44
$15.08
$418.93
$15.08
$33.51
$68.71
$92.17
Engineer's Report
489.32
80.44
15.08
418.93
15.08
33.51
68.71
92.17
New Parcel Charge
4530
REPAIR SERVICES
$180.00
$70.00
$160.00
$160.00
$160.00
$405.00
$210.00
4535
MAINTENANCE SERVICES
$1,200.00
$472.50
$1,080.00
$1,080.00
$1,050.00
$2,700.00
$1.380.00
5312
POSTAGE
5320
ADVERTISING
$40.95
$6.73
$1.26
$35.06
$1.26
$2.81
$5.75
$7.71
5351
WATER
$1,525.00
$700.00
$690.00
$275.00
$450.00
$575.00
5352
POWER
$0.00
$194.40
$43.80
$0.00
$0.00
$97.20
$0.00
$275.00
Controllers
194.40
43.80
97.20
275.00
Streetlights
SUB -TOTAL $1,615.95 $5,668.99 $1,464.35 $5,375.77 $1,603.05 $2,152.86 $4,081.11 $2,403.07
5700 GEN. GOVT. SUPPORT
$801.35
$279.68
$52.44
$1,456.67
$52.44
$116.53
$238.89
$320.47
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$2,417.30
$5,948.67
$1,516.79
$6,832.45
$1,655.49
$2,269.40
$4,320.00
$2,723.54
( -) ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES
( -) CARRYOVER FROM FY 96 -97
$2,417.30
($920.44)
($4,289.07)
($2,252.69)
($834.89)
$122.72
($3,598.95)
($798.15)
(_) TOTAL TO ASSESS
($0.00)
$6,869.11
$5,805.86
$9,085.14
$2,490.38
$2,146.68
$7,918.95
$3,521.69
( +) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED
(53,216.80)
($626.17)
($2,699.21)
( +) CARRYOVER TO FY 98 -99
(_) NET TO ASSESS
($0.00)
$6,869.11
$2,589.06
$9,085.14
$1,864.21
$2,146.68
$5,219.74
$3,521.69
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
($0.00)
$143.11
$287.67
$36.34
$207.13
$107.33
$127.31
$64.03
C: \WK\LLA9798P
CITY OF SARATOGA
LLA -1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
FY 97 -98
C: \WK\LLA9798P
ZONE 17
ZONE 18
ZONE 22
ZONE 24
ZONE 25
TOTAL
# OF PARCELS
200
11
862
120
15
3565
FACTOR
0.0561
0.0031
0.2418
0.0337
0.0042
1.0000
�O %L�
EXPENDITURES
3010 WAGES
$1,207.80
$66.43
$5,205.60
$13,476.68
$90.58
$29,358.00
(� )
Public Works Dir.
253.91
13.97
1.094.37
152.35
19.04
$4,526.00
Parks Maint. Sup't
638.93
35.14
2,753.80
383.36
47.92
$6,466.00
Admin. Sec'y.
120.79
6.64
520.59
72.47
9.06
$2,153.00
Sr. Clerk- Typist
194.17
10.68
836.85
116.50
14.56
$3,461.00
Park Maint. Leadworker
$6,929,00
$6,929,00
Park Maint. Worker II
$5,823.00
$5,823.00
3030 BENEFITS
$357.57
$19.67
$1 ,541.14
$4,453.54
$26.82
$8,988.00
CZ )
Public Works Dir.
68.95
3.79
297.17
41.37
5.17
$1,229.00
Parks Maint. Sup't
210.87
11.60
908.85
126.52
15.82
$2,134.00
Admin. Sec'y.
27.71
1.52
119.45
16.63
2.08
$494.00
Sr. Clerk- Typist
50.04
2.75
215.68
30.03
3.75
$892.00
Park Maint. Leadworker
2,398,00
$2,398,00
Park Maint: Worker II
1,841.00
$1,841.00
4510 CONTRACT SERVICES
$ 110.00
$3,000.00
$2,500.00
$9,000.00
C3�
4515 LEGAL SERVICES
$28.05
$1.54
$120.90
$16.83
$2.10
$500.00
Cy
4520 ENGINEERING SERVICES
$335.15
$18.43
$1,444.48
$201.09
$127.89
$6,076.75
C51
Engineer's Report
335.15
18.43
1,444.48
201.09
25.14
$5,974.00
New Parcel Charge
102.75
$102.75
4530 REPAIR SERVICES
$ 315.00
$85.00
$585.00
$570.00
$5,300.00
C(p)
4535 MAINTENANCE SERVICES
$2, 100.00
$ 577.50
$3. 900.00
$3,800.00
$2,500.00
$37,860.00
5312 POSTAGE
$0,00
5320 ADVERTISING
$28.05
$1.54
$120.90
$16.83
$2.10
$500.00
\
�$ 1
5351 WATER
$1,000.00
$250.00
$775.00
$1,925.00
$1,000.00
$13,585.00
(G�
5352 POWER
$97.20
$53.40
$185.00
$17,735.00
$97.20
$39,528.20
Controllers
97.20
53.40
185.00
97.20
97.20
$1,740.40
` I
Streetlights
17,637.80
$37,787.80
SUB-TOTAL
$5,468.82
-----------------------------------------
$1,183.51
$16,878.03
$44,694.97
$3,846.70
$150,695.95
5700 GEN. GOVT. SUPPORT
$1,165.34
$64.09
$5,022.62
$13,002.94
$87.40
$28,326.00
/
TOTAL EXPENDITURES =
$6,634.16
$1,247.61
$21,900.64
$57,697.91
$3,934.10
$179,021.95
( -) ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAXES
$19,309.14
$58,540.00
2�
( -) CARRYOVER FROM FY 96 -97
($803.05)
$121.05
($7, 413.76)
$38,388.77
$0.00
$51,161.05
(_) TOTAL TO ASSESS
$7,437.21
$1,126.56
$29 ,314.40
$0.00
$3,934.10
$69,320.90
( +) CARRYOVER NOT ASSESSED
($6,542,18)
(I 44 )
( +) CARRYOVER TO FY 98 -99
$42,510.89
(_) NET TO ASSESS
$7,437.21
$1 ,126.56
$29,314.40
$0.00
$3,934.10
$105,289.61
CALCULATED ASSESSMENT
$37.19
$10241
$34.01
N/A
$262.27
C: \WK\LLA9798P
Notes for Preliminary Assessment Schedule
(1) - Wages for Public Works Director, Admin. Sec'y. and Sr. Clerk -
Typist are spread to each zone per the factor. Wages for Parks
Maint. Sup't. are spread proportionately to landscape districts
only. Wages for Park Maint. Workers are assigned to Zone 24 only.
(2) - Benefits are spread as are wages.
(3) - Contract Services represent one time expenditures above and
beyond routine maintenance and repair costs and are estimated for
each zone annually.
(4) - Legal Services are spread to each zone per the factor.
(5 ) - Engineer's Report charges are spread to each zone per the
factor. New Parcel Charges are assigned to those zones in which
new parcels have been added from the previous year.
(6) - Repair services are a percentage, generally 15 %, of the
Maintenance Services costs.
(7) - Maintenance Services are the contract landscape maintenance
costs for landscape districts.
(8) - Advertising is spread to each zone per the factor.
(9) - Water.is estimated annually for landscape districts based on
historical usage.
(10) - Power is estimated for both landscaping and street lighting
districts based on historical usage.
(11) - General Gov't. Support is determined from the City's
Indirect Cost Allocation model and primarily represents a
percentage of wages assigned to each zone.
(12) - Property Tax incremental revenues are estimated annually for
the original 7 zones of the District.
(13) - Carryover is calculated by the Finance Department per the
audited fund balance numbers from the previous year.
(14) - Carryover Not Assessed generally represents 75% of the
negative carryover balances for those zones in a deficit position.
The policy is to collect only 25% of the deficit balance in any
given year, thus retiring the deficit over a four year period.
(15) - Calculated Assessment is the Net Assessment Amount divided
by the number of parcels in each zone except for Zone 24.
SARAT03A LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA -1
ZONE
DATE
80 -81
81 -82
$4.98
CREATED
$6.24
$6.40
- - - - - --
0 (7C)
----------------------
4/18180
$102.01
$92.50
1
4/18/80
$34.28
$10.54
2
4/16/80
$11.30
$5.62
3
4118/80
$4.76
$4.48
4A
4/16/80
$20.95
$18.54
4B
7/1/97
-------
$21.88
---------
$14.84
5
4/18/80
$23.52
$21.28
0
4/16/80
$4203
$38.88
7 (7FQ
4/18/80
$10.41
$8.90
8 (VPD if 1)
4/16/80
s289.07
$48.28
9
5/4/83
$33.88
$0.00
10
4/18/84
$8.88
$35.14
11
4/18/84
$3200
$34.82
12
4/17/85
$18.15
$118.88
13
4/17/85
$26.85
$4.20
14
4/17/85
$20.50
$23.08
15
4/17/85
$15.38
$25.80
16
4/16/88
$3252
$24.88
17
4/15/87
$5.88
$8.70
18
4/15/87
$1.88
$1.80
19 (VPD !t2)
4/19/89
$0.00
$0.00
20 (VPD #f3)
4/19/89
$0.00
$13.86
21 (VPD #r4)
4/19/89
$17200
22
4/17/91
$180.04
$188.04
23
5/1/91
$ 242-42.
$ 203.01
24
8/3/94
$285.98
$207.13
25
7/1/97
$5.24
$3.04
$9258 $56.80
50.00 $10.90
$0.16 $6.82
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $2.08
(1) - Zones 0, 8, 19, 20 & 21 merged to ormte Zone 24.
(2) - Zone dissolved on 5/20/92.
(3) - Zone dssolved In FY 98 -97.
Q: WKW.A- SUM.WK1
$2.12
$0.00
$8.88
$0.00
A N N U A L
A S S E S S M E N T S
$6.58
55.14
$4.98
$4.98
$6.24
$6.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
84 -85
85 -86
86 -87
87 -88
88 -89
89 -90
90 -91
91 -92
02 -93
93 -94
94 -95
95 -98
96 -97
97 -98
---------------------------------------
$21.02
$34.58
$35.38
$21.80
$21.88
-------
$21.88
---------
$14.84
$73.56
- - - - --
$49.72
-
$72.84
(1)
$8.88
$0.00
$10.88
$8.80
$203.78
$207.82
$113.70
$113.54
$105.94
$95.12
$101.54
$8220
SD0.32
$77.88
$33.88
$0.00
50.00
$7.86
$8.88
$35.14
$27.40
$29.86
$3200
$34.82
$38.50
$5.98
$18.15
$118.88
$40.04
$18.48
$26.85
$4.20
511.80
$8.70
$20.50
$23.08
$48.82
$13.14
$15.38
$25.80
$45.21
$25.26
$3252
$24.88
$40.91
$230
$5.88
$8.70
$2.26
$1.88
$1.88
$1.80
$2.10
$23.84
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$13.86
$9.38
$38.34
$17200
$153.02
$154.18
$180.04
$188.04
$209.84
'$222 80
$ 242-42.
$ 203.01
$20710
$0.84 $1.24
$5.00
$6.58
55.14
$4.98
$4.98
$6.24
$6.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$15.68 $11.32
$14.78
$16.94
$10.54
$10.80
$10.60
$8.82
$8.58
$0.00
$0.00
$25.40
$5250
$0.00
$50.51
$5.78 $ 254
$2.50
$3.32
$3.14
$2.64
$2.84
$3.78
$4.28
$8.88
$0.00
$10.88
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00
$213.80
$341.32
$330.38
$117.20
$0.00
$133.30
$0.00
$0.00
(1)
$85.00 $84.88
$83.52
$90.82
$87.40
$113.74
$157.20
$136.74
$144.82
$138.82
$181.30
$189.92
$201.02
$175.58
$143.11
$1,416.00
$0.00
$187.34
$186.28
$234.70
$435.80
$348.74
$385.38
$371.12
$328.17
$442-58
$337.98
$337.48
$287.87
$14.32
$5.06
$8.38
$7.70
$8.04
$8.78
$9.58
$10.72
$11.32
$15.48
$19.02
$13.86
$9.38
$38.34
$17200
$153.02
$154.18
$180.04
$188.04
$209.84
'$222 80
$ 242-42.
$ 203.01
$380.00
$307.22
$285.98
$207.13
$18.00
$5.24
$3.04
$3.80
$3.80
$3.70
$3.18
$0.00
$0.00
$3.48
$11.24
(3)
$14210
$121.30
$107.04
$114.48
$15248
$137.50
$148.72
$192.74
6110.10
$284.58
$193.40
$70.18
$107.33
$222.00
$170.78
$87.44
$83.78
s128.18
310280
$100.72
$98.90
$227.39
$202.04
$146.92
$145.12
$127.31
52, 378.44
$3.04
$3.22
$3.22
$59.88
$40.56
$45.18
$4258
$54.40
$40.80
$30.42
$84.03
$10.00
$7.70
$7.70
$8.72
$8.88
$0.00
$5.06
$25.20
$213.18
$210.50
$37.19
$50.00
$6.08
$135.18
$154.58
$184.94
$58.10
$0.00
$0.00
$104.50
$04.28
$102.41
$1,851.00
$1,520.30
$5,243.00
$8,989.78 $13,820.00
(1)
$8,41200
$6.414.00 $14,092.00 $18,770.82 $21,25235
(1)
$0.00
$977.78
$2.933.00
$5,406.00 $14,385.58
(1)
$38.00
$0.00
$13.21
SM58
$21.88
$9.96
$34.01
$110.00
0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$26227
April 17, 1997
09UT Qq O&ME19(DO&
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868 -1200
Subject: Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District - Renewal
Dear.Property Owner:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Stan Bogosian
Paul E. Jacobs
Gillian Moran
Jim Shaw
Donald L. Wolfe
for FY 97 -98
Enclosed with this letter is important information pertaining to the renewal of
the City's Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District for the fiscal year
commencing on July 1, 1997, (FY 97 -98). The City is required to send . you this
information since you are the owner of property within one of the Zones of the
District for which the City has preliminarily determined that it may be necessary
to increase the assessment for next year over the current year's assessment.
Along with this letter, you will find the following information:
• A Notice, which among other things, indicates the dates and times for the
Public Hearing and Public Meeting respectively.
• A copy of Resolution No. 97- 11.3A, adopted by the City Council on
April 8, otherwise known as the "Resolution of Intention ".
• A postcard ballot now required because of the passage of Proposition 218
at last November's statewide election.
• Additional information about the proposed assessment also required by
Proposition 218.
After reviewing -the enclosed materials, it is extremely important that you mark
your ballot and return it to the City by the close of the Public Hearing on June
4 regardless of whether you support or oppose next year's proposed assessment.
To simplify things for you, the ballot is pre - stamped and pre - addressed. Only
those ballots returned in time will be counted to determine whether an assessment
for next year will be levied, and whether the City will continue to administer
on your behalf the services provided through the assessment district which
benefit your property. The City will cease to administer these services in your
Zone if the number of ballots returned in opposition to the proposed assessment
exceed the number of ballots returned in support of the proposed assessment for
your Zone. In that event, the responsibility for administering these services
could be turned over to your homeowners association if one exists, or to any
third party duly authorized to act on behalf of all of the property owners within
your Zone.
Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this information and for
returning your ballot. If you have any questions about these materials or the
assessment district in general, please call my office directly at (408) 868 -1219.
Sincerely,
Oar I I.
Larry I. Perlin
Director of Public Works
"rm;ed on recycled paper.
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
CITY OF SARATOGA
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1997 -1998
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TIME: 8:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1997
PLACE:- SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
TIME: 8:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1997
PLACE: SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
NOTES:
1. THE AMOUNT OF ASSESSMENT CHARGEABLE TO THE ENTIRE DISTRICT IS
$105,290.00.
2. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE ENCLOSED:
A LETTER FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION
INFORMATION CONCERNING DURATION OF ASSESSMENTS, REASON FOR
ASSESSMENT, BASIS OF ASSESSMENT CALCULATION, AND SUMMARIES OF
BALLOT AND WRITTEN PROTEST PROCEDURES
BALLOT TO BE RETURNED
RESOLUTION NO. 7 -I 3A
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE
LEVY AND COLLECT ION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND
LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA- I
F.SCAL YEAR .1997.199.8..
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as
follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 97 -11, "A Resolution Describing
Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1997-
1998," for City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1, adopted on
March 5, 1997, by the City Council of.said:.Ci y, pursuant .to .the Landscaping and.
Lighting Act of 1972, the Engineer of said City has prepared and filed with the Clerk
of this City the written report called for under said Act and by said Resolution No.
97 -11, which- said report has been submitted and preliminarily approved by this
Council in accordance with said Act;
NOW. THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as follows:
. 1. In its opinion the public interest and convenience require and it is the
intention of this Council to order the levy and coIlcciion of asstssnients-for Fiscal
Year 1997 -1998 pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California, for the construction or installation of the improvements, including the
maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"
hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein.
2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, including the maintenance
or servicing, or both, thereof, art to be made chargeable upon the assecsment district
designated as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Distrir --t LIA 1," the
e.Yterior boundaries of which are the composite and consolidated areas as more
1
particularly described on a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of said City,
to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by a
boundary line the extent of the territory included in-the district and of any zone
thereof and the general location of said district.
3. Said Engineer's Report prepared by the Engineer of said City,
preliminarily approved by this Council, and on file with the City Clerk of this City is
hereby referred to for a full and detailed description of the improvements and the
boundaries of the assessment district. and, any zones therein, and the proposed
assessments upon assessable lots an parels of land within the district.
4. h7ouce is iiere by'given at Wednesday, the 7thTdday of May, 1997, at
the hour of 8:00 p.m. in the City Council, .Chambers-at .1377.7. Fniitvzle Avenue,._
Saratoga, California, be and the same arc hereby appointed and fixed as the time and
place for a meeting by this Council pursuant to Section 54954.6 of the California
Government Code to receive public testimony regarding proposed assessments.
5. Notice is hereby given that Wednesday, the 4th day of June, 1997, at
the hour of 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fniitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California, be and the same are hereby appointed and fixed as the time and
place for a hearing by this Council on the question of the levy and collection of the
proposed assessment for the construction or installation of said improvements,
including the maintenance and serviciri'g,'nt boih. "thereof, and when and where it will
consider all oral statements and all written protests made or filed by any interested
person at or before the conclusion of said hearing, against said improvements, the
boundaries of the assessment district and any zone therein, the proposed diagram or
the proposed assessment, to the Engineer's estimate of the cost thereof, and when and
where it will consider and finally act upon the Engineer's report.
6. The Clerk of said City be, and hereby is, directed to give notice of said
bearing by causing a copy of this Resolution to be published once in the Saratoga
News, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and by conspicuously
posting a copy thereof upon the official bulletin board customarily used by the City
of Saratoga for the posting of notices, said posting and publication to be had and
completed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing specified herein.
7. The Office of the City Engineer be, and hereby is designated as the
Office to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to he had herein, and
may be contacted during the regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale
Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, or by calling (408) 868 -1219.
2
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the
Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 8th day of April,
1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Shaw, and Wolfe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Moran
ATTEST: Mayor
A,,-, (�'
Deputy City Cler
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT T"_ :'WITHIN IN-
A7-;
STRUMENT IS A ThJE /�- .1 OFFICE.
Zt.ji�IAL J 3 OFFICE.
OF THE �
CITY CLERK ur
11f5Ci --
6Y
DEPUTY CITY.CLci
Exhibit A
DESCM TIO 4 Of IMPROVEMENTS
The design, construction or installation, including the maintenance or
servicing, or both, thereof, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other
ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and
facilities, and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public place-s, including
traffic signals, ornamental standards, luminaires, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes.
vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys;-stubs, platforms, braces, transformers,
insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances,
attachments and appuueaa;ua,'indudmg.ahcwn cftcpair; - r=oeai -or, replacement
of all or any Part thereof; providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of
landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fern- Liiiig bLhd
treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other
solid waste; electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public
lighting facilities or for the lighting or origation of any other improvements; and the
operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements.
MSR:dsp
NUrch 28, 19V7
J:\WPD\MNRSW\273\RES97T-XA-LLk97
Supplement to Exhibit A
City of .Saratoga
Landscaping and. Lighting Assessment District LLA -1
Benefits Provided Within Each Zone
Zone 1 - (Manor Drive Landscape District) - Provides for landscape
maintenance of the Manor Drive medians and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road
frontage: along: Tract - 3822?._... . . ,. ,.. . _. t . .. .
Zone 2 - (Fredericksburg .Landscape.. District. }_.. -. Provides...for
landscape maintenance along the Cox Avenue frontage of Tracts 3777,
4041, and 4042.
Zone 3 - (Greenbriar Landscape District) - Provides for landscape
maintenance of the Seagull Way entrance to Tract 4628, 4725 and
4726, and of the common areas along Goleta Avenue and Guava Court.
Zone 4 - (Quito Lighting. District) - Provides for streetlighting
and landscape maintenance in the E1 Quito Park residential
neighborhoods; Tracts 669, 708, 748, 6785, 78330 and 8700.
Zone 5 - ( Azule Lighting District) -.,---Provides for streetlighting in
the Azule Crossing residential neighborhoods: Tracts 184, 485,
787, 1111 and 1800.
Zone 6 - .( Sarahills Lighting District) - Provides for
streetlighting in the Sarahills residential neighborhood; Tracts
3392 and 3439.
Zone 7 - (Village Residential Lighting. District) - Provides for
streetlighting in four separate residential neighborhoods
surrounding Saratoga Village. Includes all or a portion of
Cunningham Acres, La Paloma Terrace-j- Mary � Springer 11 --and - 12,
McCartysville, Saratoga Park, Williams and Tracts 270, 336, 416,
2399, 2502, 4477, 5350, 5377, 5503, 5676, 6419 and 6731.
Zone 9 - (McCartysville Landscape District) - Provides for
landscape maintenance along the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road frontage of
Tract 5944.
Zone 10 - (Tricia Woods Landscape District) - Provides for
landscape maintenance along the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road frontage of
Tracts 6199, 7495 and 7928. Shared with Zones 14 and 18.
Zone 11 - (Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape District) - Provides for
landscape maintenance of the Via Monte entrances to all or a
portion of Tracts 2694, 2835, 2844, 3036 and 4344.
Supplement to Exhibit A
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1
Benefits Provided Within Each Zone
Page 2
Zone 12 - (Leutar Court Landscape District) - Provides for
landscape maintenance of, the Leutar,Court,frontage in Tract 6996.
Zone 14 - (Cunningham Place Landscape District) - See Zone 10.
Zone 15 - (Bonnet Way Landscape District) - Provides for monthly
landscape maintenance along Bonnet Way; Tract 5462.
Zone 16 - ( Beauchamps Landscape District) - Provides for
landscaping and lighting of the Prospect Road entrance to the
Beauchamps subdivision; Tract 7763.
Zone 17 - (Sunland Park Landscape District) - Provides for
landscape maintenance along the Quito Road frontage of Tracts 976
and 977.
Zone 18 - (Glasgow Court Landscape District) - See Zone 10.
Zone 22 - (Prides Crossing Landscape District) - Provides for
periodic landscape maintenance along Prospect Road between the
Route 85 overcrossing and Titus Avenue and along Cox Avenue between
the Route 85 overcrossing and Saratoga Creek. Includes all
properties bordered by Route 85, Prospect Road and Saratoga Creek
with the exception of the Brookview neighborhood (Tracts 1493,
1644, 1695, 1727, 1938 and 1996).
Zone 24 - (Village Commercial ..Landscape.. and ..Lighting.. District) -
Provides for routine maintenance of Village Parking Districts 1 -4,
Big Basin Way landscaping and street lighting.
BALLOT
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1997 -1998
ZONE 26
EXISTING ASSESSMENT $0.00
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT $207.10
ZONE: 416 SUPPORT
GREENRRIAR SARATOGA RD CO
4::,40 STEVENS CREEK BL UNIT 2275 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
SAN JOSE CA 95129
OPPOSE
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
Duration of Pavments
Assessments may be levied annually at a rate not exceeding that described
under Rules for Spreading Assessment (Exhibit 1 enclosed herein) , until 1)
this entire district is dissolved or the within referenced parcel is
detached from the district by City Council action, or 2) a proposal to
increase assessments, beyond those allowed in the Rules for Spreading
Assessment, is approved by vote of the affected property owners.
Reason for Assessment
This assessment is proposed to be levied to provide the work and
improvements described in Exhibit "A" attached to the Resolution of
Intention enclosed herein. This work specially benefits the parcels
assessed therefor since 1) the work is adjacent to the neighborhoods within
which said parcels are located, and results in a) helping to identify,
distinguish and enhance these neighborhoods, including the entrances
thereto; b) helping to improve the quality of life in these neighborhoods
by reducing the potential. for graffiti; e1iTMina }=, ^.� dust and lit�zr,
providing sound attenuation, eliminating the potential for blight, and
providing added security and safety through lighting and an added City
presence; and 2) in the absence of this assessment district, the work and
improvements would not be otherwise accomplished by the City.
Basis of Assessment Calculation
The amounts of the proposed assessments have been calculated in accordance
with the Rules for Spreading Assessment (Exhibit 1 enclosed herein).
Summary of Ballot Procedures
The enclosed ballot should be completed by indicating support for or
opposition to the proposed assessment and the proposed Rules for Spreading
Assessment (copy enclosed) , and should be mailed or hand delivered to the
address printed 'thereon, to arrive no later than the close of the public
hearing, Wednesday, June 4, 1997.
At the public hearing, the City shall tabulate the ballots. The City shall
not impose any assessment in ay zone where the number of ballots received
in opposition to the proposed assessment exceeds the number of ballots
received in support of the proposed assessment. In the absence of a
negative vote, the City may impose an assessment that is less than the
proposed assessment amount.
Summary of Written Protest Procedures
Any owner of property subject to an assessment may, prior to the conclusion
of the public hearing, file a written protest with the clerk or, having
previously filed a protest, may file a written withdrawal of that protest.
A written protest shall state all grounds of objection to the proposed
assessment. All protests must contain a sufficient description to identify
the property for which the protest is filed (property address or APN) .
Protests shall be mailed or hand delivered to the clerk at the address
shown at the top of the Notice of Hearing enclosed herein, or hand
delivered to the clerk by the close of the hearing.
Protests filed and not withdrawn by property owners owning more than 50
percent of the area of assessable lands within the entire district will
cause abandonment of the proposal to increase assessments.
EXHIBIT 1
RULES FOR SPREADING ASSESSMENT
The amounts to be assessed against the assessable lots or parcels of land
to pay the estimated cost of the improvements, including the maintenance
and servicing thereof and the costs and expenses incidental thereto,
shall be based upon the estimated benefits to be derived by the various
lots or parcels of land within the assessment district.
The assessment for administrative costs shall be spread equally to all of
the lots or parcels of land located in the assessment district.
The assessment for cost of improvements, including the maintenance and
servicing thereof, in Zones .1 through 7B, 9 through 12, 14 through 18,
22, 25, and 26, as described in Resolution No. 97- 11.3A, shall be spread
equally to all of the lots or parcels of land located within each said
respective zone of the assessment district.
The assessment for cost of improvements, including the maintenance and
servicing thereof, in Zone 24, as described in Resolution No. 97- 11.3A,
shall be spread as follows:
Costs related to street lights and street trees shall be spread to
all the lots or parcels of land located within said zone,
proportional to usable parcel area.
Costs related to the Village Parking District (VPD) parking lots
shall be spread to all the lots or parcels of land in commercial use
located within said zone, proportional to the number of parking
spaces existing in the VPD parking lots that are assigned to each
parcel within said zone, rounded to the nearest one tenth (0.1) of a
parking space. Spaces shall be assigned by adding the total number
of spaces in the. VPD parking lots and the total private spaces
existing on assessable parcels, distributing this sum proportionally
by weighted building area, and deducting the number of private
spaces, if any, from the resulting number for each parcel. Weighted
building area shall be defined as actual building area multiplied by
a factor dependent on parcel use, as follows: Retail = 1.0;
office /service = 0.5; restaurant = 2.0.
Zones 0, 8 13, 19, 20, 21, and 23 have been either detached or merged
with other zones. A portion of Zone 4 was redesignated Zone 26 in 1997.
Notwithstanding the above, the assessment levied for Fiscal Year 1998-
1999 for each parcel in Zones 2, 3, 6, 11, 14, 16, 18, 22, 25, and 26
shall not exceed the amount indicated in Table 1 attached hereto. In
subsequent years, the maximum assessment for each parcel in said zones
shall be the amount calculated by multiplying its maximum assessment for
the previous year by 1.05.
TABLE 1
MAXIMUM ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 -1999
18 $150.00
22 $ 50.00
25 $325.00
26 $475.00
MAXIMUM
ZONE
ASSESSMENT
2
$ 50.00
3
$ 60.00
6
$ 75.00
11
$ 50.00
14
$225.00
16
$ 90.00
18 $150.00
22 $ 50.00
25 $325.00
26 $475.00
46 s
Donald M. Swartz
19382 MELINDA CIRCLE
SARATOGA, CA 95070 -3320
May 5, 1997
Larry I. Perlin .
Director of Public Works
City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue _ -
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Perlin,
Unfortunately a scheduling conflict will preclude my attendance at
the Public Meeting to be held May 7, 1997 relating to the proposed
Landscape and Lighting Assessment changes.
I would be most happy to support the assessment changes IF I could
have any confidence that the landscape maintenance were actually
to be performed. Presumably a program of landscape maintenance
was approved and put into effect during this past year. I have
noticed little or no difference in the maintenance along Prospect
Avenue between Miller Ave. & Kristy Lane. I walked along Prospect
today, as I have on numerous other occasions, and found the area
along the fences to be cluttered with trash, broken limbs from the
trees, etc. Obviously there has been little effort extended to
maintain a decent appearance along Prospect.
The landscape maintenance in the area along Cox Avenue appears to
have been much better. WHY?
Assure me that the almost 125% increase in the assessment will
result in an acceptable program of maintenance and I will be happy
to support the proposal. If the present program is in any way
indicative of the type of program to be carried out in the future,
I cannot be supportive.
Respectfully,
Donald M. Swartz
-8
6 �3
20298 Williamsburg Lane
Saratoga, CA 95070
May 29, 1997
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
Subject: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1
In accordance with the letter of instructions from Mr. Perlin, I wish to lodge a protest
against the proposed assessment as it applies to my property at the above address. I
am submitting my ballot marked in opposition to the assessment.
Although I consider the proposed increase (45.346 % ) above the current assessment
excessive, my reason for opposing the assessment is based on the following:
1) The Resolution No. 97 -11.3A adopted by the City Council was intended to
apply to Fiscal Year 1997 -1998. The Summary of Ballot Procedures states
that the vote is for the proposed 1997 -1998 assessment AND the proposed
Rules for Spreading Assessment.
• 2) The Rules for Spreading Assessment also establish a maximum possible
assessment for FY 1998 -1999 and an automatic increase of 5% for all subs-
equent years.
3) The ballot is, therefore, presented under false pretenses. The rationale
presented at the May 7 meeting of the City Council (i.e. administrative con-
venience) its irrelevant unless the Council amends the original resolution to
expand the term under consideration to coincide with that proposed by the
Chief Engineer.
As a matter of possible interest, it should have beer possible to format the ballot to fit
a standard postcard size (41/2 x 6 ") rather than the oversized 3 1/2 x 81 /2 " used.
This would have resulted in a savings of 12 cents per letter. In the interests of economy
I am enclosing my ballot with this letter which will save the city the 32 cents postage.
Vnc rel ,
tian Trusso
��ZFMI
0