HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-03-1995 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTST(!,..
SARATOGA'CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2? n AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 3, 1995 CITY MANAGER
ORIGINATING DEPT. Office of the City Manager
Paula Reeve, Public Services Assistant
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Section 9- 25.020 of the City Code
Relating to Parking Regulations Applicable to All
Highways.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS (S) : Introduce by title only, waiving reading in
full.
BACKGROUND
The amendment to .Section 9- 25.020 of the City Code pertaining to
Parking Regulations is necessary because the prohibition against
displaying "for sale. ". signs in vehicles on public streets or
highways has been ruled unconstitutional in California.
This ruling does not apply, however, to Section 15- 35.110 of the
City Code prohibiting use of an off - street parking or loading
facility in any commercial zoning district for the purpose of
advertising a vehicle, property, or services for sale. With the
exception of one "for sale" sign placed in a vehicle owned by the
occupant of a property, this section also applies to an off- street
parking space, driveway, or front yard in any residential zoning
district.
FISCAL aMPACT:
Elimination of the revenue generated by enforcement of City Code
Section 9- 25.020(a).
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Staff will notify the media, the Sheriff's Department and the
Community Service Department of the amendment to.the ordinance.
Proposed ordinance relating to Parking Regulations
on All Highways
MOTION AND VOTE
1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM:
MEETING DATE: V 3/ 1_
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Commun' Develo men
CITY MGR. APPROVAL
SUBJECT:
HP -22, Heritage Landmark Designation proposal for the Carmichael
House located at 14051 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road.
Recommended Motion:
Approve the Heritage Landmark Designation by adopting Resolution HP -22.
Report Summarv:
The subject property is commonly known as the Carmichael House and is
located at 14051 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. The house was built in 1914 by
Neil Carmichael who owned and operated several saw mills and lumber
yards in Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties. Mr. Carmichael was among
those who established the small park at Blaney Plaza. The house is
currently owned by Mike and Terri Dahlbeck who are in the process of a
complete restoration.
After visiting the property, the Heritage Commission considered the
Landmark Designation request at their regular April meeting. The
Commission unanimously voted to support the Landmark Designation and
commended the applicants for their significant preservation efforts.
Fiscal Impacts•
A bronze plaque is customarily bestowed upon the recipient of a Heritage
Landmark Designation at a cost to the City of approximately $75.00.
Follow -up Action:
None.
Conseauences of not Actina on the Recommended Notion:
Subject property will not be designated as a Heritage Landmark.
Attachments:
1. Excerpt from "Saratoga 's Heritage ".
2. Resolution HP -22.
Motion and Vote:
(1914)
14051 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road
Neil Carmichael, the
original owner of this house,
owned saw mills on the west
side of the Santa Cruz
Mountains and hauled lumber
through Saratoga to his planing
mill and lumber yard in San
Jose. He and his wife, Belle,
were community leaders, and
he was among those who
established the small park at
Blaney Plaza.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. P�
MEETING DATE: MAY 3, 1995
ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA ITE
CITY MGR.:
DEPT. HEAD
SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1;
Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Reports and Adoption of
Resolutions of Intention
Recommended Motion(s):
1. Move to adopt the Resolution preliminarily approving the
Engineer's Report for the reauthorization of the District for FY
95 -96.
2. Move to adopt the Resolution of Intention relating to the
reauthorization of the District for FY 95 -96. `
3. Move to adopt the Resolution preliminarily approving the
Engineer's Report for Annexation No. 1995 -1.
4. Move to adopt the Resolution of Intention relating to Annexation
No. 1995 -1.
5. Move to adopt the Resolution of Intention relating to the
detachment of territory from the District.
Report Summary: Attached are the next series of five resolutions
the Council must adopt to continue the process of reauthorizing the
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 for FY 95 -96,
annexing territory to the District, and detaching certain
properties from the District. Briefly, the resolutions are:
1. A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report ...
Fiscal Year 1995 -1996 -.This is the resolution required by Streets
& Highways Code Section 22623 which grants preliminary approval of
the Engineer's Report for the reauthorization of the existing
District for FY 95 -96. Note: The Engineer's Report will be
presented at the meeting.
2. A Resolution of Intention to order the levy and collection of
assessments ... Fiscal Year 1995 -1996 - This is the resolution
required under S &H 22624 which, among other things, fixes the dates
and times for the required Public Meeting and Hearing. Those dates
are June 7 and 21 respectively.
3. A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report ...
Annexation No. 1995 -1 - This is the resolution required under S &H
22586 which grants preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report
for the annexation of certain properties to the District,
Annexation No. 1995 -1. Note: The Engineer's Report will be
presented at the meeting.
4. A Resolution of Intention to order the annexation of territory
... and the levy and collection of assessments ... Annexation No.
1995 -1 - This is the resolution required under S &H 22587 which,
among other things, fixes the dates and times for the required
Public Meeting and Hearing on the annexation proposal. Those dates
are also June 7 and 21.
5. A Resolution of Intention to undertake proceedings for
detachment of territory ... This is the resolution required under
S &H 22587 to initiate detachment proceedings to remove certain
properties from the existing District which the Council has
determined no longer receive benefit from the District. The
resolution fixes the date and time for the Public Hearing on the
detachment proposal for June 21.
Each of the resolutions must be adopted by separate vote at your
meeting to continue the parallel processes of reauthorization,
annexation and detachment on a schedule consistent with the
adoption of the budget for FY 95 -96.
Fiscal Impacts: There are no direct fiscal impacts on the City's
General Fund from the Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District.
All of the costs associated with the District are recovered via the
assessments. A summary of the proposed funding of the District for
FY 95 -96 will be presented at your meeting as part of the
Engineer's Report.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Nothing additional at
this time. After your meeting, the Resolutions of Intention will
be published and mailed along with a separate notice to those
property owners whose properties are subject to an increased
assessment or annexation informing them of the upcoming Public
Meeting and Hearing.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: This would
depend on what resolutions the Council does not adopt. Either the
reauthorization, annexation or detachment processes would not move
forward.
Follow Up Actions: The Resolutions of Intention will be published
as required, and mailed with the required notices to certain
property owners.
Attachments: 1. Resolutions (5).
VA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1995 -1996
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California as
follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, on the
19th day of April, 1995, said Council did adopt its Resolution No. 95 -21, "A
Resolution Describing Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report
For Fiscal Year 1995 - 1996," for the .City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting
District LLA -1, in said City and did refer the proposed improvements to the Engineer
of the City and did therein direct said City Engineer. to prepare and file with the City
Clerk of said City a report, in writing, all as therein more particularly described:
WHEREAS, said City Engineer prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report
in writing as called for in said Resolution No. 95 -21 and under and pursuant to said
Act, which report has been presented to this Council for consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council has duly considered said report and each and every
part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient, and that
neither said report, nor any part thereof should be modified in any respect;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as
follows:
1. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and the
proposed new improvements to be made within the assessment district or within any
zone thereof, contained in said report, be, and they are hereby preliminarily
approved.
2. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and
expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the
incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, be, and each of
them are hereby preliminarily approved.
3. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment
district referred to and described in said Resolution No. 95 -21 and also the
.J
boundaries of any zones therein and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of
land within said district as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County
Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which the report applies, each of which lot or
parcel of land has been given a separate number upon said diagram, as contained in
said report, be, and it hereby is preliminarily approved.
4. That the proposed assessment of the total amount of the estimated costs
and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in
said assessment district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such
lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements including the maintenance or
servicing or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto, as contained in said
report, be, and they are hereby preliminarily approved.
5. That said report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for the purpose of
all subsequent proceedings to be had pursuant to said Resolution No. 95 -21.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at
a meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of May, 1995 by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
mnrsw\273VesTreApp95.w61
Mayor
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE
LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS PURSUANT
TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND
LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
FISCAL YEAR 1995 -1996
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as
follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 95 -21, "A Resolution Describing
Improvements and Directing Preparation of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 1995-
1996," for City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1, adopted on
April 19, 1995, by the City Council of said City, pursuant to the Landscaping and
Lighting Act of J 972, 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.
95 -21, 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 collection of assessments for Fiscal
Year 1995 -1996 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, are to be made chargeable upon the assessment district
designated as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1," the
exterior boundaries of which are the composite and consolidated areas as more
i
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 Cleric 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 and parcels of land within the district.
4. Notice is hereby given that Wednesday, the 7th day of June, 1995, at
the hour of 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California, be and the same are 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 21 st day of June, 1995, at
the hour of 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale 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 servicing, or both, 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 Cleric of said City be, and hereby is, directed to give notice of said
hearing 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 be 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) 867 -3438.
2
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at
a meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of May, 1995, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Attest:
City Clerk
R
mnrsw\2 73\res \ordlla.w61
3
Mayor
Exhibit A
DESCRIPTION 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
places, 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 appurtenances, including the
cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof;
providing.for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping,
including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing
and 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 operation of any other improvements; and the
operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other
improvements.
mnrew \373 \re9 \6XA- LLA.95
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.
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 in
the E1 Quito Park residential neighborhoods; Tracts 669, 708, 748,
6785, 7833, 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, Mary Springer #1 and #2,
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 13 - (Cabernet Landscape District) - Provides for periodic
landscape' maintenance and improvements along the Obrad Drive
entrance and the San Palo Court border areas adjacent to Tract
7655.
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 semi-
annual landscape maintenance along the Quito Road frontage of
Tracts 976 and 977. Additional landscape and streetscape
improvements are proposed to be installed in FY 95 -96.
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.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1,
ANNEXATION NO. 1995 -1
FISCAL YEAR 1995 -1996
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California as
follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, on the
19th day of April, 1995, said Council did adopt its Resolution No. 95 -22, "A
Resolution Determining To Undertake Proceedings for The Annexation of Territory
To an Existing Assessment District Known As City of Saratoga Landscaping and
Lighting District LLA -1 pursuant to The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 -
Annexation No. 1995 -1" for the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District
LLA -1, in said City and did refer the proposed improvements to the Engineer of the
City and did therein direct said City Engineer to prepare and file with the City Clerk
of said City a report, in writing, all as therein more particularly described:
WHEREAS, said City Engineer prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report
in writing as called for in said Resolution No. 95 -22 and under and pursuant to said
Act, which report has been presented to this Council for consideration;
WHEREAS, said Council has duly considered said report and each and every
part thereof, and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient, and that
neither said report, nor any part thereof should be modified in any respect;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and ordered, as
follows:
1. That the plans and specifications for the existing improvements and the
proposed new improvements to be made within the territory proposed for annexation,
contained in said report, be, and they are hereby preliminarily approved.
2. That the Engineer's estimate of the itemized and total costs and
expenses of said improvements, maintenance and servicing thereof, and of the
incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report, be, and each of
them are hereby preliminarily approved.
w
3. That the diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the territory
proposed for annexation referred to and described in said Resolution No. 95 -22 and
the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within said territory as such lot
or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's maps for the fiscal year to which
the report applies, each.of which lot or parcel of land has been given a separate
number upon said diagram, as contained in said report, be, and it hereby is
preliminarily approved.
4. That the proposed assessment of the total amount of the estimated costs
and expenses of the proposed improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in
said territory proposed for annexation in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received by such lots or parcels, respectively, from said improvements including the
maintenance or servicing or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto, as
contained in said report, be, and they are hereby preliminarily approved.
5. That said report shall stand as the Engineer's Report for the purpose of
all subsequent proceedings to be had pursuant to said Resolution No. 95 -22.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at
a meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of May, 1995 by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
City Cleric
mnrw\2 73\res \engrpt95.w61
Mayor
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ORDER THE ANNEXATION
OF TERRITORY TO AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND THE LEVY
AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN SAID TERRITORY
PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT LLA -1
ANNEXATION NO. 1995 -1
FISCAL YEAR 1995 -1996
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as
follows:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 95 -22, "A Resolution Determining to
Undertake Proceedings for the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment'
District Known As "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 ",
Pursuant To The Landscaping And Lighting Act of 1972 - Annexation No. 1995 -1"
adopted on April 19, 1995, by the Council of said City, pursuant to the Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972, the Engineer of said City has prepared and filed with the
City Clerk of this City the written report called for under said Act and by said
Resolution No. 95 -22, 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 annexation of territory to an existing
assessment district and the levy and collection of assessments therein 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 acquisition of
improvements, more particularly described in Exhibit "A' hereto attached and by
reference incorporated herein.
2. The cost and expenses of said improvements, are to be made chargeable
upon the areas proposed to be annexed to an existing assessment district designated
as "City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 Annexation 1995-1",
the exterior boundaries of which are the composite and consolidated areas as more
particularly described on a map thereof on file in the office of the City 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 proposed annexation and
areas to be assessed and of any zone thereof and the general location of said areas.
3. Said Engineer's Report prepared by the Engineer, 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 areas
proposed to be annexed herein and any zones thereof, and the proposed assessments
upon assessable lots and parcels of land within said areas.
4. Notice is hereby given that Wednesday, the 7th day of June, 1995, at
the hour of 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California, be and the same are 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 21 st day of June, 1995 at
the hour of 8:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale 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 annexation of territory to
an existing assessment district and the levy and on
of the proposed assessment
and when and where it will consider and determine whether the owners of a majority
of the area of the property to be assessed in each area proposed to be annexed herein
have, at or before the conclusion of said hearing, filed written protests against the
acquisition of said improvements, the boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed
herein and any zone therein, the proposed diagram or the proposed assessment, the
Engineer's estimate of cost thereof, and when and where it will consider and finally
act upon the Engineer's Report.
6. The Cleric of said City be, and is hereby, directed to give notice of said
hearing by causing a copy of this Resolution to be published once in the Saratoga
News, a newspaper published and circulated in said City, said publication to be had
and completed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of hearing specified herein.
7. Said Cleric is hereby further directed to mail or cause to be mailed a
copy of this Resolution by first class mail, postage prepaid, to all persons owning real
property in the areas proposed to be annexed and assessed herein, whose names and
addresses appear on the last equalized County assessment roll or, where applicable, on
the State Board of Equalization assessment roll, said mailing to be had and completed
2
at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of said hearing.
8. The Office of the City Engineer be, and is hereby designated as the
department to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein,
and may be contacted during regular office hours at the City Hall; .13777 Fruitvale
Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070, or by calling (408) 867 -3438.
3 i i t i
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at
a meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of May, 1995, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Attest:
City Clerk
mnrsw\273\resVntnt1la.w61
3
Mayor
Exhibit A
DESCRIPTION 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
places, 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 appurtenances, including the
cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof;
providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping,
including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing
and 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 operation of any other improvements; and the
operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other
improvements.
mnrew \373 \ree \MA- LLA.95
Supplement to Exhibit A
City of Saratoga
Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1
Annexation No. 1995 -1
Benefits Provided Within Each Zone
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 5 - ( Azule Lighting District) - Provides for streetlighting in
the Azule Crossing residential neighborhoods: Tracts 184, 485,
787, 1111 and 1800.
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).
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO UNDERTAKE
PROCEEDINGS FOR DETACHMENT OF TERRITORY
FROM AN EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
KNOWN AS "CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPE AND
LIGHTING ASSESSMENT LLA -1,"
PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as
follows:
WHEREAS, that certain territory described on the map attached hereto as
Exhibit "A", is part of Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA -1, pursuant
to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer, upon review of the LLA -1, has recommended
to this Council that said territory be detached from Landscaping and Lighting
Assessment District LLA -1, due to said territory no longer receiving substantial
benefit from said District; and
WHEREAS, this Council desires to undertake detachment proceedings for the
detachment of the aforedescribed territory from said District.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. On Wednesday, the 21 st day of June, 1995, at the hour of 8:00 o'clock
p.m., the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the detachment of certain
territory as described on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", from the
aforedescribed Assessment District. The hearing will be held at the meeting place of
the City Council at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California.
2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give the Notice of Hearing
required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
1
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, at
a meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of May, 1995, by the following vote of the
members thereof:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
April 26, 1995
mnrsw\273\res\Intent2.w61
SARArT�OGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. aS'f( AGENDA ITEM:
_ MEETING DATE: May 3., 1995 CITY MGR:
ORIGINATING DEPT.: Community Development Vt/
SUBJECT: Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract, Nelson
Gardens Property, 5.1 acres located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road
Recommended Motion:
If the City Council can make the required findings that the cancellation
of the Williamson Act Contract is in the public interest and wishes to
approve the removal of the land from the Williamson Act, the Council
should direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary resolution.
Report Summary:
The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County (property owner) has
petitioned for the Tentative Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract
on the Nelson Gardens property located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road. On
November 21, 1994, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into
between the property owner and the C_-ty of Saratoga. The MOU provided
for the completion and processing of a series c wryi , i.:.:,,zs relating
to possible development of the property. ' The MOU specifically states
that execution of this MOU by City does not obligate City, the City
Council, the City Planning Commission or any department, agency,
employee or instrumentality of the City to enact the ordinances, adopt
resolutions or grant (any) entitlement...."
The first procedural step in reviewing any development application is to
approve a Tentative Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract
presently in effect on the property. If the Tentative Cancellation is
approved by the City Council, applications for a General Plan Amendment,
Zone Change and Tentative Subdivision for 9 lots will be reviewed by
City staff with public hearings by the Planning Commission and City
Council to follow.
State Government Code
Beginning with Section 51280, the Government Code allows the City
Council to tentatively cancel a Williamson Act Contract if the Council
determines that specific findings can be made to do so.
Attached is a memorandum from the City Attorney explaining in detail the
justification for which the City Council can approve the Tentative
Cancellation. If the City Council can make the findings as described in
the memorandum, a resolution should be prepared.
Environmental Determination:
A Negative Declaration has been prepared (dated March 16, 1995) finding
that no significant, adverse environmental impact will result from the
"proposed project." In this case, the project consists only of the
The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
City Council Hearing
May 3, 1995
Page 2
consideration of the cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract. The
cancellation (i.e. the project) 'only affects the tax status of the site
and does not, in of itself, approve any development of the site.
If the Tentative Cancellation is approved, any future consideration of
a development project (e.g. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change,
Subdivision, etc.) will require further environmental study to determine
if any potential impacts will result from development of the site.
A copy of the Initial Study checklist and Negative Declaration has been
available for public. review in the Community Development Department. A
copy is also available for review at the reception counter in City Hall.
Fiscal Impacts•
None as a result of the Tentative Cancellation of the Williamson Act
Contract.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
A notice of the City Council meeting was published in the Saratoga News
and a notice was mailed to all Williamson Act Contract property owners
in the City as well as to the State Director of Land Conservation.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion:
If the Tentative Cancellation is not approved, the land will remain as
a Williamson Act Contract property until the contract expires. At that
time, the property automatically is canceled and is subject to
development regulations in effect.
Follow Up Actions:
If the Tentative Cancellation is approved, a Resolution will be prepared
and placed on the next City Council agenda for adoption.
Attachments:
1.
Memorandum from City Attorney, dated April 27, 1995.
2.
Letter from Virginia Fanelli, dated April 6, 1995
(includes
Exhibits "A ", "B" and "C" as part of the property owner's
petition
for cancellation.
3.
Letter from Robin Kennedy (representing The Friends of
the Nelson
Garden Foundation), dated April 27, 1995.
4.
Petition for Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract.
5.
Negative Declaration, dated March 16, 1995.
6.
Letter from Ann and Rick Waltonsmith, dated March 25, 1995.
7.
Letter from Robin Kennedy (representing the Friends of
the Nelson
Garden Foundation), dated March 30, 1995.
8.
Letter from W.B. Alexander, dated March 30, 1995.
9.
Letter from Donald S. Macrae, dated March 30, 1995.
10.
Letter from Francis Stutzman, M.D., (undated).
APR -27 -95 THU 17:49
MICHAEL R. NAVE
STEVEN R. MEYERS
ELIZASETfI M. $ILVER
MICMAEL,S. RIBACK
KENNETH'A. WI1.SQ4
CLIFFORD F. CAM?nELL
MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ
KATHLEEN FAUbION, AICP
WENOY A. ROBERTS
DAVID W. SKINNER
STEVEN T. MATTAS
MIUK W. JARVIS
VEAONICA A. r. NEBB
OF COUNSEL
ANDREA d. SALILMAN
MEYERS, NAVE, RMACK, SILVER & WILSON
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORA110N
GATEWAY PLAZA
777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300
SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577
TELEPHONE: (510) 351.4300
FACSIMII,E: '(510) 351.4481
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
City Manager
FROM: Michael S, Riback, City Attorney and
Kathleen Faubion, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
DATE: April 27, 1995
P. 02/09
SANTA "A OFFICE
555 FIFTH STREET. SUITE 9A0
SANTA ROSH, CA 9s4at
TEUPMONE: (707) 645 -$009
FACSIMILE: 1707) 34i0017
Reply to:
San LMnmo
The Purpose of this memorandum is to address the legal issues raised in connection
with a petition to cancel the Williamson Act contract for the Nelson Gardens property. In
particular, questions were raised about a previous notice of non - renewal and about the
statutory findings necessary to approve a cancellation.
BACKGROUND
The property consists of approximately .5. ). acres, including some 2 acres of apricot
orchard. The property has been subject to a Land Conservation Contract pursuant to the
Williamson Act (Gov. Code Sec. 51200, at =-q.) 1sincc 1971. The current owners of the
property now propose to cancel the cont.rart. The owners ultimately propose to subdivide
the property into a maximum of ten single family residential lots, however no
development application is before the Council at this time.
The Williamson Act vvas enacted in 1965 with the stated intent to preserve,
agricultural land to maintain the state's agricultural economy, to discourage premature
and unnecessary conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses, and to preserve the open
' All statutory references arc to the Government Code unless otherwise
noted.
APR -27 -95 THU 17:50
TO:
FROM:
City
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
P. 03/09
City Council, City Manager
Michael S. Riback, City Auorney and Kathleen Faubion, Assistant
Attorney
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
April 27, 1995
2
space values of agricultural lands. (Sec. 51220, See Attachment 1). The core of the Act is
providing tax incentives to owners who agree to keep their land in agriculture or other
open space uses. The agreements are formalized in a Land Conservation Contract. The
term of the contract is ten years; the contract is automatically extended each year unless
terminated through a notice of non- renewal or through cancellation. The notice of non -
renewal eliminates die-automatic annual extension, with the result that the contract runs
out its term over the following ten years. An owner may filc "for non - renewal at any time
and need not provide any justification for the action.
Land conservation contracts may be terminated by cancellation as well as by non -
renewal. Cancellation results in immediate termination of the contract. However, in
contrast to non - renewal, cancellation requires the public agency to justify the cancellation
through a series of statutorily required findings. The public agency's action to adopt
findings and approve a cancellation is an adjudicative act. (Sierra Club v. City of
Ha -a (1981) 171 Cal. Rptr. 619, 623). That is, if the approval were challenged, a
court would look to see if the required findings were made and were supported by
substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
In the subject case, the landowners requested non- renewal on September 16, 1991,
'but have now petitioned for cancellation of the contract. The legal question before the
Council, then, is Nvhether substantial evidence is present to support the required
cancellation findings. The applicant has submitted a set of proposed facts and findings to
support the requested cancellation. (Exhibit C of Fanelli letter dated April 6, 1995). The
1 By letter dated March 30, 1995, the attorney representing the Friends of
Nelson Gardens Foundation asked whether the notice of non - renewal was filed with
the Director of Conservation and was recorded as required under the current
statute. The Act was amended effective January 1, 1990 to require the Director of
Conservation to prepare annual reports on non - renewal and cancellation activity.
At the same time, the statute was amended to require that notices of non - renewal be
filed with the Director, presumably to assist in preparing the annual report. The
notice of non - renewal for the subject property was not filed with the Director. The
statutory requirement for recordation was not adopted until 1992, and thus was not
required when the applicant's notice of non - renewal was filed with the City.
APR -27 -95 THU 17 :51
TO:
FROM;
Citv
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
P. 04/09
City Council, City Manager
Michael S. Riback, City Attorney and Kathleen Faubion, Assistant
Attorney
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
April 2 7, 1995
3
Council has also received written testimony asserting lack of evidence to make the
required findings.
If, after considering the information before it, the Council feels it can make the
required cancellation findings and can support them with factual evidence, the Council
may approve tentative cancellation of the contract. The presence of disagreement or
contrary information does not require denial of the cancellation request so long as any
approval is supported by substantial evidence. If, on the other hand, the Council does
not feel there is substantial evidence to make and support the required findings, the
Council should deity the request.
NATURE OF THE CANCELIATION FINDING =S
The procedures for contract cancellation are outlined beginning in Sec. 51280. The
landowner must file a cancellation petition with the City. (Sec. 5128 1. ). A cancellation fee
is determined by the County .Assessor (Sec. 51283), environmental review is conducted,
and the petition is noticed for public hearing. (Sec. 51284). In order to approve a
cancellation request, the City must make either of two major findings, each of which also
involvcs subfindings: (Sec. 51282). This complicated array of findings is shown on
Attachment 2. As demonstrated in Attachment 2, the major findings supporting
cancellation are that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson
Act, or, that cancellation is in the public interest. In Its December 14, 1994 petition, the
landowners request cancellation based on the public interest finding, which is outlined on
Attachment. 2 and su' m'marized below:
Cancellation of a contract shall be in the public interest only if the council makes
the following findings pursuant to Sec. 5I282(c):
I. Other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of the
Williamsnn Act; and,
2. a. There is no prodmate noncontracted land which is Loth available and
suitable for the proposed residential use; or,
APR -27 -95 THU 17:51
TO:
FROM:
City
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
P. 05/09
City Council, City Manager
Michael S. Riback, City Attorney and Kathleen Fauhion, Assistant
Attorney
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
April 27, 1995
4
b. Development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous
patterns of urban development than development of pro.►imatc
noncuntracted land.
The Sierra (11b case provides useful guidance on the kind of evidence that could
support these findings? For example, in dictum, the Court noted that just as the
objectives of the Williamson Act implicate statewide interest in agricultural production
and economics, "public concerns" for the purposes of the cancellation finding must be
broader than simply considering local interests. (Sierra Club, 171 Cal. Rptr_ At 627).
The Court also commented on the kinds of interests relevant to cancellation. The
Williamson Act interests are reflected in the statutory intent provisions of Sec. 51220.
(Attachment 1). They include maintaining the agricultural economy of the state,
maintaining food supplies, providing housing for agricultural workers, discouraging
premature and unnecessary urbanization that results in discontiguous development and
increased costs to provide services, and providing open space value in urban areas.
Examples of other countervailing interests include "housing, needed services,
environmental protection through developed uses, economic growth or employment...".
(Sierra Club 171 Cal.Rptr. at 628).
As the Council considers this inatter, information relevant to balancing "other
publicc concerns" against the Williamson Act objectives could include the nature, type and
duration of agricultural activities on the site and any changes in these features over the
past years. Other relevant information could include the size, shape, and topography of
the site for agriculture and alternate uses, and could include the relation of the site to the
amount and character of surrounding development and any changes in that relation over
time.
'The Sierra Club case «►as decided in 1981 when b-Qth of the major findings
were necessary for cancellation. In response to the decision, the Legislature clarified
its intentions with respect to cancellation by amending the Williamson Act to
require one or the other of the major findings, but not both. Thus, the case is
somewhat out of date, but it is nevertheless useful for its specific discussions of the
individual statutory findings..
APR -27 -95 THU 17:52
TO:
FROM:
City
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
P. 06/09
City Council, City Manager
Michael S. Riback, City Attorney and Kathleen Faubion, Accistant
Attorney
Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
April 27, 1995
5
In addition to weighing "other public concerns" against the Act, the public interest
cancellation also requires the City to assess development opportunities and patterns
"proximate" to the contracted property. To this end, the second public interest
cancellation finding requires the City to find either that no other suitable land nearby
could accommodate the proposed use; ar, that development of the site would provide
more contiguous urban. development patterns than development of proximate
noncontracted land. For these alternate findings, therefore, relevant information could
include specific information on vacant land in the area around the project site and
information on whether the site or the other vacant lands are served by public services and
improvements. The location of the site with respect to other development, as well as the
nature, intensity and e,,ctent of other development'is also relevant to these findings.
In determining whether other land available for development is "proximate ", the
statute directs the City to consider land which is "sufficiently close [to the site] that it can
serve as a practical alternative for the proposed use." (Sec. 51282(c)). This statutory
definition vas added as a result of the Sierra Club case; in au.ei7tpting to interpret
"proximate" the Court counseled that it should be applied to "effectuate 'the legislative
intent and spirit of the act...' (citations) ". (Sierra Cub 171 Cal. Rpt.r. At 630). Thus, it
seems reasonable to interpret that to -the .extent that the site is in a developed area,
"proximate" may include a lesser area than if the site were in a remote area, because
development patterns will be more evident where there is more development.
The applicant's proposed findings cite a proximate area of one mile around the site.
If the Council adopts 'the proposed cancellation findings, it should attempt to support the
findings by explaining as specifically as possible how it has determined what lands are
proximate to the site.
As a practical matter, many cancellation requests are based on a landowner's
perception that agricultural use of the property is uneconomic. Both the statute and the
Sierra Club case address this situation, and state that lack of economic productivity alone
is not sufficient to support cancellation. Sec. 51282(d) states as follows:
For purposes of subdivision (a), the uneconomic character of an existing
agricultural use shall not by itself be sufficient reason for cancellation of the
contract. The uneconomic character of the existing use may be considered
APR -27 -95 THU 17:53
F. 07/09
TO: City Council, City Manager
PROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney and Kathleen Faubion, Assistant
City Attorney
RE: Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract,
Nelson Gardens Property
DATE: April 27, 1995
PAGE: 6
only if there is no other reasonable or comparable agricultural use to 'which
the land may be put.
Lack of economic productivity is not among the required findings for cancellation.
In fact, the statute makes it clear that -it is not an issue at all unless a finding is made and
supported that no other reasonable agriculture use may be made of the property. Relevant
information on this issue could include the effects of urban development over the years on
the agricultural operations, and could include changes in agricultural costs. In applying
this provision of the statute, the Sierra Club court emphasized the need to identify
changed circumstances that now cause the existent operation to be uneconomic. (Sierra
Club 171 Cal. Rptr. at 631 -32). In the current application, for example, the court would
assign little weight to the small size of the property, because the site. "A►as accepted into
agricultural preserve at that same size.
It is clear from the nature of the required statutory findings that cancellation
decisions are highly dependent on the particular facts of a given situation. A decision to
approve a cancellation may not, for example, rest on general statements that development
often interferes with agriculture... Instead, the findings must be evaluated and considered
as they apply to the particular contract_ before the Council.
Michael�f� ck
City Attorney
Kathleen Fauhion, r�
Assistant Attorney
MSR:dsp
Attachments
]]111I�H' 731uiemL)\4pr95 \gaYdens,m,61
APR -27 -95 THU 17;53
§ 51220. Legislative findiugs-
The Legislature finds:
(a) That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited
suHply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the
state's economic resources, and is necessary not only to the mainte-
nance of the agricultunal economy of the state, but also for the assur-
ance of adequate, healthful and nutritious food for future residents
of this state and nation.
(b) That the agricultural worlc force is vital, to sustaining agri-
cultural productivity; that this work force has the lowest average in-
come of any occupational group in this state; that there exists a need
to house this work force of crisis proportions which rewires includ-
ing among agricultural uses the housing of agricultural laborers; and
that such use of agricultural Iand is in the public interest and in con-
formity with the state's Farmworker Housing Assistance Plan.
(e) That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary con-
version of agricultural land to urban uses is a matter of public inter-
est and will be of benefit to urban dwellers themselves in that it will
discourage discontiguous urban development patterns which unneces-
sarily increase the costs of community services to community, resi
dents.
(d) That in a rapidly urbanizing society agricultural lands have
a definite public value as open space, and the preservation in agricul-
tural production of such lands, the use of which may be limited under
the provisions of this chapter,. constitutes an important physical, so-
cial, esthetic and economic asset to existing or pending urban or met-
ropolitan developments.
(e) That land within a scenic highway enrridor or wildlife habi-
tat area as defined in this chapter has a value to the state because of
its scenic beauty and its location adjacent to or within view of a state
scenic highway or because it is of great importance as habitat for
Wildlife and contributes to the preservation or enhancement thereof.
(f) For these reasons, this chapter is necessary for the promo-
tion of the general .welfare and the protection of the public interest in
agricultural land.
(Added by Stats.1965, c. 1443, p. 3378, S. 1. Amended by Stat3.1968, C.
1138, P. 2155, § 1; St2ts.1969, C. 1473, p. 3024, § 4; Stats.1980, c. 1::19, p.
4131, § I')
P. 08/09
ATTACH --� �-
APR -27 -95 THU 17:54
FrNDINds REQ=REM=S FQR
WILLYAMON ACT CQNTRACT CANCELLATION
(Government Code section 51282)
To cancel a Williamson Act contraCL, the city must find either:
"That cancellation is in the public interest"
or
"That cancellation is consistent with the purposes of
[the Williamson ActIP
To find cancellation in the public
interest, the City must find
(§ 51282(c)):
1. "That other public concerns
substantially outweigh the
objectives of [the Williamsbn
Act ] "
and either
2a. "That there is no proximate
noncontracted land which is
both available and suitable
for the use to which it is
proposed the contracted land
be put"
or
2b. "That development of the
contracted land would provide
more contiguous patterns of
urban development than
development of proximate
noncontracted land."
To find cancellation consistent with
the purposes of the Williamson Act,
the City must find (§ 51282(b)):
1. "That cancellation is for land
on which a notice of nonrenewal
has been served pursuant to
Section 51245"
and
2. "That cancellation is not
likely to result in the removal
of adjacent lands from agricul-
tural use n.
end
3. "That cancellation is for an
alternative use which is
consistent with the applicable
provisions of the city or
county general plan"
and
4. "That cancellation will not
result in discontiguous
patterns of urban development"
and either
Sa_ "That there is no proximate
noncontracted land which is
both available and suitable for
the use to which it is proposed
the contracted land be put"
5b.
ATTACHMENT.."
or
"That development of the
contracted land would provide
more contiguous patterns of
urban development than
development of proximate
noncontracted land."
'e
FC _
I Fanelli Consulting, Inc.
Land Planning/ Property Management/ Real Estate Broker
April 6, 1995
Mr. Harry Peacock, City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.,
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Harry:-
o E rl .1LE dUE
D
APR 1 D 1995
Cri, i ur SAAATOGA
CITY'i�NAGER'S OFFICE
Enclosed with this letter are Exhibits "A ", I-BOO and "C"
which support the request for cancellation of the Williamson
Act on the property known as the Nelson Gardens. These are
copies of documents submitted in December by Trinity
Development.
As you must be aware, the Community Foundation and
particularly the Foundation attorney, David Mitchell, are
extremely upset with being put in a awkward public position
for the second time in their dealings with the City on this
property. First, they were told that the Development
Agreement or MOU could be handled without public involvement
and now they have been asked to take responsibility for a
protracted public hearing process. Since their primary goal
has been to protect the good name of the Foundation while
also trying to bring a benefit to the City of Saratoga, they
are particularly irritated by this latest problem.
It is important that the next hearings are scheduled
promptly to get the focus off of the Foundation and also to
meet the obligations of the contract with Trinity
Development. I am quite sure that if the contract is not
fulfilled, the Foundation will simply sell the property to
someone who is willing to hold it until the Williamson Act
expires, leaving the City without the benefit it now may
receive.
10052 Pasadena Avenue, Suite B • Cupertino, CA 95014 • .(408) 996 -8188 • Fax (408) 996 -8261
Therefore, I am requesting on behalf of the Community
Foundation that the hearing on the cancellation be scheduled
for Wednesday, May 3rd before the City Council with a
recommendation for approval.that evening.and that the' -
hearings on the General Plan, Zoning and Tentative Map with
the Planning Commission begin no later than May 24th.
Please confirm this schedule with me at the earliest
possible date. And please let me or Trinity Development know
if any.additional documents are needed prior to the hearings.
very truly yours,
virgini Fanelli
cc: Peter Hero
David Mitchell
Jeff Wyatt
Ann Marie Burger, Mayor
C(62py
T H E COMMUNITY F O U N D A T I O N
Of Santa Clara County
TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA:
Pursuant to the California Land Conservation.. Act of 1985 (hereafter
wWllllamson Act"), the undersigned respectfully represent the following:
1. LAND; The undersigned constitute all of the present owners of the
land whose legal description Is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this
petition and Is hereby Incorporated herein by reference.
2. P A map showing the size and location of said lands Is set forth
on Exhibit "B" attached to this petition and Is hereby Incorporated
herein by reference.
3. CONTRACT: A land Conservation Contract has heretofore been
entered Into between Frank C. Nelson and the City of Saratoga. The
Contract was recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara
County on May 19, 1971, in Book 9381, Page 234; land described In
Paragraph 1 above is all of that land subject to such Contract.
4. CANCEL CONTRACT: The undersigned hereby request that the City
Council of the City of Saratoga approve cancellation of the Contract
as to the land described In Paragraph 1 above. The undersigned
represents that such cancellation is In the public Interest pursuant to
California Government Code Section 51282 A-2 (That cancellation Is
In the public Interest), by reason of the facts, circumstances and
conditions set forth In Exhibit "C° attached to this petition and In-
corporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
Wherefore, the undersigned hereby request that the above matter be
heard and that the Council take action thereon as provided by the Williamson
Act. The undersigned do also hereby declare that the above Is true and
correct.
Executed on M1
THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
By.
960 WEST HEDDING. SUITE 220 • SAN JOSE. CALIFORNIA 95126-1215
PHONE (408) 241- 2666'• FAX (408) 452 -4636
.�1
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REAL property situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, described as follows:
PARCEL ONE:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 74 at the Southeast corner of Lot 74
as said lot is shown on Tract No. 3101, Blue Ridge, said Tract having been
recorded in Book 148 of Maps at.pages 25, 26, and 27 Official Records of Santa
Clara County; thence running down the Westerly line of the aforementioned Lot
74 N. 50 15' 09" W 73.42 feet; N. 190 04' 09 1''E. 85.70 feet; N. 620 10' 33" E.
81.41 feet,to the common corner of Lots 73 and 74 of the aforementioned map;
thence running down the Zoutherly line of Lot '73 N. 870 21' 57" E. 209.24 feet
to a point on the Westerly line of Trinity Avenue as shown on the aforementioned
map; thence running down the Southwesterly line of said Avenue S. 200 10' 00"
E. 28.92 feet; thence on a curve to the left having a central angle of 120 39'
26" a radius of 180 feet and an arc distance of 39.77 feet; thence leave said
Trinity Avenue and running S. 420 56' 00" W. 278.09 feet to a point on the
Northerly line of Saratoga Hills Road; thence running down said Northerly line
N. 580 06' 34" W. 69.03 feet; and thence N. 7411 51' 33" W. 67.35 feet to the
point of beginning of .this description.
PARCEL TWO:
Beginning at a point in the center line of a private road, along the North-
easterly line of that certain 11.32 acre tract described in the Deed from
Susuan R. Stevens, et vir, to Bruce Bonny dated October 4, 1912 and recorded in
Book 393 of Deeds, page 242, distant thereon North 90 47' 21" West 81.54 feet
from the Southeasterly corner of said 11.32 acre tract;/thence from said point
of beginning along the Northeasterly line of said 11.32 acre tract and the
center 'line of said private roadway the following courses and distances: North
9° 47' 21" West 6.25 feet; North 310 06' 44" West 65.87 feet; North 460 14' 39"
West 54.80 feet; North 590 03' West 66.16 feet and North 490 21' 02" West 65.97
feet; thence leavir:g the center line of said private roadway and continuing
First .4merican Tide
PARCEL TWO: (continued)
along the Northeasterly line of said 11.32 acre tract, North 270 45' 03" Kest
42.92 feet; thence parallel with the center line of said private road and
distant Northeasterly 16.00 feet at a right angle therefrom, North 580 06' 34"
West 228.27 feet; thence North 740 51' 33" -West 67.35 feet; thence leaving
said parallel line, North 50 15' 09" West 73.42 feet; thence North 190 04' 09
East 85.70 feet; thence North 620 10' 33" East 81.41 feet; thence North 870 21'
57" East 209.24 feet; thence South 100 20' East 28.92 feet; thence along the
arc of a tangent curve to the left, Southeasterly with a radius of 180.00 feet,
through a central angle of 510 25' 53" for an arc distance of 161.28 feet;
thence South 710 35' 53" East 77.60 feet; thence Easterly along the arc of a
curve to the left with a radius of 480.00 feet, thru a central angle of 190
00' 00' for an arc distance of 159.17 feet; thence North 890 24' 07" East 35.83
feet; thence along the arc of a tangent curve-to the right, with a radius
of 40.00 feet thru a central angle of 900 11' 53" for an arc distance of 62.97
feet; thence. South 00 24' 00" East 176.52 feet; thence along the arc of a
tangent curve to the right, with a radius of 60.00 feet, thru a central angle
of 860 54' 07" for an arc distance of 91.00 feet; thence along the arc of a
reverse curve to the left, with a radius of 225.83 feet, thru a central angle of
250 30' 43" for an arc distance of 100.55 feet; thence South 600 59' 24" West
136.87 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Excepting therefrom -
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 74 at the Southeast corner of Lot 74
as said lot is shown on Tract No. 3101, Blue Ridge, said Tract having been
recorded in Book 148 of Maps at pages 25, 26, and 27 Official Records of Santa
C1ara.County; thence running down the Westerly line of the aforementioned Lot
74 N. 50 15' 09" W 73.42.feet; N. 190 04' 09" E. 85.70'feet; N. 620 10' 33" E.
81.41 feet to the common corner of Lots 73 and 74 of th;e aforementioned map;
thence running down the Southerly line of Lot 73 N. 670 21' 57" E. 209.24 feet
to a point on the Westerly line of Trinity Avenue as shown on the aforementioned
First American Title
Exhibit A, "Page 2
PARCEL TWO: (continued)
map; thence running down the Southwesterly line of said Avenue S. 200 10' 00"
E. 28.92 feet; thence on a curve to the left having a central angle of 120 39'
26" a radius of 180 feet and an arc distance of 39.77 feet; thence leave said
Trinity Avenue and running S. 420 56' 00" W. 278.09 feet to a point on the
Northerly line of Saratoga Hills Road; thence running down said Northerly line
N. 580 06' 34" W. 89.03-feet; and thence N. 740 51' 33" W. 67.35 feet to the
point of beginning of this description.
APN: 503- 49 -42, 41
ARB: 503 -49 -15
1
First American Title
J
Exhibit A, Page 3.
H
H
CQ
H
x
X
W
11 .111..1 c•111 ••c+ • •
0.-6.11 1 At (SIK -A •SL Ssoot
1 33 AC
L�
�"/-s4� G4•� ter?
29 \
1
` � I
(
1
. I
or K@ IW LQcn.fc Allf{ $04 ('11 �A• 11 o.n•11, (AU /040LA
C.
503 =
Y '
S(AtI
i
I
TI
1.
36
is
)4
31
/4
/)
l? 1
1
// ip
N R7 i'
1!
Z1 /
W
1
I
•
..
TRINITY
i�i'r�;
AVENUE
?9 ?4 1
/
a
■
1i IS a 16
27
F-
v
21 ?0 21
27
LLJ
W
2S
N
o
,
Z
U
14 ' 17
19 72
26
Q
_
I
a
tJ
1
Y '
S(AtI
EXHIBIT "C"
PROPOSED FACTS ACID FINDINGS UNDER
THE WILLIAMSON ACT SUPPORTING CANCELLATION
A. Pursuant to Section •51282(a)(2), cancellation is 'in the
public interest in that:
(1) Other public concerns substantially outweigh the
objectives of the Williamson Act as applied to this
property. In fact, this property no longer even
meets the.objectives of the Act, set forth in Section
51220 and summarized as follows:
a) Findings 51220(a)', (b) and (c) refer to
preservation of agricultural land for the agri-
cultural economy of the state and to produce
food, to sustaining an agricultural work force
by providing housing on the property for agri-
cultural laborers and discouraging discontiguous
urban development which increase the costs of
public services to ' City residents. This
property consists of only 5.1 acres, about 2+
acres of that amount 'currently, in nonproducing
orchard. The cost of preserving the orchard
exceeds any costs of agricultural production.
Certainly the property is not used nor suitable
for housing agricultural laborers, and finally
the property is isolated amongst residentially -
developed lands and is served by City
services. In addition, the property fails to
meet the presumption of agricultural land for
preservation pursuant to Section 51222 which
sets forth parcel sizes large enough to sustain
agricultural use of at least 10 acres in size if
prime agricultural land, or at least 40 acres if
not prime.' Clearly this property fails to meet
either tests.
b) Findings 51220(d) and (e) speak to preserving
agricultural production on lands for open space,
land within a scenic highway corridor or
wildlife habitat having value, and the necessity
of agricultural contracts to protect the public
The City Council is not required to make findings other
than findings (1) and either (2) or (3). §51282(f).
_1
interest in agricultural land. Clearly this property does not
serve the public interest nor welfare in preservation of
agricultural lands since its orchard is not producing
commerical crops nor can it do so in an economically -
viable manner (See Section 51201 (b) defining
"agricultural use" as producing an agricultural commodity
for commercial purposes). Neither is it defined under the
Williamson Act as an open space use, since such land
must be within a scenic highway, corridor, a wildlife
habitat area, a salt pond, a . managed wetland area or a
submerged area, none of which apply to this land. (See
"open space" definition at Section 51201 (o)).
c) Public concerns include an unoccupied and unprotected
parcel of land isolated amidst residential development
which attracts trespassers; vandals and loiterers to the area.
Development of the property will prevent these
intrusions into the neighborhood. There is further a
public concern that the land and its nonproducing orchard
will decay, attracting vectors and illegal dumping onto the
property, which affects the neighborhood.
d) The property cannot be sold for residential development
until the agricultural restrictions are lifted. Such sale is in
the public interest since the net proceed will be added to
the endowment of The community Foundation, the
income of which will be distributed to qualifying charities,
foundations and other community organizations in Santa
Clara County.
(2) There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both
available and suitable for the proposed alternative use of this
property, a residential subdivision. ( "Proximate, noncontracted
land" is defined as land sufficiently close to this site as to be a
practical alternative.) A search was made for subdividable lands
of the same size as this property or larger within a one -mile
radius of the property. There were no noncontracted properties
available fitting that description.
'(3) Development of this property would provide more
contiguous patterns of urban development than
development of other "proximate" noncontracted land,
if such land is available, in that this property is entirely
surrounded by developed residential subdivisions.
-2-
(4) There is no other reasonable or comparable agricul-
tural use to which the land may be put other than the
failing, nonproducing orchard of 2+ acres. The
remainder of the property has never been in any
agricultural use, nor is it suitable due to its small
size and topography. The existing agricultural use
is uneconomic for the following reasons:
a) Urbanization on all sides of the property makes
growing difficult because of *dust, noise and
irrigation overflows. It is also difficult to
protect the property from theft, vandalism and
trespass.
b) The costs for production of crops on the
property has increased substantially over the
years. The costs now exceed any sale of
product.
B. Cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent
with surrounding uses. An application for a General Plan
amendment and rezoning for residential use -on this
property has been filed with the City.
The proposed alternative use of the 5.1 acres is for
single - family residential. It is anticipated that 9
homes will be built on the property. The property is
described as two parcels, one parcel backing into a
hillside area constituting 1.33 acres; the other a flat
area of 3.77 acres. A General Plan amendment from open
space /managed resource production (refers to agricultural
use) is required, along with rezoning of the property from
A agricultural to residential. The proposed development
will be in conformance with the density of development on
the surrounding properties.
The City of Saratoga is the only known governmental agency
having permit authority relating to the above - proposed
alternative use.
-3-
04/27/1995 16:42 4153241775 ROBIN B KENNEDY ESQ P:4GE 02)
LAIN' OFFICES OF
R O B I N B K E N N E D Y
U`!1`.'ERSITV A _kVF. iLf T6 45. • P4,Q IC...h. vdi01 . 4 4.'7'.
a f
April 27, 1995
Members of the City Council
City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Nelson Garden - Proposed Cancellation of Willigmson Act Contract
Dear Councilmembers:
Please consider this letter as a supplement to my earlier letter to you,
dated March 30, 1995_ I was unable at that time to address the required
"Findings" by the Applicant for the Williamson Act Cancellation, as'I had
been unable to obtain a copy of such findings either from the Applicant or
from City Staff. The Applicant has now kindly furnished me with such a
copy and I am now prepared, on behalf of my client, Friends of Nelson
Garden, to provide our response to these Findings.
Proposed Findings A(1)(a) and (b): `Pursuant to Section 51282(a)(2),
cancellation is in the public interest in that other public concerns
substantially. outweigh the objectives of the Williamson Act as applied to this
property. In fact, this property no longer even meets the objectives of the
Act."
Response to Proposed Findings A(1)(a) and (_b):
(a) The Legislative Findings of the Williamson Act include "(c) That the
discouragement of premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural
land to urban users is a matter of public interest and will be of benefit to
urban dwellers themselves ... (d) That in a rapidly urbanizing society
agricultural lands have a definite public value as open space, and the
preservation in agricultural production of such lands, the use of which may
be limited under the provisions of this chapter, constitutes an important -
physical, social, esthetic and economic asset to existing or pending urban or
metropolitan developments ... (f) ... [T]his chapter is necessary for the
04/27/1995 16:42 4153241775 ROBIN n KENNEDI` ES& PAGE 03
Member of the Saratoga City Council
April 27, 1995
Page 2
promotion of the general welfare and the protection of the public interest in
agricultural land_" 1
The Act's definition of "Agricultural Land" is "land planted with fruit -
or nut- bearing trees ... which have a nonbearing period of less than five
years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period
on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant
production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre. "''
The burden is on the Applicant to demonstrate that the Nelson
Garden, if cultivated, irrigated and harvested in an agriculturally and
economically prudent fashion, would not yield at least $200 per acre per
year. The Applicant cannot be permitted to profit from its neglect of the
Garden and the philanthropic purposes for which it was given -- i.e., "to
preserve a portion of this once great fruit- growing region ... "9
(b) The Williamson Act lists specific findings as conditions precedent to a
city council's decision to cancel a Williamson Act Contract. These are very
specific, and do not include whether the property still meets the purposes of
the Act. That is, this City Council cannot base a decision to cancel the
Williamson Act Contract on the Nelson Garden even if it were to find that
the property no longer meets the purposes of the Act.
Proposed Finding A(1)(c): "Public concerns include an unoccupied and
unprotected parcel of land isolated amidst residential development which
attracts trespassers, vandals and loiterers to the area. Development of the
property will prevent these intrusions into the neighborhood... "
Resvonse to Proposed Finding A(1)((c):
(a) Once again, the Applicant cannot be allowed to benefit from its own
acts or omissions -- in this case, its neglect of the property. The Nature
Conservancy, a predecessor -in- interest to the Community Foundation,
assigned its ownership of the Garden to the California State Parks
Foundation on the basis of the following understanding:
The Conservancy is pleased to be able to transfer this property to the
Foundation as clearly your organization will best be able to manage
' Gov't Code § 51220.
E . Gov't Code § 51201 (b)(4),
s California State Parks Foundation brochure entitled "A Link With the Past."
64/27/1995 16:42 4153241779 RUEIN B KENNED',` ESQ PAGE 04
Member of the Saratoga City Council
April 27, 1995
Page 3
the area in a manner that both protects and enhances the natural
beauty while allowing the citizens of the Santa Clara Valley and the
entire State to benefit from its use .4
It was clearly not the intent of any of the predecessors -in- interest to the
Community Foundation that the Garden would be closed to the public,
fenced and left completed unmanaged and unsupervised.
(b) Again, the Williamson Act lists specific findings as conditions
precedent for a city council's decision to cancel a Williamson Act Contract.
These are very specific, and do not include whether the land is attracting
trespassers, vandals and loiterers.
Proposed Finding.(A)(1)(d): A sale [for residential development] "is in the
public interest since the net proceed (sic) will be added to the endowment of
The Community Foundation, the income of which will be distributed to
qualifying charities, foundations and other community organizations in
Santa Clara County."
Response to Proposed Finding A(1) (d):
(a) The Applicant suggests that the City Council allow the destination of
the proceeds from the development of a project constructed on a parcel for.
which a Williamson Act Contract is cancelled to become the determinant of
the "public benefit" finding. On the basis of that logic, the 501(c)(3) owner of
any contracted land would have an incentive to develop its property to yield a
maximum profit, regardless of the public benefit of the development itself.
For example, Stanford University could petition Santa Clara County to
cancel the Williamson Act Contract on its entire Jasper Ridge Biological
Preserve to construct a highly profitable commercial or high- density
residential development, on the grounds that the proceeds of the sale of the
land would be destined for the University's research and educational
purposes. It is the plain intent of the Williamson Act that the "public
benefit" run with the land -- not with the dollars harvested from its sale.
P Darned Finding (-A)(2): "Pursuant to Section 51282(a)(2), cancellation is in
the public interest in that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is
both available and suitable for the proposed alternative use of this property,
a residential subdivision."
•1 October 14; 1977 letter from Henry P. Little to William Penn Mott, Jr.
04/27/1995 16:42 4153241779 ROBIN E KENNEUY ESQ PAGE 05
Member of the Saratoga City Council
April 27, 1995
Page 4
Response to Proposed FindingA)(2):
(a) The Applicant states that a search was made for subdividable lands of
the same size as this property or larger within a one -mile radius of the
property. As I stated in my March 30 letter:
The Council must make an "explicit finding'6 regarding whether any
other proximate parcel or parcels are suitable for the development of
the ten proposed single family home sites. "The Williamson Act allows
the local agency to consider alternative uses of the restricted land only
if it first determines that suitable nonrestricted sites are available...
Note that the requirement for proximity is not to be construed to
unreasonable limit the search for suitable noncontracted land;
"proximate" property means property close enough to the restricted
parcel to serve as a practical alternative for the proposed use." 6
(Emphasis added.) Note further that "[tlhe size of the proposed
development should not be a significant factor in the agency's search
for alternative sites."
My client requests that the City staff look beyond the one -mile radius of the
property to land within the City limits, and consider a collection of non-
contracted parcels that are both available and suitable for the proposed
single family residential subdivision.
Proposed Finding (A)(3): "]development of this property would provide more
contiguous patterns of urban development than development of other
'proximate' noncontracted land, if such land is available, in that this property
is entirely surrounded by developed residential subdivisions."
s Sierra, at 858. Note that as of 4:00 p.m. on March 30, 1995 -- the day on which all
'-correspondence regarding the hearing is required to be delivered to the City for inclusion in
the Council packet -- neither the City, the Community Foundation nor the California
Department of Conservation has been able to provide a copy of "Exhibit C" to the
Community Foundation's Petition for Cancellation, which exhibit ostensibly describes the
facts, circumstances and conditions to demonstrate that such cancellation is in the public
interest. On behalf of my client, I object to the inadequacy of information on which W base
our objections.
8 Id., at 861.
7 Id. at 862.
64/27/995 16:42 4153241779 ROBIN B KENNEDY ESQ! FA"uE 0o
Member of the Saratoga City Council
April 27, 1995
Page 5
fees onse to Pro osed Findin g (A)(2):
The Applicant cannot have it both ways. Either there is no proximate
noncontracted land that is both available and suitable for the proposed
residential subdivision, or there is such land available. Only in the latter
case can the Applicant logically argue that such alternative site(s) provide
less contiguous patterns of urban development than the Nelson Garden: It
must then identify those sites and demonstrate their lack of the required
contiguity.
Proposed Finding (A)(4): "There is no other reasonable or comparable
agricultural use to which the land may be put other than the failing,
nonproducing orchard of 2+ acres. .. The existing agricultural use is
uneconomic ..." "
Response to Proposed Finding (A)(4):
As stated in my March 30 letter:
While the Garden has not in recent years been used for the purposes
intended by Mr. Nelson in his gift to TNC, the reason is that the owner
of the Garden has elected not to use it for that purpose. The
landowner should not be permitted to benefit from its own failure to
honor the purposes of the gift."
To our knowledge, the Applicant has made no effort to determine whether
there is a reasonable or comparable agricultural use to which the land can be
put. As but one example, my client and others in the City of Saratoga have
long suggested that the property be designated as a public garden. Has the
Applicant tested the economic feasibility of such a project? The City Council
must be mindful that the Community Foundation acquired the Nelson
Garden at zero cost. With the Williamson Act Contract in place, the property
8 With its 1990 Form 990 Federal tax return., the Florence Nelson Foundation provided a
:Schedule of Real Property Owner," in which it stated: "'Phis Foundation now owns and
maintains real property located in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, State of California,
deeded to it by the California State Parke Foundation, a charitable organization, on March
13, 1984, The Foundation maintains the orchard on said premises to preserve for the
general public an example of the vanishing apricot orchards as they existed in the early
days of the Santa Clara Valley. At the time of harvest, historic types of equipment are used
in sun - drying the fruit." In fact, my client informs me that shortly after The Florence
Nelson Foundation received the gift of the Garden, it fenced the property and, since that
time; the property has not been available to the general public.
54/27/1995 16:42 4153241779 ROBIN B KENNEDY ESQ FA13E 07
Member of the Saratoga City Council
April 27, 1995
Page 6
taxes are minimal. How much would the Community Foundation need to
earn from the property to render it "economic "?
Pro osed Fin '_g B: "Cancellation is for an alternative use which is
consistent with surrounding uses. An application for a General Plan
amendment and rezoning for residential use on this property has been filed
with the City."
Response to Proposed Finding B.
Section 51282(b)(3) of the Government Code requires that cancellation be
"for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of
the city ... general plan." In stating that it has fled an application for a
General, Plan Amendment, the Applicant admits that the alternative use it
proposes -- a nine home single family subdivision -- is not presently
consistent with the Saratoga General Plan, The Saratoga General Plan
designates the Nelson Garden property as "open space /managed resource
production." The Applicant cannot reasonably rely upon this Proposed
Finding at this time, as it is clearly inaccurate.
Once again and on behalf of my client, I urge this Council to reject the
application to cancel the Williamson Act Contract for the Nelson Garden.
Sincerely,
Robin B. Kennedy
cc: The Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation
Nelson Lee, Esq. (Trust for Public 'Lands)
David Mitchell, Esq.(Community Foundation)
Joanne Spalding, Esq. (Sierra Club)
From PHONE No. : 408 9% 6261 Mar. 15 :955 IL r- Ah? P0c^
CfF
T ii E C O M M i I N I T Y F O U 1~ D A T I O N
Of Santo Clpru C1,014111v
TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNOIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA:
Pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1885 (hereafter
"Williamson Act"), the undersigned respectfully represent the following:
1. LANDo The undersigned constitute all of the prasont owners of the
land whose legal description is set forth In Exhibit "A" attached to thle
petition and to hereby incorporated herein oy reference.
2. P: A map showing the size and location of sold lands is set forth
on Exhibit "8" attached to this petition and Is hereby Incorporated
herein by reference.
3. CONTRACT A land Conservation Contract has heretofore been
entered Into between Prank C. Nelson and the City of Saratoga. The
Contract was recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara
County on May 19, 1971, In Book 8381. Page 234; land described In
Paragraph 1 above Is all of that land subject to such Contract.
4. CANCFL CONTRACT: The undersigned hereby request that the City
Council of the City of Saratoga approve cancellation of the Contract
as to the land described In Paragraph 1 above. The undersigned
represents that such cancellation Is In the public Interest pursuant to
California Government Code Section $1282 A -2 (That cancellation Is
In the public Interest), by reason of the facts, circumstances and
conditions sot forth in Exhibit "C" attached to this petition and In-
corporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
Wherefore, the underslgned hereby request that the above matter be
heard and that the Council take action thereon as provided by the Willie nson
Act. The undersigned do also hereby declare that the above is true and
correct.
EXecuted on
THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SANTA CI.ARA COUNTY
r,
by:
YOU WFS*V 11Finn3N(', 5U1•1't 221) -SAN JO&L, CALIFORNIA 95136 -1315
PF(UNFE (44)x1 241 -2666 • ItAx (408) 452 -4636
DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED
(Negative Declaration)
PROJECT: Tentative Williamson Act Cancellation
FILE NO: GP -94 -003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005
LOCATION: 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
The - undersigned, Director of Community Development and
Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal
Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined, and does
hereby determine, pursuant, to the applicable provisions of the
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and
Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution
653 of the City of Saratoga, and based on the City's independent
judgment, that the following described project will have no
significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the
environment within the terms'and meaning of said Act.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative cancellation of Williamson Act Land Contract on 5.1 acres
of land, two (2) of which are in an apricot orchard, in order to
consider a General Plan and Zoning Ordinance designation amendment
and subdivision- of the property into• nine (9) residential lots.
The subject property is located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road.
NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County
Virginia Fanelli, Agent
960 W. Hedding, Suite 220
San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 996 -8188
REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The tentative cancellation will affect only the tax exempt status
of the land and will not have any environmental impact. The
tentative approval of the cancellation is not an entitlement for
use; the underlying open space /outdoor recreation zoning and use
will remain unchanged. Any proposed alternative use will require
further environmental review. // /�
Executed at Saratoga, California this t '"'day of qa(A , 1995.
Paul L. Curtis
Community Development Director
forms \ndnelgar
Jar
J
—r- -r.
jj
ark
47"
J o m-3
'Il.i.. 4
1-12.500
R
A\ N
ZAPPELLI
CITY OF SARATOGA
_ INITIAL STUDY FOR DETERMINING
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
PROJECT: Tentative Williamson Act Cancellation
FILE NO: GP -94 7003, AZO -94 -002 & SD -94 -005
LOCATION: 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of .Proponent :
The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County
Virginia Fanelli, Agent
2. Address and phone number of Proponent:
960 W. Hedding, Suite 220
San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 996 -8188
3. Date of Checklist submitted: 3/16/95
4. Agency requiring Checklist: City of Saratoga
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: N/A
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures? X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
over - crowding of the soil? X
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief
features? f X
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features? X
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? X
YES MAYBE NO
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of a lake? X
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
slides, ground failure or similar hazards? X
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality? X
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
X
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temp-
erature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally? X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or
direction of water movements in fresh water? X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood
waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface water or any
water in any water body? X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any altera-
tion of surface water quality, including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or
ground waters? X
YES MAYBE NO
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations? X
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies? X
i. Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? X
j.' Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or
chemical content of'surface thermal springs? X
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass crops, and aquatic plants)? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants? X
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species? _ X
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of
any species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish, or insects)? X
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals? X
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area
or result in a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals? X
YES MAYBE NO
d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish
habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? +
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release o'f hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the
event of an accident or upset conditions.
b. Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an'area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
13.'' Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f.,' Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect
upon services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
C. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
• f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
16.1 Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities?
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications system?
C. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or
will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
19. Recreation. . Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational
opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or
the destruction of a prehistoric or historic
archeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or
aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a
physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
►;1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
--d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact area? X
21. Mandatory Findings of Sicrnificance:
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or
prehistory? X
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals? (A short -term impact on
the environment is one which occurs in a rela-
tively brief, definitive period of time while
long -term impacts will endure well into the
future) . X
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or
more separate resources where the impact on each resource is
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant).
X
d. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? X
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The tentative cancellation will affect only the tax exempt status of the land
and will not have any environmental impact. The tentative approval of the
cancellation is not an entitlement for use; the underlying open space /outdoor
recreation zoning and use will remain unchanged. Any proposed alternative
use will require further environmental review.
IV. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
_X_ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant
effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect
in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. REPORT is required.
mayd& 1b, M5
DATE
nelgar.eir
Fj,-jiATURE---'J
March 25, 1995
Ann Marie Burger, Mayor
Paul Jacobs, Vice Mayor
Gillian Moran, Council Member
Karen Tucker, Council Member
Donald Wolfe, Council Member
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
This letter is to strongly urge you to not
agree to an early cancellation of the Williamson Act
Contract on the Nelson Garden Property.
The Garden was and continues to be
officially designated as an open space for the
general public. The issue is not that a private
owner wants to develop property which was never
designated as open space. This property has a
restrection on it to be forever open space and to be
open to the public. The City should be urging the
Foundation to follow the history of this property.
I also believe that the City of Saratoga
should be protecting the remaining open spaces for
the general public, not helping an organization
undermine and reduce those open spaces.
Sincerely,
Ann and Rick Waltonsmith
21060 Saratoga Hills Rd
Saratoga, CA 95070
LAW OFFICES OF
R O B IN B K E N N E D Y
301 UNIVERSITY AVENUE • SUITE 480 . PALO ALTO.CA. 94301 . 415 . 324.1226 . FAX . 324- 1779
March 30, 1995
BY HAND DELIVERY
Members of the City Council
City Hall
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Nelson Garden - Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
Dear Councilmembers:
I write on behalf of my client, The Friends of the Nelson Garden Foundation,
in connection with the hearing scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, 19951 to
consider the proposed cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract on
property located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road, better known as "The Nelson
Garden." My client strenuously opposes the proposed cancellation of the
Contract which is, as we understand it, the first step in facilitating the effort
by the owner of the property, The Community Foundation of Santa Clara
County ( "Community Foundation "); to develop the Garden for single family
residential parcels —an effort that we. also vigorously oppose.
SUMMARY
The issue before the City Council with respect to the Petition by Community
Foundation to cancel the remaining term of its Williamson Act Contract with
the City of Saratoga is whether the public interest that would be served by
the development of ten single family home lots constitutes the "most
extraordinary circumstances" under the law warranting such cancellation.
My client believes that it does not.
1 We object that the hearing was not duly noticed by publication of a notice in a
newspaper of general circulation, as is required pursuant to Gov't Code § 51284.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
March 30, 1995
Page 2
The Community Foundation's efforts to acquire the necessary entitlements to
sell the property to a residential real estate developer subvert the intentions
of both Frank Nelson's gift of the property to The Nature Conservancy more
than twenty years ago and the California Constitutional provision intended
to promote the conservation, preservation and continued existence of open
space lands. My client intends to use all its resources to prevent the City
Council's collusion with the Community Foundation's efforts, which appears
to be motivated by the Council's desire to receive, on behalf of the City,
"compensation for conversion of open space" that has been promised the City
in exchange for the Council's approval of all requisite steps to enable the
proposed development. That the specific amount the City will receive is
proportionately related to the number of lots whose development it approves2
prompts at least skepticism regarding this Council's ability to act impartially
on the Petition. At worst, it raises the question of whether the Members of
the City Council have a disabling conflict of interest in ruling on the Petition
and the related land use decisions that will inevitably follow.
HISTORY
The history of the Nelson Garden is well known to you. To summarize it
briefly for purposes of providing a context: Between 1971 and 1976, Saratoga
resident Frank Nelson began deeding portions of the 5.1 acre parcel to The
Nature Conservancy ( "TNC "). On May 19, 1971, Mr. Nelson and the City of
Saratoga entered into a Land Conservation Contract by which both parties
determined that the highest and best use of the property was for agricultural
purposes.3 This is the same contract the cancellation of which is now
proposed. TNC's managers at the time felt it was appropriate to be involved
in this gift transaction, although the Garden did not contain the kind of
ecological values TNC normally identifies in a property, in order to facilitate
the ultimate receipt of the property by the California State Parks
Foundation'4
2 Paragraph 9, Predevelopment Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Certain
Undeveloped Property Located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Road, Saratoga, California, dated
November 21, 1994 by and between the City of Saratoga and The Community Development
Foundation of Santa Clara County.
3 Recorded as Document Number 401331, in Book 9381, Page 234.
4 March 2, 1995 letter from Steve McCormick, Regional Director, The Nature
Conservancy, to The Law Offices of Robin B. Kennedy.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
March 30, 1995
Page 3
The Nature Conservancy continued to own the Garden until 1977. Mr.
Nelson agreed to the transfer of the Garden to the California State Parks
Foundation on conditions that (1) he and his sister could continue until their
deaths to occupy the houses on the property and (2) "so long as there is no
interference with the dedication of the property to public use."
Ina letter dated October 14, 1977, Henry P. Little, then Western Regional
Director of TNC, informed Frank Nelson that "the conveyance of your lovely
Saratoga property has been made to the California State Parks Foundation.
You are certainly to be commended for a means of protecting your land both
through gifts to the Conservancy and later by working with us to transfer the
land to the foundation. Individuals like yourself are the reason the
Conservancy and the Foundation can continue to work successfully to protect
our valuable natural heritage."
In conveying the deed to the California State Parks Foundation, Mr. Little
wrote to its President, William Penn Mott, Jr., as follows:
The Conservancy is pleased to be able to transfer this property to the
Foundation as clearly your organization will best be able to manage the
area in a manner that both protects and enhances the natural beauty
while allowing the citizens of the Santa Clara Valley and the entire State
to benefit from its use.5 (Emphasis added.)
The California State Parks Foundation continued to own the Garden until
1984. In a brochure it published during its ownership of the Garden, was a
section entitled "A Link With the Past ":
There are still a few small islands of fruit trees left in the valley. The
Saratoga Nature Center is one. This property has been donated to
preserve a portion of this once great fruit - growing region and to serve
as an educational center for senior citizens, school children and the
general public. Here the care, growing and processing of apricots is
demonstrated. The area is of particular interest because there is a
small arboretum on the property containing exotic plans and the upper
slopes, in natural vegetation, reflect the ecology of the coastal
mountains.
5 October 14, 1977 letter from Henry P. Little to William Penn Mott, Jr.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
March 30, 1995
Page 4
In 1984, under political and budgetary pressures, the Foundation asked the
consent of TNC to transfer the Garden to The Florence Nelson Foundation to
"allow them to continue the maintenance of the property."
On February 27, 1984, The Florence Nelson Foundation• passed a resolution
stating, inter alia, that it "will maintain and preserve the Nelson Gardens for
charitable purposes consistent with the objectives under which the Nelson
Gardens is now maintained. The Foundation will actively seek to obtain all
of the necessary permits and approvals to allow more persons and
organizations to enjoy the use and beauty of the Nelson Gardens." (Emphasis
added.)
Pursuant to an Agreement of Merger between The Florence Nelson
Foundation and the Community Foundation dated June 21, 1993, the
Community Foundation absorbed the corporate identity, existence, purposes,
powers, rights and immunities of The Florence Nelson Foundation, and
undertook to be subject to the latter's debts, liabilities and trust obligations
in the same manner as if The Florence Nelson Foundation had incurred
them. .
The Community Foundation now proposes to acquire the necessary
entitlements from the City of Saratoga to sell the property to a single family
home developer, with the net proceeds going to support the Community
Foundation's own charitable purposes. While those purposes are entirely
commendable, in 1994, only 1.7% of the grants made from board - directed
unrestricted and field of interest funds went to environmental purposes.6
THE WILLIAMSON ACT
The California Legislature passed the California Land Conservation Act of
1965 (known as the "Williamson Act ") on the basis.of the following findings:
(a) That the preservation of a maximum amount of the limited
supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the
state's economic resources, and is necessary not only to the
maintenance of the agricultural economy of the state, but also for the
6 $2,500 to California Student Environmental Action and $3,000 to Wildlife Education &
Rehabilitation Center. The Community Foundation of Santa Clara County Annual Report
1994, p. 23.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
March 30, 1995
Page 5
assurance of adequate, healthful and nutritious food for future
residents of this state and nation.
(b) That the discouragement of premature and unnecessary
conversion of agricultural land to urban uses is a matter of public
interest and will be of benefit to urban dwellers themselves in that it
will discourage discontiguous urban development patterns which
unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to community
resident.
(c) That in a rapidly urbanizing society agricultural lands have a
definite public value as open space, and the preservation in
agricultural production of such lands ... constitutes an important
physical, social, esthetic and economic asset to existing or pending
urban or metropolitan developments.'
The Williamson Act empowers local governments to establish agricultural
preserves consisting of lands devoted to either'agricultural use, recreational
use, open space use or any combination of such uses. As consideration to the
landowner for committing his property as an agricultural preserve, the
landowner is guaranteed a relatively stable tax base, founded on the value of
the land for open space use and not influenced by its development potential.
This notion is embodied in Article XIII, Section 8 of the California
Constitution, which declares that:
To promote the conservation, preservation and continued existence of
open space lands, the Legislature may define open space land and
shall provide that when this land is enforceably restricted, in a manner
specified by the Legislature, to recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty,
use or conservation of natural resources, or production of food or fiber,
it shall be valued for property tax purposes only on a basis that is
consistent with its restrictions and uses. (Emphasis added.)
To ensure that the constitutional requirement of an "enforceable restriction"
is met, the Legislature deliberately required a long -term commitment to
agriculture or other open space use. If neither party gives timely notice to
the other of a contrary intent, the contract automatically renews itself each
year, tacking on an additional year to the period of restriction. And although
the landowner may terminate his contract at any_ time by giving notice to the
7 1965 Gov't Code § 51220.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
March 30, 1995
Page 6
contracting government entity, he may not develop the land for the balance
of the contractual period of restricted use. On notice of nonrenewal, property
taxes gradually return to the level of taxation upon comparable nonrestricted
property during the remainder of the term of the restriction.$, 9
The City Clerk informed me, by telephone, that the term of the Williamson
Act Contract on the Nelson Garden will expire on December 31, 2000.10
Please clarify, in writing or at your April meeting, the basis for that
expiration date. Did the Florence Nelson Foundation give written notice of
termination in 1990?
My client urges the City Council to allow the Williamson Act Contract on the
Garden to expire on -the basis of non - renewal, rather than to approve its early
cancellation. The California State Attorney General has found cancellation
impermissible "except upon extremely stringent conditions.""
CANCELLATION OF WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT
The California Supreme Court has stated that'it "harbor[s] no doubt that the
Legislature intended cancellation to be approved only in the most
extraordinary circumstances. "12 (Emphasis added.)
The Legislature declared ... that cancellation of Williamson Act
contracts is permissible "only when the continued dedication of land
under such contracts to agricultural use is neither necessary nor
desirable for ,the purposes of [the act.] ... The cancellation provisions
were included "As a means of dealing with strictly emergency
situations where the public interest no longer dictates that the
contract be continued." [Citation omitted.]
8 Rev. & Tax. Code § 426.
9 My client's review of files in the Santa Clara County Tax Assessor's Office indicate that
the taxes on the Garden have not increased, despite the apparent filing of a notice of
termination by the Foundation in 1990. A search of the County Records reveals that the
notice of nonrenewal was not recorded, as is required pursuant to Gov't Code § 51245? Was
a copy of the notice of nonrenewal delivered to the Director of Conservation within 30 days
after the City's receipt of nonrenewal by the landowner, as is required pursuant to Gov't
Code § 51245?
10 Telephone call with Grace Cory, March 28, 1995.
11 62 Ops. Atty. Gen. 233, 240, fn. 6 (1979).
12 Sierra Club u. City of Hayward, 28 Cal. 3d 840, 853, 623 P. 2d 180, 171 Cal. Rptr
619(1981).
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation_ of Williamson Act Contract
March 30, 1995
Page 7
The issue before the City Council is whether the present circumstances
qualify as extraordinary. Fortunately, the Legislature provided reasonably
clear guidance on analyzing that question, and the California Supreme
Court, in the seminal decision of Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, has
provided a model for such analysis.
Pursuant to California Government Code § 51282, the landowner of land
subject to a Williamson Act Contract may petition the city council for
cancellation of any contract as to all or any part of the subject land.
(a) ... The council may grant tentative approval for cancellation of
a contract only if it makes one of the following findings:
(1) ' That the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the
chapter; or
(2) That cancellation is in the public interest.
(b) For purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a
contract shall be consistent with the purposes of this chapter only if
the ... council makes all of the following findings:
(1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of
nonrenewal has been served pursuant to Section 51245.
(2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of
adjacent lands from agricultural use.
(3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent
with the applicable provisions of the city ... general plan.
(4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of
urban development.
(5) That there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both
available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed the
contracted land be put, or, that development of the contracted land
would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than
development of proximate noncontracted land.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
March 30, 1995
Page 8
As used in this subdivision "proximate, noncontracted land" means
land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which is
sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that it can serve as, a
practical alternative for the use which is proposed for the restricted
land.
As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that
the salient features of the proposed use can be served by land not
restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. Such nonrestricted
land may be a single parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or
discontiguous parcels.
(c) For purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a
contract shall be in the public interest only if the council ... makes the
following findings: (1) that other public concerns substantially
outweigh the objectives of this chapter; and (2) that there is no
proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for
the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or, that
development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous
patterns of urban development than development of proximate non -
contracted land.
As used in this subdivision "proximate, noncontracted land" means
land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which is
sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that it can serve as a
practical alternative for the use which is proposed for the restricted
land.
As used in this subdivision "suitable" for the proposed use means that
the salient features of the proposed use can be served by land not
restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. Such nonrestricted
land may be a single parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or
discontiguous parcels.
(d) For purposes of subdivision (a), the uneconomic character of an
existing agricultural use shall not by itself be sufficient reason for
cancellation of the contract The uneconomic character of the existing
use may be considered only if there is no other reasonable or
comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
March 30, 1995
Page 9
(e) The landowner's petition shall be accompanied by a proposal for
a specified alternative use of the land ...13
Subdivision (a): Consistency with Purposes of Chapter
Is the subdivision of the Garden property for the purposes of single family
housing development consistent with the applicable provisions of Saratoga's
General Plan? The Predevelopment Memorandum of Understanding
Regarding Certain Undeveloped Property Located at 10851 Saratoga Hills
Road, Saratoga, California by and between the City of Saratoga and the
Community Foundation dated November 21, 1994 ( "MOU ") lists in
Paragraph 6 a set of applications that will be required to proceed with the
development of the Garden property. One of those listed is the General Plan
Amendment. This suggests that as of November 21, 1994, the open space,
conservation and/or housing elements of the Saratoga General Plan were not
consistent with the proposed development. Please advise me of the City's
position as to whether the General Plan is consistent with the purposes of
single family housing development on the Garden property.
Is there is any proximate noncontracted land which is both available and
suitable for single family home development? The Council must make an
"explicit finding"14 regarding whether any other proximate parcel or parcels
are suitable for the development of the ten proposed single family home sites.
"The Williamson Act allows the local agency to consider alternative uses of
the restricted land only if it first determines that suitable nonrestricted sites
are available. Please furnish a record of the alternative proximate sites that
the City considers as such suitable nonrestricted sites. Note that the
requirement for proximity is not to be construed to unreasonable limit the
search for suitable noncontracted land; "proximate" property means property
close enough to the restricted parcel to serve as a practical alternative for the
proposed use. "15 (Emphasis added.) Note further that "[t]he size of the
13 Cal. Gov't Code § 51282.
14 , Sierra, at 858. Note that as of 4:00 p.m. on March 30, 1995 -- the day on which all
correspondence regarding the hearing is required to be delivered to the City for inclusion in
the Council packet -- neither the City, the Community Foundation nor the California
Department of Conservation has been able to provide a copy of "Exhibit C" to the
Community Foundation's Petition for Cancellation, which exhibit ostensibly describes the
facts, circumstances and conditions to demonstrate that such cancellation is in the public
interest. On behalf of my client, I object to the inadequacy of information on which to base
our objections.
15 Id. , at 861.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
March 30, 1995
Page 10
proposed development should not be a significant factor in the agency's
search for alternative sites. "16
Before the local agency considers the uneconomic quality of the Garden for
agricultural usd, it must determine that there is no other reasonable or
comparable agricultural use to which the land may be put. While the Garden
has not in recent years been used for the purposes intended by Mr. Nelson in
his gift to TNC, the reason is that the owner of the Garden has elected not to
use it for that purpose. The landowner should not be permitted to benefit
from its own failure to honor the purposes of the gift."
The use to which my client proposes that the Garden be put is the same use
to which the land was put when the agricultural preservation agreement was
originally made -- namely, to provide Saratoga with a "Heritage Garden," for
the enjoyment of all Saratoga's citizens. Apparently, the only changes that
have occurred are the unwillingness of the present owner to commit the land
to the use for which its donor intended for it to be put and the land's
increased value for development. As the Supreme Court stated in Sierra:
[S]urely the Legislature did not intend a particular use to be deemed
uneconomic simply because the land would now be more valuable for
development than for agricultural use. If the property was included in
an agricultural preserve and was bound by a land preservation
contract or agreement on the basis of a certain marginal use, that
same use cannot later serve as justification for cancellation. The
Legislature would not have extended tax benefits to marginally
productive land unless it believed such land would serve the purposes
of the act. Therefore, the landowner who argues-that his land no
longer serves the act's purposes because it is not valuable for
agriculture must demonstrate the changed conditions, irrespective of
increased development value, that now make his agricultural operation
is Id, at 862.
17 With its 1990 Form 990 Federal tax return, the Florence Nelson Foundation provided a
"Schedule of Real Property Owner," in which it stated: "This Foundation now owns and
maintains real property located in Saratoga, Santa Clara County, State of California, deeded
to it by the California State Parks Foundation, a charitable organization, on March 13,
1984. The Foundation maintains the orchard on said premises to preserve for the general
public an example of the vanishing apricot orchards as they existed in the early days of the
Santa Clara Valley. At the time of harvest, historic types of equipment are used in sun -
drying the fruit." In fact, my client informs me that shortly after The Florence Nelson
Foundation received the gift of the Garden, it fenced the property and, since that time, the
property has not been available to the general public.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
March 30, 1995
Page 11
unprofitable. Of course, he must also satisfy the above - quoted explicit
requirement of showing that no reasonable alternative agricultural
uses would render the land economically viable.18
Our high court has held that a Williamson Act contract does not meet
the constitutional standard if it can be cancelled solely upon a showing
that the land is now more valuable for development. [Citation
omitted.] The obvious reason for this conclusion is that a [contractual]
restriction to agricultural use, created to control urban development,
would have little enforcement value if it could be cancelled whenever
development drew near. We are of the opinion that to pass
constitutional muster, a restriction ... may not be terminable merely
because such - development is desirable or profitable to the landowner. 19
Subdivision (b): Cancellation in the Public Interest
The City Council must find that cancellation of the Williamson Act
Contract for the Garden is in the public interest. The "public" means the
public at large, not just the interests of the local and regional community.20
The Sierra court cited former Government Code § 51223 as evidence of the
Legislative intent regarding the nature of the "interests" the Legislature
intended local agencies to consider: "the agreements limiting the use of the
land to agriculture are in the public interest `insofar as any such agreements
tend to maintain the agricultural economy of the state, prevent premature
and unnecessary conversation of land from agricultural uses, assist in the
preservation of prime agricultural lands, or are otherwise consistent with the
purposes of this [act]'. "21
What substantial evidence has the City Council considered to
determine that the public's need for ten single family homes with lot sizes
ranging from 12.500 to 29,400 square feet substantially outweighs the
public's need for open space? Is there demonstrated need for additional
single family lot zoning in the Saratoga area? Please provide written
evidence of such demonstrated need, either in writing or at the April 5
hearing.
18 Id., at 863.
19 Lewis u. City of Hayward, 177 Cal. App. 3d 103, 113; 222 Cal. Rptr. 781 (1986).
20 Id., 856.
21 Id, at 857.
Saratoga City Council
Proposed Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
March 30, 1995
Page 12
CONCLUSION
In a City that meets less than half the requirement for the state
standard for acreage devoted to parks, the razing of a lovely and unique
garden whose original owner thought he had done everything legally
appropriate to ensure its preservation in perpetuity22, in favor of the
development of ten undoubtedly expensive new single family homes, would
constitute a travesty of intent, a sound rejection of the past and a betrayal of
the confidence of The Nature Conservancy and The California State Parks
Foundation, both of which believed they were entrusting the Nelson Garden
to safe hands. On behalf of my client, I strongly urge the Council to reject
the Petition.
Sincerely,
C)L :T I)i
Robin B. Kennedy
cc: The Friends of The Nelson Garden Foundation
Nelson Lee, Esq. (Trust for Public Lands)
David Mitchell, Esq.(Community Foundation)
Joanne Spalding, Esq. (Sierra Club)
22 I am informed that only the absence of a specific deed restriction in the transfer of the
Garden from Mr. Nelson to TNC prevents an action by the State Attorney General to
remedy a breach of a charitable trust in this matter. Although it is not relevant to the
present action before the Council, the present plans also subvert the intent of the donor's
gift.
W.B. ALEXANDER 0 20760 TRINITY AVENUE ■ SARATOGA, CAUF'ORNIA 95070 -5340 • (408) 867-0670
March 30, 1995
Ms. Karen Tucker, Mayor
Ms. Gillian Moran, Councilmember
Ms. Ann Marie Burger, Councilmember
Mr. Paul Jacobs, Councilmember
Mr. Donald Wolfe, Councilmember
Re: Tentative Cancellation of Williamson Act
for the Nelson Gardens
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
I received notice- last week of the public hearing on the proposed cancellation
of the Williamson Act contract on the Nelson Gardens property located at 20851
Saratoga Hills Road. Unfortunately I will be out of town the night of the meeting. I
requested a copy of the negative declaration on the proposed cancellation and was
informed that the declaration will not be available for inspection prior to Friday,
March 31, at 4:00 p.m. This will not allow adequate time to review and respond to
the council inasmuch as this letter has to be delivered to the City Cleric by Thursday,
March 30, in order for it to be included in the council's packet.
I strenuously object to this procedure and would like to draw your attention to
the California Administrative Code, Title 14, § 15073 (a) which reads:
(a) The lead agency shall .provide a public review period for a
proposed negative declaration. The noticed public review period
shall be long enough to provide members of the public with
sufficient time to respond to the proposed finding before the
negative declaration is approved.
I also refer you to Sections 15087 and 15200 -15204 addressing EIR and
negative declaration process.
I have definitely not been provided an adequate review period as outlined in
the above - mentioned sections. I ask that you delay this procedure until Saratogans
have been provided with sufficient time to review and respond to the negative
declaration. Your notice suggests that I may be unable to challenge any issue that I
do not raise either at the hearing or in written correspondence. Without knowledge
of what the negative declaration contains, I am unable to raise issues which may be of
prime importance later.
W.B. Alexander letter of March 30, 1995 to Saratoga City Council
May I point out that the idea of constructing ten homes on this property
which includes approximately two acres or more of steep hillsides which are unsafe for
construction certainly demands a full EIR report:
The next point I want to address is the cancellation of the Williamson Act
contract. The decision by the California Supreme Court in Sierra Club v. City
Hayward, 28 Cal. 3d 840, 623 P.2d 180, 171 Cal. Rptr. 619 (198 1) , declared that
"the legislature had intended nonrenewal to be the normal method of terminating
contracts, and cancellation to be an extraordinary method used only under unforeseen
circumstances or in an emergency." The California legislature in response to this
decision passed a statute in 1991 which would grant latitude in local land use
planning and offer a window open onl y once for easy exit from the Act by certain
landowners. That window has now expired. To allow the property owners to have
the tax advantages of the Williamson Act for all these years and to allow cancellation
now that development is more profitable is contrary to the purposes of the Act as
originally proposed by the legislature. The Act provides for nonrenewal. That is the
only fair and reasonable action the City should pursue. Allow the contract to run its
term.
There are many additional reasons why allowing Nelson Gardens to remain in
the Williamson Act is the better course at this time. I will enumerate a few of them
below, but I respectfully refuse to be limited to what is in this letter.
Many of the neighbors of the Nelson Gardens have strongly resisted
conversion of this property into large houses with 3 -car garages on small lots. One
often reads and hears that we want a city park instead. That is a misconception.
What we want there is a demonstration garden for the benefit of our school children
and for the eg neral population of Saratoga. In other words, we want exactly what Mr.
Frank Nelson originally wanted.
Saratogans. like to think of their community as having a rural atmosphere with
minimal sidewalks, streetlights and other urban features. A working orchard .fits
Saratoga's character far better than large houses with 3 -car garages on small lots.
I cannot believe that any responsible geologist would permit building on the
upper two to three acres of this parcel.
Large houses with 3 -car garages on small lots are all we can expect from
housing development at this time, given the market price of the land. I have attached
my cost estimates to show that these houses would have to sell for far more than the
current selling prices of homes in this neighborhood. A 4,000 square foot house
would be offered at about $1,650,000; a 2,500 square foot house would be offered at
about $1,175,000. Admittedly, my assumptions may be incorrect, but until I see an
unbiased analysis, these are my numbers. (In fact, my "Case 1" analysis rests on the
assumption that you would override our zoning ordinances and grant the developer
W.B. Alexander letter of March 30, 1995 to Saratoga City Council .2
variances to build such large houses on 12,500 square foot and 14,000 square foot
lots.) I would welcome more accurate numbers.
It troubles me to think of the developer forced to abandon this project partially
completed. If that should happen we have lost a truly lovely piece of Saratoga's
heritage and suffered economic damage in the process. The negative impact on this
neighborhood and on our local government could be staggering.
I urge you to leave the Nelson Gardens property in the Williamson Act and
allow the contract to run its term.
Sincerely,
...W.B. Alexander letter of March 30, 1995 to Saratoga City Council 3
NELSON.XLS
Page 1
A
I B
C
I D
E
1
NELSON GARDENS DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATES
2
3
CASE NO. 1- 6 4000 FT HOUSES ON 6 LOTS
.4
Purchase price of land:
$2,000,000
5
Improvements: 1
$200,000
6
Payments required to City Council:
$640,000
7
TOTAL COST OF LAND:
$2,840,000
8
9
Acres purchased:
1
5.3•
10
Acres disallowed by eolo ist:
2.3
11
Acres required for fire dept. access:
0
12
NET ACRES AVAILABLE FOR LOTS:
3
13
Number of lots:
6
14
Size of average lot:
0.50
15
COST OF AVERAGE LOT:
$473,333
16
17
Cost of houses/ ft:
$200
18
Square feet per house:
4000
19
BUILDING COST PER HOUSE:
$800,000
20
21
COST OF HOUSE AND LOT:
$1,273,333
22
SELLER'S MARKETING COST @ 4 %:
$50,933
23
SELLER'S GROSS PROFIT BEFORE TAXES 25 %:
$331,067
24
SELLING PRICE:
$1,655,333
25
26
CASE NO. 2 - 7 2500 FT HOUSES ON 7 LOTS
-'
27
Purchase price of land:
$2,000,000
28
Improvements: 1
$200,000
29
Payments required to City Council:
$640,000
30
TOTAL COST OF LAND:
$2,840,000
31
32
Acres purchased:
5.3
33
Acres disallowed by eolo ist:
2.3
34
Acres required for fire dept. access:
0
.36
NET ACRES AVAILABLE FOR LOTS:
3
36
Number of lots:
7
37
Size of average lot:
0.43
38
COST OF AVERAGE LOT:
$405,714
39
40
Cost of houses/ ft:
$200
41
Square feet per house:
2500
42
BUILDING COST PER HOUSE:
$500,000
43
44
COST OF HOUSE AND LOT:
$905,714
45
SELLER'S MARKETING COST @ 4 %:
$36,229
46
SELLER'S GROSS PROFIT BEFORE TAXES 25 %:
$235,486
47
SELLING PRICE: 1 1
$1,177,429
Page 1
Z �
� v
Donald S. Macrae
�so�a
!(/i�G /.4/rc soft A e T
C4N�r [.Li4T /O/�/
a
C�zuC
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 (408) 867 -3155
Donald S. Macrae
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071 (408) 867 -3155
Donald S. Macrae
AUG7/fP'
Box 447 Saratoga, CA 95071
D
(408) 867 -3155
27�.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL:
ion
As a friend of the Gaens, I wish to
acteprovision which
to the proposal to cance l
entered into between Frank Nelson and the City of Saratoga on May
19, 1971, and to the proposed sale of this property by
the Community Foundation for subdivision development.
Logic would appear to require that each member of this decision -
making council would have read the final report of the City of
Saratoga Nelson Gardens Task Force Ad HoI willmnotedwelDeonmthe
21, 1988,as well as the Williamson Act.
specific restrictions and findings of the Williamson act
certified by the Court in Sierra Club vs. Hayward, 1981. Our
attorney will cover those provisions.
My own remarks are directed toward the preservation of the Nelson
Gardens, as was the original intent of
Frank Nelson began deeding portions of his property to the Nature
Conservancy in December of 1971. In an article in the San wise
Mercury News on December 2, 1977, he stated, y present
(Helen) and I want t canrbe educated inndthed way teat m
working
development, so people
orchard operates. Some people have never seen an apricot
orchard."
By law, to the best of my knowledge, the original intent for
deeding rides along with the land for perpetuity.
Sometime later, records of the Nature Conservancy anto indica ed that
Frank Nelson was.interested in transferring
State Parks and Recreation Department to be preserved as a model
Santa of traditional agricultural land use feducationarofVa the y areats
use it to provide public
agricultural values.
The transfer to the California State Parks
aFondationcloccurred
October 11, 1977, with the provisio n alities of the property.
included to protect the natural area qu
Despite explicit directions to do so, no reverter clause was
executed. The clear intent of the parties involved was evident
by two letters, one from Frank Nelson, July
the second, dated October 14, 1977, from
Nature Conservancy,
Henry Little, Western Regional Director resident of
atthe
Conservancy, to William Penn Mott, Both emphasized the
California State Parks Foundation.
protection and enhancement of the natural beauty, while allowing
the citizens of the Santa Clara Valley and the entire State to
benefit from its use.
Steve McCormick, director of the California Field Office of the
Nature Conservancy, wrote August 10, 1988, "It is clear to me
from reading the file that the Conservancy's intention in
accepting the property and eventually, conveying it to the State
Parks Foundation, was that the land be kept in the condition that
existed when Frank-Nelson deeded the land to the Conservancy.
Our assumption, in conveying the land to the Foundation, was that
the organization would maintain the open space, undeveloped
quality of the property."
Budgetary problems within the Foundation induced the Foundation
to return it to the Nelson Foundation on March 1, 1984.
A brochure about the Nelson Gardens put out by the California
State Parks Foundation contained the following statement:
"A Link With the Past"
"There are still a few small islands of fruit trees left in the
valley. . The Saratoga Nature Center is one. This property has
been donated to preserve a portion'of this once great fruit -
growing region and to serve as-an educational center for senior
citizens, school children, and the general public. Here the
care, growing and processing of apricots is demonstrated. The
area is of particular interest because there is a small arboretum
on the property containing exotic plants, and-the upper slopes,
in natural vegetation, reflect the ecology of the coastal
mountains."
Frank Nelson at this time was very elderly, in poor health,
deemed incompetent, and no longer in control of the destiny of
his very. special orchard.
The City of Saratoga attempted, unsuccessfully, to acquire the
Gardens,' but rather than donate it to the City, the Nelson
Foundation gave it to the Santa Clara County Community
Foundation. The latter organization has no concerned local
representation on its board and appears to be primarily
interested in liquidation of the property to enhance their forty
million re serve fund.
To determine whether or not there was public support in Saratoga
for the preservation of Nelson Gardens in the same or similar
context as it existed, one must look at this in several
perspectives.
The General Plan of Saratoga envisioned many small community
parks. These were to be areas for the very young, for mothers
with children, and for the elderly. Only a few of these
materialized, but, those that have,.., proved to be highly
successful. We need more of these. Unfortunately, we need not
only more of the small parks; we also need more large parks or
areas of open space. We, by state standards, should have three
acres of park land for each one thousand residents. We have less
than one half of that, and where are we going to make up the
deficit?
A public opinion survey was conducted in 1988 as part of the work
of the Ad Hoc Committee.. The results of the survey were clear.
The majority of those polled felt that the city should pursue
some form of open space preservation, and most of them indicated
they would like to see some form of specialty parks -- educational,
agricultural, historical - -in Saratoga.
A separate poll was taken involving 113 physicians living within
Saratoga. Sixty percent favored retaining Nelson Gardens as a
park.
In 1994, in an effort to once again_determine public support for
acquisition of the Nelson Gardens, over 800 signatures were
obtained on petitions in a one week effort by a handful of
volunteers.
One other neglected need is that of a community garden. One such
existed at the Odd Fellows Home site for 15 years. It was a
focal point for teaching Saratoga students about the cultivation
of plants and making them realize that their fruits and
vegetables arise from the soil, and not from supermarket shelves.
When the volunteer staff who had nurtured this project were
forced-out of the Odd Fellows location, they were assured by the
City Council that an alternative site would be forthcoming. This
has never materialized.
The Nelson Gardens would be an ideal location.
The final question is - -what is the vision for Saratoga? The
current City Council has drafted such a vision. Among the
provisions are:
1) Where the natural beauty of the*city and its hillsides is
preserved.
2) Where the historic assets are preserved and promoted.
3) Where desirable recreational and leisure opportunities are
provided.
4) Where value is placed on an attractive well- maintained and
well - planned community.
41
These provisions do indeed reflect desirable goals, =but somehow
they do not mesh with the reality of the present situation where
the city seems intent on trading one of its few really historic
sites for nine more unneeded houses and a ristful of dollars.
There appears to be a parallel between this vision and the
Republicans' contract with America.
High sounding platitudes have been voiced, but many fear there is
an underlying intent to destroy the environment and its protective
laws that have evolved over the past 20 years.
As you look about Saratoga, it appears that every acre of
remaining open space is being replaced by large homes on small
lots. Our schools are being overcrowded and underfunded. Our
athletic and open space requirements are inadequate, so we now
have to encroach on school sites; our infrastructure is
deteriorating.
Still, the Council seems to have but one objective: the sacrifice
of existing space, which, once lost, can never be regained.
Instead, the city will have more houses, more congestion, more
people - -all this, for short term financial gain.
Those controlling the destiny of the city are a part of the aging
segment of Saratoga. We do, however, have generations behind us
who still have the same needs we once had. Why not give them
a chance to enjoy at least a few of the beauties of nature that
once were ours?
The Nelson Gardens is one of our few remaining historic segments.
It is small, but it is important. Let us not offer it up as one
more sacrifice to so- called progress.
I .Ls.F.L. Stutzman, M.D.
15195 Park Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
City Council Minutes 3 May 3, 1995
in favor of the landscaping project and can now move forward.
Councilmember Jacobs stated it is good to see homeowners get together
and tax themselves to get something done. He commended the homeowners.
TUCKER/JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE
ENGINEERS REPORT FOR THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DISTRICT FOR FY 95 -96.
PASSED 5 -0.
TUCKER/WOLFE MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION RELATING TO THE
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DISTRICT FOR FY 95 -96. PASSED 5 -0.
TUCKER/WOLFE MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE
ENGINEBR•S REPORT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 1995 -1. PASSED 5 -0.
TUCKER/JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION RELATING TO
ANNEXATION NO. 199S -1. PASSED S -0.
TUCKER/JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION OF INTENTION RELATING TO
THE DETACHMENT OF TERRITORY FROM THE DISTRICT. PASSED 5 -0.
5) Resolution relating to Salary Ranges and Base salary of
Management Employees
Councilmember Moran stated the Council has asked that they be kept up
to date on the budget and the financial implications of their actions.
She suggested that they ask staff to give Council information on the
total payroll cost, including benefit, and the implications on the
budget. She stated it is important that this information be passed on
to the negotiator before they go into negotiations with non - management
employees and would like confirmation that this information was
received by the negotiator.
MORAN /JACOBS MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RELATING TO SALARY RANGES AND
BASE SALARY OF MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE. PASSED 5 -0.
MORAN /JACOBS MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL REQUEST FROM STAFF A MEMO TO BE
SUBMITTED AT THE MAY 9TH MEETING THAT WOULD GIVE COUNCIL THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION: ESTIMATED PAYROLL COST OF RAISE FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES,
TOTAL COST WITH ASSOCIATED BENEFITS, THE IMPACT FORECASTED ON THE
GENERAL FUND BALANCE AND IT'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE RESERVE REQUIREMENT.
A COPY OF THIS SHOULD GO THE NEGOTIATOR AND CONFIRMATION THAT IT HAS
BEEN RECEIVED. PASSED 5 -0.
C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY
1) Claim of Mollard in connection with damage to shimming
pool
MORAN /JACOBS MOVED TO REJECT THE CLAIM. PASSED 5 -0.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8 :00 pm.
A. Consideration of proposed cancellation of a Williamson Act
Contract on property located at 20851 Saratoga Hills Rd. The
5.1 acre property is partially developed. The applicant
ultimately proposes to subdivide the property into a mazimum
of ten (10) single - family residential lots. The property is
located approzimately 1500 ft. west of Saratoga - Sunnyvale
Road and is bordered on the north by Trinity Avenue, on the
east by Pontiac Avenue, and on the south.by Saratoga Hills
Road and Pontiac Avenue. A Negative Declaration has been
prepared for the proposed cancellation of the contract.
(Applicant, Community Foundation of Santa Clara County)
City Manager. Peacock stated additional written communication was
received from Ms. Betty Peck, dated May 1, 1995.
Planning Director Curtis reviewed the staff report dated May 3, 1995.
The public hearing was opened at 8:15 p.m.
Mr. David Mitchell, representing the Community Foundation, stated the
City Council Minutes 4 May 3, 1995
question is not, whether this property will be used for a public garden
as it is not a community garden now and absent the purchase of the
property, it will not be a community garden. He stated the question is
whether the Williamson Act restrictions will be removed now or removed
five years from now. He noted in the event that the five years goes by
before there is a cancellation, there will be no payments to the City
for the park fund. Mr. Mitchell briefly reviewed the history of the
property noting the Community Foundation purchased the property by
merger in October 1993. He noted Mr. Nelson's original intent was to
preserve the property, that proved impossible and Mr. Nelson knew this.
_. The property has passed through two agencies dealing in open space and
neither is willing to hold the property in that condition. The
property was transferred to the Nelson Foundation without any
conditions. In October 1988 Mr. Nelson wrote a letter to the Director
of the California State Parks Foundation, expressing.the fact that the
property needed to be sold and the proceeds used for charitable
purposes. This is what the Community Foundation intends to do..
Ms. Virginia Fanelli, representing the Community Foundation, addressed
finding #2 as outlined in the Memo from the City Attorney to the
Council dated April 27, 1995. She noted they have looked at a one mile
radius from this site and found three one acre sites, outlined in the
map presented. She explained why none of these sites are adequate.
Mr. Mitchell stated there are a substantial number of fees being paid
into the Park Fund for the cancellation of the Williamson Act. In
addition to this, the property is isolated and too small for a park.
He noted the Community Foundation and the Nelson Foundation have no
duty to maintain this property as a garden. Mr. Mitchell stated the
Community Foundation's endowment, which this will be added to, provides
income which is used for many different charitable uses, both in
Saratoga and throughout the County. He stated under Community
Foundation policies the income from this property would generate
$60,000 to $70,000 a year. He also noted the expense in keeping the
property would stop. Mr. Mitchell stated in its present fenced and
locked condition the property is doing no one any good. He stated the
question is whether the property should remain in its present condition
for the next five years or the City receive a substantial sum and the
Community Foundation be allowed to add to their endowment fund to be
used for charitable purposes.
Dr. F.L. Stutzman, 15195 Park Dr., read a prepared statement (undated)
which had been presented to the Council in their packets at the April
5th and May 3rd meetings.
Ms. Ann Waltonsmith, 21060 Saratoga Hills Road, stated she talked to a
representative who deals in preserving open space. She noted this
representative had some ideas to preserving this land including. the
City buying this property at a bargain price. She noted the City
should be careful before moving ahead and losing'an opportunity to save
this property. She requested that the City and Community Foundation
work together to preserve this.
Mr. Don Macrae, stated he has lived in the valley for many years and
has watched the valley become congested as well has having pollution
and traffic problems. He believes it was Mr. Nelson's vision to
preserve this property to meet the needs of the community. He noted
that very little of the funds from the Community Foundation are donated
to ecology and there were special concessions to allow this property to
go under the Williamson Act.
Ms. Robin Kennedy, Attorney, representing Friends of the Nelson
Gardens, summarized her comments in her letters to the Council dated
March 30, 1995 and April 27, 1995. She reviewed her response to the
proposed findings, which must be met to cancel the Williamson Act. Ms.
Kennedy addressed a court case involving the County of Stanislaus.
Mr. Bud Alexander, 20760 Trinity Ave., stated he is on the list to
receive communication about this issue, and did not receive a copy of
exhibit C. He noted proposed finding A1(c) regarding trespassers etc.,
he has yet to see a vandal or trespasser. Mr. Alexander stated there
is adequate residential in this area and expressed concern about
overcrowding the schools if more residential is proposed.
Y
City Council KinutOs 5 May 3, 1995
Mr. Al Abshire, 19735 Solano Dr., stated the Williamson Act is in place
for a good reason and the City should not consider cancelling it.
Mr. Mitchell stated a number of the arguments against cancelling the
Williamson Act, would have a lot more force if they were not talking
about such a short time (5 years) . He noted there was a six year
period between the Nelson Foundation's negotiations with the City of
Saratoga and the merger of the Nelson Foundation with the Community
Foundation. He stated there did not appear to be any attempt to put
together a plan to make this into a garden. He noted in the six year
period, nothing happened, and there was no logical way to put together
a plan to benefit anyone, other than the immediate neighborhood. Mr.
Mitchell stated the Community Foundation is obligated to make its
endowment work for the entire community. He stated they do not have
any obligation to maintain this property in agriculture that is active
and open to the public. Mr. Mitchell noted this property is not in the
City's open space element of the General Plan, nor is it in the City's
development proposal for parks. He reviewed past and present board
members who are Saratoga residents and spoke in favor of the
cancellation. He noted the funds received from the Community
Foundation will be for the public's benefit and will go in the Park
Development Fund, which will be used to enhance other open space areas
of the City. He noted if the Williamson Act is held for another five
years the funds will not be available.
The public hearing was closed at 9 p.m.
In response to Councilmember Tucker's question, Mr. Riback stated he is
not familiar with the Stanislaus court case.
Councilmember Wolfe stated the property is surrounded by residential
and it is a matter of timing. He believes if the City does not
establish the funds for the enhancement of the existing parks they will
be missing an opportunity. He addressed Sanborn Park noting there is
a Youth Science Institute in this park for the school children. He
stated he would like more information on this. He also noted, in
response to public's comments, the Bay Area has been declared one of
the more pollution free areas in the United States.
Councilmember Jacobs believes all the findings required can be made, he
noted exhibit C of Ms. Fanelli's letter dated April 6th provides, the
minimum of the necessary findings and the remarks made by the
applicants provide additional basis for the cancellation. He stated it
is not appropriate for the Council to define the findings at this time,
but direct staff and legal counsel to provide this. He stated the
Council should address the general public policy issues which have been
raised. Councilmember Jacobs stated the City does not own this
property and does not and never will have the funds to purchase it. He
noted Saratoga is a poor city because other government agencies take
money from the cities and it does not come back to the cities. He
noted so many of the things the Council would like to do they can't
because they do not have the money. He added the proponents of the
cancellation had approximately 10 years to come up with a plan. He
stated for the Council to come up with the money to purchase this
property they would have to levy a tax and this would have to be
approved by a two thirds vote because it is a special tax. He stated
petitions should have been circulated and then put on the ballot if so
requested. He noted the Council cannot take the property and cannot
afford to buy it even if they wanted to. Councilmember Jacobs addressed
a letter from Mr. Frank Nelson dated October 17, 1988 regarding the
sale of this property. He noted this property is surrounded by
housing, is prime land for housing and cannot be purchased cheaply.
Councilmember Jacobs went on to say that all Councilmembers would like
more open space and parks, and have been offered $600,000 to put into
the Park Development Fund to be used for the existing parks. He added
if this land is left in the Williamson Act for another five years, the
property is then free to be developed and there will be no funds
offered to the City. He agrees the Williamson Act is there for a
reason, but believes this is a situation were the Williamson Act serves
the public no purpose. Councilmember Jacobs addressed Ms. Kennedy's
letter regarding the findings of the California Land Conservation Act
and noted the City must make the best of what they can and move
`Y
City Council Kinutes . 6 May 3, 1995
forward. Regarding the General Plan, Councilmember Jacobs added the
Council has, back in October, enunciated and voted on its intent to
effectively change the General Plan to permit development on this land.
Councilmember Moran believes the important parts of this decision were
made several months ago when the Community Foundation proposed the
funds to the City. She feels the findings can be made.
Councilmember Tucker stated she would like information on Sanborn Park
and what they provide.
Mayor Burger stated she concurs with the majority of the Council that
the findings can be made to cancel the Williamson Act.
City Attorney Riback stated if the City Council believes there is
substantial evidence to support the findings for the tentative
cancellation, the Council should direct the City •Attorney to prepare
the appropriate findings to bring back for review.
WOLFS /JACOBS MOVED TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE NELSON GARDENS
AT 20851 SARATOGA HILLS ROAD FROM THE WILLIAMSON ACT AND DIRECT THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE RESOLUTION FOR THE TENTATIVE CANCELLATION.
PASSED 5 -0.
S. C. 2) Claim of Wharton in connection with automobile damage
sustained on Quito Road.
MORAN /TUCKER MOVED TO REJECT THE CLAIM. PASSED 5 -0.
3) Claim of Dondick in connection with Bicycle Accident
TUCRER/JACOSS LOVED TO REJECT THE CLAIM BECAUSE OF LATENESS. PASSED 5-
0.
4) Claim of Ressler in connection with Fallen Tres
WOLFS /MORAN MOVED TO REJECT THE CLAIM. PASSED 5 -0.
7. OLD BUSINESS
A. Landscaping for Highway 85 - Councilmember Tucker (continued
from 4/19)
City Engineer Perlin stated at the previous meeting staff was directed
to obtain the modified landscaping plans, this has been done and they
have been available at City Hall. He stated there are a total of 284
trees along the Saratoga portion of the freeway and Caltrans proposes
to change the deciduous trees to Redwood trees. Mr. •Perlin reviewed
the plan before the Council, noting he is recommending deciduous trees
at the right -of -ways. along the Saratoga portion of the freeway for
aesthetic reasons. He noted there is room for a variety of trees at
the right -of -way.
In response to Councilmembers' questions, Mr. Perlin stated homes are
further from the road at the overpass sections and there are no plans
for landscaping the freeway median. He noted if the City wanted to
landscape the Saratoga portion of the median they could do so with
permission from Caltrans. He noted the plan is to switch trees one for
one. They are not moving or changing the number of trees, but simply
changing the species.
Ms. Joan Hershkowitz, 19364 Shubert Ct., stated the deciduous trees are
not aesthetically pleasing and prefers all evergreens. She stated she
would urge the Council to explore the sound absorbing panels for the
median if landscaping is considered. She noted several letters have
been sent to local politicians to explore federal funds for noise
studies.
Councilmember Moran asked if 'concerns regarding disease had been
identified when planting all one species.
Mr. Perlin stated trees can get diseased along the freeway. He also
stated the degree to which an evergreen versus a deciduous tree can
Historical background for Saratoga's Mayor and Council Members:
In 1971, I asked Alan Chadwick if he would come to Saratoga and
help us start a garden. He said yes. At that time, we met on the
schoolgrounds where we thought the garden could be. He came with
his apprentice Gregg Haines.
The trustees felt there would be too much vandalism on school
property. The late Doug Adams, then a school trustee, went before
the city council asking them to support this project. Jerry Smith,
mayor, along with the council members, said to find the land we
wanted and if they didn't own the land, they would rent it.
Alan came to speak to the faculty. The garden was written up as
the community outreach program by Saratoga School, on Oak Street,
in order to receive funding for the media center.
Alan then said that he would come as head gardener. The city took
longer than expected in legal procedures involving insurance and
contracts with the Odd Fellows (Owners of the land Alan had chosen
for the garden) that he became discouraged and sent Gregg Haines to
manage the garden when it opened in 1972.
Alan returned after a couple of years to live here and manage the
garden. He had given a series of lectures at Montalvo and Foothill
College which were well- received by the community. He began his
work training apprentices and lecturing at the garden, now called
the Saratoga Community Garden, a demonstration garden.
Seasonal celebrations were held at the Garden. We joined'with the
Hakone Gardens in celebrating New Year's. All the apprentices took
turns working with Tonso Ishihara in the beautiful Japanese garden.
During these years we also became active in the Nelson Gardens. We
held a joint farmers market on the Odd Fellows property that we
rented for $1.00 a year. Jenny McMichael, a graduate of Stanford
now living in Switzerland, and Charles Griffin, now getting his
degree in horticulture from Davis, were two of the managers on the
Nelson property. They held a spectacular "open house" celebrating
the 25th Anniversery of the City of Saratoga. Visiters were able
to see a historic working orchard.
The field trips to the Saratoga Community Garden grew from one in
1974 to 6,000 children a year in the Garden. I count every day
lost when children are not in the garden. I took my Kindergarten
class every Monday to this outdoor classroom. After 15 years, the
garden merged with the Youth Science Institute, about the time the
Odd Fellows had to sell the land.
I am asking you to again make available this kind of education for
the children of our community.
Ilatl
Sincerely,
a
�7 3 �� -�
Legal Notices
If you need to run a legal notice in Saratoga,
the Saratoga News remains the paper of record.
Our address is 14375 Saratoga Ave., Suite E2,
Saratoga, CA 95070.
The deadline for legal notices is 2:00 p.m.
Friday for the following Wednesday's publication.
If you have questions about deadlines or rates call
Stephanie Thompson at 408/298 -8500 or
fax your legal ad to 408/271 -3520.
Z8 SARATOGA NEWS MARCH 22, 1995 -
.Y',1...Ly_J. -. i •. • -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -
after March 30, 1995.
(Pub CC 3/22)
CNS1256942
�, . NOTICE OF PETITION TO
a ADMINISTER ESTATE OF
KATHARINE W. FLOHR
CASE NO.PRI34817
To all heirs, beneficiaries,
creditors, contingent creel-
' Itors, and persons who
may otherwise be Inter -
ested In the will or estate,
or both of KATHARINE W.
FLOHR, KATHARINE
WARD FLOHR.
A PETITION has been filed
by JANICE LIMING In the
Superior Court of
California, County of
Santa Clara.
THE PETITION requests
that JANICE. LIMING be
appointed as personal
representative to adminis-
ter to estate of the dece-
dent. -
THE PETITION requests
the decedent's WILL and
codicils, if any, be admit.
ted to probate. The will
antl any codicils are avall-
able for examination in
the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests
authority to administer
the estate under the
Independent
Administration of Estates
Act. (This authority will al-
low the personal repre•
sentative to take many
actions without obtaining
court approval. Before
taking certain very Impor.
tam actions, however, the
Personal representative
will be required to give no-
tice to Interested persons
unless they have walved
notice or consented to
the proposed action.)
The Independent adminls
tratldn authority will be
granted unless an Inter•
ested person files an ob-
jection to the petition and
shows good cause why
the court should not grant
the authority.
the pe
A HEARING on tF ..
tlon will be held on
April 7, 1995 at 9:00
a.m. In Dept. 10
located at
191 North FIrst St.,
San Jose, CA 95113.
IF YOU OBJECT to the
granting of the petition,
you should appear at the
hearing and state your ob-
jections or file written ob-
jections with the court be-
fore the hearing. Your ap
pearance may be In per-
son or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR
or a contingent creditor of
the deceased, you must
file your claim with the
court and mall a copy to
the personal representa.
tive appointed by the
court within four months
from the date of first Is•
suance of letters as pro-
vided In section 9100 of
the California Probate
Code. The time for filing
claims will not expire De•
fore four months from the
hearing date noticed
above.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the
file kept by the court. If
you are a person Inter- I
ested In the estate, you
may file with the court a
formal Request for
Special Notice of the fil-
ing of an Inventory and
eppralSal of estate 8S
sets or of any petition or
account as provided In
section 1250 of the
California Probate Code.
A Request for Special
Notice form Is available
from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner. /
ROBERT A. FROEHLICH,
ESQ. _
99 Almaden Blvd.,
Suite 500
San Jose, CA 95113.
/s /Robert A. Froehlich/
(Pub SN 3/22,3/29, S
4/5) C
NOTICE OF PETITION TO
ADMINISTER ESTATE 0
ELIZABETH KEADY EUJ
CASE NO.PR134820
To all heirs, beneficiaries
creditors, contingent cre
Itors, and persons who
may otherwise be Inter -
ested In the will or estate
or both Of ELIZABETH
KEADY ELLIS.
A PETITION has been fit
by WILLIAM C. ELLIS In
the Superior Court of
California, County of
Santa Clara.
THE PETITION requests
that WILLIAM C. ELLIS
be appointed as personal
representative to
administer the estate of
the decedent.
THE PETITION requests
the decedent's WILL and
codicils, If any, be admit-
ted to probate. The will
and any codicils are avail,
able for examination In
the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests
authority to administer
the estate under the
Independent
Administration of
Estates Act. (This author.
Ily will allow the personal
representative to take
many actions without oo-
talning court approval.
Before taking certain very
Important actions, how-
ever, the personal repre•
sentative will be required
to give notice to Inter-
ested persons unless
they have waived notice
or consented to the pro•
posed action.) The inde.
pendent administration
authority will be granted .
unless an Interested per-
son files an objection to
the petition and shows
good cause why the court
should not grant the au.
thority.
A HEARING on the
petition will be held on
April 13, 1995 at
9:00 a.m. In
Dept. 10 located at
191 North First St., .. .
San Jose, CA 95113. '
IF YOU OBJECT to the
granting of the petition,
Cy should appear at the
hearing and state your ob.
jectlons or file written ob-
jections
with the court be-
fore the hearing. Your ap-
pearance may be In per-
son or by your attorney
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR
or a contingent creditor of
the deceased, you must
file your claim with the
court and mall a copy to
the personal representa-
tive
appointed by the
court within four months
from the date of first la
suance of letters as pro-
vlded in section 9100 of
the California Probate
Code. The time for filing
claims will not expire be-
fore four months from the
hearing date noticed
above.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the
Is kept by the court. If
you are a person Inter-
ested In the estate, you
may file with the court a
formal Request for
Special Notice of the fiF
ng of an Inventory and
appraisal of estate as-
sets or of any petition or
account as provided In
S
1250 of the
Califomla Probate Code.
A Request for Special
Notice form Is available
from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner.
DANIEL E. HANLEY
1091 Lincoln Ave.,
San Jose, CA 95125.
s /Daniel E. Henley /
Pub SN 3/22, 3/29,
4/5)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NO. CV747918
UPERIOR COURT OF
ALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA , 191
NORTH FIRST STREET,
F SAN JOSE, CA 95113
S IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF
SHIH -YIN LIN.
G THE COURT FINDS that
Petftlonegs) SHIH -YIN Llh
has /have filed a Petition
for Change of Name with
the clerk of this court for
an order changing
eel
Applicant(s) name from
SHIH -YIN LIN to
SHINA SHIH -YIN LIN.
THE COURT. ORDERS all
People Interested In this
matter appear before this
court to show cause why
this application for
change of name should
not be granted on
May 2, 1995. at 9:00
a.m. In Department 10
located at 191 North First
Street, San Jose, CA
95113.
A COPY of this order to
show cause be published
once a week for four suc-
cessive weeks prior to
to day of said hearing 16
SAN JOSE CITY TIMES; e
newspaper of general cir-
culation printed In the
County of Santa Clara.
Dated: 3/9/95
/s /LBDoris H. Cordell/
Judge of the Superior
Court
(Pub SN 3/22, 3/29,
4/5, 4/12)
Ci�
Notices -
v
� 0�091
NOTICE OF HEARING
BEFORE CITY COUNCIL
Notice Is hereby given
that to Deputy City Clerk
of the Saratoga City
Council, State of
California, has Set
Wednesday. the 5th day
of April, 1995, at 8:00
p.m. (or earlier It public
hearings are reached be-
fore that time on the
agenda) In the City
Council Chambers at
13777 Frultvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California, as
the time and place for
Public hearings on:
Consideration of pro-
posed Cancellation of a
Williamson Act Contract
on property located at
20851 Saratoga Hills Rd.
The 5.1 acre property Is
partially developed. The
applicant ultimately pro-
poses to subdivide the
property Into a maximum
oI ten (SO) single - family
resdemlell lots. Th e prop
arty 19 located approxE
mately 1500 ft. west of
SeratorSunnyvale Road
and Is bordered on the
north by Trinity Avenue,
on the east by Pontiac
Avenue, and on the south
by Saratoga Hills Road
and Pontiac Avenue. A
Negative Declaration has
been prepared for the pro-
posed cancellation of the
contract. (Applicant,
Community Foundation of
Santa Clare County)
All interested persons
may appear and be heard
at the above time and
)lace. If you challenge
he subject projects In
burt, you may be limited
o raising only those Is•
was you or someone
Ilse raised at the public
tearing described In this
Iotice or In written torte•
spondence delivered to
the City Council at, or
prior to, the public hear-
ing.
In order to be Included In
the City Council's Informs
tion packets, written com-
munications should be
filed on or before the
Thursday before the meet -
Ing. A copy of any mate-
rial provided to the City
Council on the above
hearing(s) Is on file at the
Office of the
Saratoga City Clerk at
13777 Frultvale Avenue,
Saratoga.
General questions may b
directed to the City Clerk,
867 -3438.
/Grace Cory/
Deputy City Clerk
(Pub SN 3/22)
CC292
NOTICE TO ABATE NUI-
SANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEk
THAT ON March 15, '
1995, the City Council .
of the City of Saratoga
declared a public nul-
sane to exist on to
eel es APN 38644038
Saratoga, California (Cox
Avenue Railroad Tracks).
The conditions constltub
Ing such public nuisance
and the actions to be
taken for abatement
thereof are as follows:
CondNlon ConeotM
Aet10n
Accumulation of palm
Remove to satisfaction
tree clippings and debris
of City Manager for more
than one week I
Upon failure to abate
such public nuisance
through the corrective so-
tlons described herein,
the nuisance will be
abated by the City of
Saratoga and all costs of
abatement will be as-
sessed against the prop
any on which the nui-
sance exists and will con-
Stllute a special assess•
ment upon and against
such property until paid,
said assessment to be
collected at the same
time and In the same
manner as ordinary mu•
nicipal taxes. A copy of
the Declaration of nul-
sane by the Cl ryb Council
is on file In the Office of
the Saratoga City Clerk.
Any property owner object-
ing to the proposed
abatement by the city of
Saratoga Is hereby noti-
fied to attend a meeting
of the City Council
of the City of Saratoga
to be held on
April 19, 1995,
commencing at
7:30 p.m.,
at the Saratoga
City Hall,
13777 Frutvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California,
when their objections
will be heard and given
due consideration.
Dated this 16th day of
March, 1995.
City Manager /City Clerk
City of Saratoga
CC293
(PUB SN 3/22)
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The Saratoga City
Council, at a regular
meeting on March 15,
1995, Introduced the fol-
lowing ordinance(s):,
1) Ordinance designating
the Warner Hutton House
as a Historic Landmark
2) Ordinance approving a
Development Agreement
between the City of
Saratoga and Greenbrier
Homes specifying devel-
opment requirements for
the previously approved
94-lot, single -family real-
dential development on
the former
Paul Masson Winery Site
at 13150 Saratoga Ave.
These Ordinances will be
considered for adoption
at the meeting of April 5.
Ordinances generally be.
come effective 30 days
after adoption. The full
texts of all Introduced and
adopted ordinances are
available during regular
business hours at the of•
flce of the City Clerk,
13777 Frultvale Avenue.
Deputy City Clerk
CC294
(Pub SN 3/22)
described Is 6einpp sold 'as
W. The street atldress and
other common desionation. it
any,
Deed
any,
prior
GE SERVICES,
3e
ttreet, Stockton,
ESE OFFICES
s, Agent
Aprl15, 1995
Santa Clare County on
from the date of first is-
2/24/95.
2/24/95.
suance of letters as pro.
General
3/2253/298, 3/15,
o1
Notices
t eeCalifornia Probate
tetle. The time for filing
NOTICE OF PETITION TO
claims will not expire
ADMINISTER ESTATE OF
fore four months from in
BUSINESS
DOUGLAS M. ADAMS
hearing date noticed
above.
NAME STATEMENT
NAME STATEMENT
1
CASE NO. PR134783
To all heirs, beneficiaries,
.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the
The
The following a) 19
creditors, contingent creel- Ole kept by the court. If
hors, and persons who - you are a person Inter -
(are) doing business as:
business
1 & B Enterprises,
may otherwise be Inter.
ested In the estate, you
may Ole with the court a
16330 Matill)a Dr.,
ested In the will or estate,.,
or both of DOUGLASS M.
formal Request for
Los Gatos, CA 95030.
Jack Boyd
Boyd,
ADAMS, AKA, DOUGLAS'
Special Notice of the fll•
Ing of an Inventory and
MURDOCK ADAMS, AND
DOUGLAS ADAMS.
appraisal of estate as.
Los Gatos, A 9
Los Gatos, ss s con-
This business Is con-
A PETITION has been filed
sets or of any petition or
account as provided In
tluctetl by an Indlvltlual.
by MARTIN N. LETTUNICH
In the Superior Court of
section 1250 of the
ReglStrent Degan t0 trans•
California, County of
California Probate Code.
act business under the
Santa Clare.
A Request for Special
Us business name
THE PETITION requests
Notice form is available
or names listed
or names listed here In
. that MARTIN N. LET -
from the court clerk.
/S /Ja
/s /Jack Boyd/
TUNICH be appointed as
Attorney for petitioner:
MARTIN N. LETTUNICH
This statement was filed
with the County Clerk of
personal representative
to administer the estate.
19100 Cox Ave., Ste. A
Saratoga, CA
,,;:
Santa Clara: County on-
of the decedent.
THE PETITION
; 95070
/s /Martln S. Lettunlch/
2/22 95: '
$N 3/1, 318, 3/15,
raQuestsx,
the decedent' r WILL and
Pub SN 3/19: 3/22,
3/29)
3Pub
/22)
codicils,'If any, be admit-
.
ted to probate. The will
and any codicils are avlill-
NOTICE OF TRANSFER
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS
able for examination in..,
OF PERSONAL PROP
NAME STATEMENT
the file kept by the cdurlj '
ERTY -
#298218
THE PETITION requests
PURSUANT TO SECTION
The following person(s) Is
authority to administer
3440.1 of THE CALIFOR
(are) doing business as:
the estate under the ':`
NIA CIVIL CODE
Wet Paint, '
, Independent
' Beneficial Mortgage
410 S. Abbot Ave.,
Administration of Estates
Corporation, a Delaware .
Milpitas, CA 95053.
Act. (This authority will al-
corporation whose princl-
James J. Fang,
low the personal repro•
pal executive office Is
21991 Scenic Heights
Wy., Saratoga, CA 95070,
sentative to take many -
actions without obtaining
One Christina Center,
301 North Walnut
This buslnese Is con-
court approval. Before
Street,
Wilmington,
ducted by en Individual.
taking certain very Impor•
Delaware 19807,
ReglStrent began to trans-
tans actions, however, the
Intends to sell to a trust,
act business under the
Personal representative
the trustee of which IS
fictitious business name
will be required to give no-
The Chase Manhattan
or names listed here In
tice t0 Interested persons'
:.Bank (National
2/95,
unless they have waived
Association) whose ad-
/s/James J. Fang/
notice or consented to
dress Is 4 Chase
This statement was filed
the proposed action.)
MetroTech Center,
with the County Clerk of
The independent adminis-
Brooklyn, New York
Santa Clara County on
tration authority will be
11245, certain rights un-
3/3/95.
granted unless an Inter.
der certain home equity
(Pub SN 3/8, 3/15,
ested person files an OD
revoviing credit line ac.
3/22.3/29)
jection to the petition and
counts (the -H me Equity
shows good cause why
Loans -), secured by
FlC7RIOU5 BUSINESS
the court should not grant
the authority. ,,
deeds oftrust or mort-
gages on residential prop
NAME STATEMENT
A HEARING on the petl- '
art as located In
1297946
The following person(s) Is
tfon will be held on April
19, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. In'
California, which were
originated or acquired by
(are) doing business as:
Dept. 10 located-at 191
the seller (or related com-
01)1 P Technical,
North First St., San Jose,
panies) In the ordinary
02) J P Marketing,
CA 95113.
course of its lend) ��gg buSF
999 Evelyn Terrace W.
IF YOU OBJECT to the
nesses. Certain ril is
113. Sunnyvale,
granting of the petition,
under the Home Equity
CA 94086.
you should appear at the
Loans remain with
Jay F. Prince,
hearing and state your ob.
Beneficial Mortgage
999. Evelyn Terrace W.
jectlons or file written fib-
Corporation and the docu-
113, Sunnyvale,
jectlons with the court be-
mentallon evidencing cer-
CA 94086.
fore the hearing. Your ap-
tain of the loans and
This business Is con -
pearance may be In per-
mortgage interests will
ducted by an Individual.
Registrant has not be-
son or by your attomey
continue to be located at
yet
gun to transact business
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR
or a contingent
the following office:
Beneficial Mortgage
under the fictitious busl-
creditor of
the deceased, you must
Co.
1, 1999 Sout 9aScom
ness name or names
file your claim with the
Avenue, Suite 390,
listed herein.
court and mall a copy to
Campbell, San Jose, CA
/s /Jay F. Prince/
the personal represents
95008. The sale of the
This statement was filed
live appointed by the
Home Equity Loans Is
with the County Clerk of
court within four months
scheduled to occur on or
Legal Notices
If you need to run a legal notice in Saratoga,
the Saratoga News remains the paper of record.
Our address is 14375 Saratoga Ave., Suite E2,
Saratoga, CA 95070.
The deadline for legal notices is 2:00 p.m.
Friday for the following Wednesday's publication.
If you have questions about deadlines or rates call
Stephanie Thompson at 408/298 -8500 or
fax your legal ad to 408/271 -3520.
Z8 SARATOGA NEWS MARCH 22, 1995 -
.Y',1...Ly_J. -. i •. • -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -
after March 30, 1995.
(Pub CC 3/22)
CNS1256942
�, . NOTICE OF PETITION TO
a ADMINISTER ESTATE OF
KATHARINE W. FLOHR
CASE NO.PRI34817
To all heirs, beneficiaries,
creditors, contingent creel-
' Itors, and persons who
may otherwise be Inter -
ested In the will or estate,
or both of KATHARINE W.
FLOHR, KATHARINE
WARD FLOHR.
A PETITION has been filed
by JANICE LIMING In the
Superior Court of
California, County of
Santa Clara.
THE PETITION requests
that JANICE. LIMING be
appointed as personal
representative to adminis-
ter to estate of the dece-
dent. -
THE PETITION requests
the decedent's WILL and
codicils, if any, be admit.
ted to probate. The will
antl any codicils are avall-
able for examination in
the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests
authority to administer
the estate under the
Independent
Administration of Estates
Act. (This authority will al-
low the personal repre•
sentative to take many
actions without obtaining
court approval. Before
taking certain very Impor.
tam actions, however, the
Personal representative
will be required to give no-
tice to Interested persons
unless they have walved
notice or consented to
the proposed action.)
The Independent adminls
tratldn authority will be
granted unless an Inter•
ested person files an ob-
jection to the petition and
shows good cause why
the court should not grant
the authority.
the pe
A HEARING on tF ..
tlon will be held on
April 7, 1995 at 9:00
a.m. In Dept. 10
located at
191 North FIrst St.,
San Jose, CA 95113.
IF YOU OBJECT to the
granting of the petition,
you should appear at the
hearing and state your ob-
jections or file written ob-
jections with the court be-
fore the hearing. Your ap
pearance may be In per-
son or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR
or a contingent creditor of
the deceased, you must
file your claim with the
court and mall a copy to
the personal representa.
tive appointed by the
court within four months
from the date of first Is•
suance of letters as pro-
vided In section 9100 of
the California Probate
Code. The time for filing
claims will not expire De•
fore four months from the
hearing date noticed
above.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the
file kept by the court. If
you are a person Inter- I
ested In the estate, you
may file with the court a
formal Request for
Special Notice of the fil-
ing of an Inventory and
eppralSal of estate 8S
sets or of any petition or
account as provided In
section 1250 of the
California Probate Code.
A Request for Special
Notice form Is available
from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner. /
ROBERT A. FROEHLICH,
ESQ. _
99 Almaden Blvd.,
Suite 500
San Jose, CA 95113.
/s /Robert A. Froehlich/
(Pub SN 3/22,3/29, S
4/5) C
NOTICE OF PETITION TO
ADMINISTER ESTATE 0
ELIZABETH KEADY EUJ
CASE NO.PR134820
To all heirs, beneficiaries
creditors, contingent cre
Itors, and persons who
may otherwise be Inter -
ested In the will or estate
or both Of ELIZABETH
KEADY ELLIS.
A PETITION has been fit
by WILLIAM C. ELLIS In
the Superior Court of
California, County of
Santa Clara.
THE PETITION requests
that WILLIAM C. ELLIS
be appointed as personal
representative to
administer the estate of
the decedent.
THE PETITION requests
the decedent's WILL and
codicils, If any, be admit-
ted to probate. The will
and any codicils are avail,
able for examination In
the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests
authority to administer
the estate under the
Independent
Administration of
Estates Act. (This author.
Ily will allow the personal
representative to take
many actions without oo-
talning court approval.
Before taking certain very
Important actions, how-
ever, the personal repre•
sentative will be required
to give notice to Inter-
ested persons unless
they have waived notice
or consented to the pro•
posed action.) The inde.
pendent administration
authority will be granted .
unless an Interested per-
son files an objection to
the petition and shows
good cause why the court
should not grant the au.
thority.
A HEARING on the
petition will be held on
April 13, 1995 at
9:00 a.m. In
Dept. 10 located at
191 North First St., .. .
San Jose, CA 95113. '
IF YOU OBJECT to the
granting of the petition,
Cy should appear at the
hearing and state your ob.
jectlons or file written ob-
jections
with the court be-
fore the hearing. Your ap-
pearance may be In per-
son or by your attorney
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR
or a contingent creditor of
the deceased, you must
file your claim with the
court and mall a copy to
the personal representa-
tive
appointed by the
court within four months
from the date of first la
suance of letters as pro-
vlded in section 9100 of
the California Probate
Code. The time for filing
claims will not expire be-
fore four months from the
hearing date noticed
above.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the
Is kept by the court. If
you are a person Inter-
ested In the estate, you
may file with the court a
formal Request for
Special Notice of the fiF
ng of an Inventory and
appraisal of estate as-
sets or of any petition or
account as provided In
S
1250 of the
Califomla Probate Code.
A Request for Special
Notice form Is available
from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner.
DANIEL E. HANLEY
1091 Lincoln Ave.,
San Jose, CA 95125.
s /Daniel E. Henley /
Pub SN 3/22, 3/29,
4/5)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NO. CV747918
UPERIOR COURT OF
ALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA , 191
NORTH FIRST STREET,
F SAN JOSE, CA 95113
S IN THE MATTER OF THE
APPLICATION OF
SHIH -YIN LIN.
G THE COURT FINDS that
Petftlonegs) SHIH -YIN Llh
has /have filed a Petition
for Change of Name with
the clerk of this court for
an order changing
eel
Applicant(s) name from
SHIH -YIN LIN to
SHINA SHIH -YIN LIN.
THE COURT. ORDERS all
People Interested In this
matter appear before this
court to show cause why
this application for
change of name should
not be granted on
May 2, 1995. at 9:00
a.m. In Department 10
located at 191 North First
Street, San Jose, CA
95113.
A COPY of this order to
show cause be published
once a week for four suc-
cessive weeks prior to
to day of said hearing 16
SAN JOSE CITY TIMES; e
newspaper of general cir-
culation printed In the
County of Santa Clara.
Dated: 3/9/95
/s /LBDoris H. Cordell/
Judge of the Superior
Court
(Pub SN 3/22, 3/29,
4/5, 4/12)
Ci�
Notices -
v
� 0�091
NOTICE OF HEARING
BEFORE CITY COUNCIL
Notice Is hereby given
that to Deputy City Clerk
of the Saratoga City
Council, State of
California, has Set
Wednesday. the 5th day
of April, 1995, at 8:00
p.m. (or earlier It public
hearings are reached be-
fore that time on the
agenda) In the City
Council Chambers at
13777 Frultvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California, as
the time and place for
Public hearings on:
Consideration of pro-
posed Cancellation of a
Williamson Act Contract
on property located at
20851 Saratoga Hills Rd.
The 5.1 acre property Is
partially developed. The
applicant ultimately pro-
poses to subdivide the
property Into a maximum
oI ten (SO) single - family
resdemlell lots. Th e prop
arty 19 located approxE
mately 1500 ft. west of
SeratorSunnyvale Road
and Is bordered on the
north by Trinity Avenue,
on the east by Pontiac
Avenue, and on the south
by Saratoga Hills Road
and Pontiac Avenue. A
Negative Declaration has
been prepared for the pro-
posed cancellation of the
contract. (Applicant,
Community Foundation of
Santa Clare County)
All interested persons
may appear and be heard
at the above time and
)lace. If you challenge
he subject projects In
burt, you may be limited
o raising only those Is•
was you or someone
Ilse raised at the public
tearing described In this
Iotice or In written torte•
spondence delivered to
the City Council at, or
prior to, the public hear-
ing.
In order to be Included In
the City Council's Informs
tion packets, written com-
munications should be
filed on or before the
Thursday before the meet -
Ing. A copy of any mate-
rial provided to the City
Council on the above
hearing(s) Is on file at the
Office of the
Saratoga City Clerk at
13777 Frultvale Avenue,
Saratoga.
General questions may b
directed to the City Clerk,
867 -3438.
/Grace Cory/
Deputy City Clerk
(Pub SN 3/22)
CC292
NOTICE TO ABATE NUI-
SANCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEk
THAT ON March 15, '
1995, the City Council .
of the City of Saratoga
declared a public nul-
sane to exist on to
eel es APN 38644038
Saratoga, California (Cox
Avenue Railroad Tracks).
The conditions constltub
Ing such public nuisance
and the actions to be
taken for abatement
thereof are as follows:
CondNlon ConeotM
Aet10n
Accumulation of palm
Remove to satisfaction
tree clippings and debris
of City Manager for more
than one week I
Upon failure to abate
such public nuisance
through the corrective so-
tlons described herein,
the nuisance will be
abated by the City of
Saratoga and all costs of
abatement will be as-
sessed against the prop
any on which the nui-
sance exists and will con-
Stllute a special assess•
ment upon and against
such property until paid,
said assessment to be
collected at the same
time and In the same
manner as ordinary mu•
nicipal taxes. A copy of
the Declaration of nul-
sane by the Cl ryb Council
is on file In the Office of
the Saratoga City Clerk.
Any property owner object-
ing to the proposed
abatement by the city of
Saratoga Is hereby noti-
fied to attend a meeting
of the City Council
of the City of Saratoga
to be held on
April 19, 1995,
commencing at
7:30 p.m.,
at the Saratoga
City Hall,
13777 Frutvale Avenue,
Saratoga, California,
when their objections
will be heard and given
due consideration.
Dated this 16th day of
March, 1995.
City Manager /City Clerk
City of Saratoga
CC293
(PUB SN 3/22)
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The Saratoga City
Council, at a regular
meeting on March 15,
1995, Introduced the fol-
lowing ordinance(s):,
1) Ordinance designating
the Warner Hutton House
as a Historic Landmark
2) Ordinance approving a
Development Agreement
between the City of
Saratoga and Greenbrier
Homes specifying devel-
opment requirements for
the previously approved
94-lot, single -family real-
dential development on
the former
Paul Masson Winery Site
at 13150 Saratoga Ave.
These Ordinances will be
considered for adoption
at the meeting of April 5.
Ordinances generally be.
come effective 30 days
after adoption. The full
texts of all Introduced and
adopted ordinances are
available during regular
business hours at the of•
flce of the City Clerk,
13777 Frultvale Avenue.
Deputy City Clerk
CC294
(Pub SN 3/22)
described Is 6einpp sold 'as
W. The street atldress and
other common desionation. it
any,
Deed
any,
prior
GE SERVICES,
3e
ttreet, Stockton,
ESE OFFICES
s, Agent
Aprl15, 1995
FC IlFanelli Consulting, Inc.
Land Planning / Property Management / Real Estate Broker
April 6, 1995
Mr. Harry Peacock,.City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Harry:
Rr"' ["', E � I J, Ell
. AR 10 IYY5 U
0'.t' i wiSARATOGA
CITY 1';1ryrItAOER'S OFFICE
Enclosed with this letter are Exhibits "A", "B" and "C"
which support the request for cancellation of the Williamson
Act on the property known as the Nelson Gardens. These are
copies of documents submitted in December by Trinity
Development.
As you must be aware, the Community Foundation and
particularly the Foundation attorney, David Mitchell, are
extremely upset with being put in a awkward public position
for the second time in their dealings with the City on this
property. First, they were told that the Development
Agreement or MOU could be handled without public involvement
and now they have been asked to take responsibility for a
protracted public hearing process. Since their primary goal
has been to protect the good name of the Foundation while
also trying to bring a benefit to the City of Saratoga, they
are particularly irritated by this latest problem.
It is important that the next hearings are scheduled
promptly to get the focus off of the Foundation and also to
meet the obligations of the contract with Trinity
Development. I am quite sure that if the contract is not
fulfilled, the Foundation will simply sell the property to
someone who is willing to hold it until the Williamson Act
expires, leaving the City without the benefit it now may
receive.
10052 Pasadena Avenue, Suite B • Cupertino, CA 95014 • (408) 996 -8188 • Fax (408) 996 -8261
Lf
C �_
LA ✓- C CJ ILA e
Therefore, I am requesting on behalf of the Community
Foundation that the hearing on the cancellation be scheduled
for Wednesday, May 3rd before the City Council with a
recommendation for approval that evening and that the
hearings on the General Plan, Zoning and Tentative Map with
the Planning Commission begin no later than May 24th.
Please confirm this schedule with me at the earliest
possible date. And please let me or Trinity Development know
if any additional documents are needed prior to the hearings.
Very truly yours,
Virgini Fanelli
CC: Peter Hero
David Mitchell
Jeff Wyatt
Ann Marie Burger, Mayor
T H E C(62pv
C O M M U N I T Y F O U N D A T I .O N
Of Santa Clara County
TO THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA:
Pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1985 (hereafter
"Williamson Act "), the undersigned respectfully represent the following:
1. LAND; The undersigned constitute all of the present owners of the
land whose legal description Is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached to this
petition and is hereby Incorporated herein by reference.
2. P. A map showing the size and location of said lands Is set forth
on Exhibit "B" attached to this petition and Is hereby Incorporated
herein by reference.
3. CONTRACT: A land Conservation Contract has heretofore been
entered Into between Frank C. Nelson and the City of Saratoga. The
Contract was recorded In the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara
County on May 19, 1971, In Book 9381, Page 234; land described in
Paragraph 1 above is all of that land subject to such Contract.
4. CANCEL CONTRACT: The undersigned hereby request that the City
Council of the City of Saratoga approve cancellation of the Contract
as to the land described In Paragraph 1 above. The undersigned
represents that such cancellation is In the public Interest pursuant to
California Government Code Section 51282 A -2 (That cancellation is
In the public Interest), by reason of the facts, circumstances and
conditions set forth in Exhibit "C attached to this petition and In-
corporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
Wherefore, the undersigned hereby request that the above matter be
heard and that the Council take action thereon as provided by the Williamson
Act. The undersigned do also hereby declare that the above is true and
correct.
Executed on
THE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
By:
Y
Peter Hero, Executive Director
960 WEST HEDDING, SUITE 220 • SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95126 -1215
PHONE (408) 241 -2666 • FAX (408) 452 -4636
I
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
REAL property situated in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of
California, described as follows:
PARCEL ONE:
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 74 at the Southeast corner of Lot 74
as said lot is shown on Tract No. 3101, Blue Ridge, said Tract having been
recorded in Book 148 of Maps at pages 25, 26, and 27 Official Records of Santa
Clara County; thence running down the Westerly line of the aforementioned Lot
74 N. 50 15' 09" W 73.42 feet; N. 190 04' 09" E. 85.70 feet; N. 62° 10' 33" E.
81.41 feet to the common corner of Lots 73 and 74 of the aforementioned map;
thence running down the Southerly line of Lot 73 N. 870 21' 57" E. 209.24 feet
to a point on the Westerly line of Trinity Avenue as shown on the aforementioned
map; thence running down the Southwesterly line of said Avenue S. 200 10' 00"
E. 28.92 feet; thence on a curve to the left having a central angle of 120 39'
26" a radius of 180 feet and an arc distance of 39.77 feet; thence leave said
Trinity Avenue and running S. 420 56' 00" W. 278.09 feet to a point on the
Northerly line of Saratoga Hills Road; thence running down said Northerly line
N. 580 06' 34" W. 89.03 feet; and thence N. 740 51' 33" W. 67.35 feet to the
point of beginning of this description.
PARCEL TWO:
Beginning at a point in the center line of a private road, along the North-
easterly line of that certain 11.32 acre tract described in the Deed from
Susuan R. Stevens, et vir, to Bruce Bonny dated October 4, 1912 and recorded in
Book 393 of Deeds, page 242, distant thereon North 90 47' 21" West 81.54 feet
from the Southeasterly corner of said 11.32 acre tract; (thence from said point
of beginning along the Northeasterly line of said 11.32 acre tract and the
center line of said private roadway the following courses and distances: North
9° 47' 21" West 6.25 feet; North 310 06' 44" West 65.87 feet; North 46° 14' 39"
West 54.80.feet; North 59°03' West 66.16 feet and North 490 21' 02" West 65.97
feet; thence leavir:g the center line of said private roadway and continuing
First .4merican Title
PARCEL TWO: (continued)
along the Northeasterly line of said 11.32 acre tract, North 270 45' 03" West
42.92 feet; thence parallel.with the center line of said private road and
distant Northeasterly 16.00 feet at a right angle therefrom, North 58° 06' 34"
West 228.27 feet; thence North 740 51' 33" Test 67.35 feet; thence leaving
said parallel line, North 50 15' 09" Nest 73.42 feet; thence North 190 04' 09"
East 85.70 feet; thence North 620 10' 33" East 81.41 feet; thence North 870 21'
57" East 209.24 feet; thence South 100 20' East 28.92 feet; thence along the
arc of a tangent curve to the left, Southeasterly with a radius of 180.00 feet,
through a central angle of 510 25' 53" for an arc distance of 161.28 feet;
thence South 710 35' 53" East 77.60 feet; thence Easterly along the arc of a
curve to the left with a radius of 480.00 feet, thru a central angle of 190
00' 00' for an arc distance of 159.17 feet; thence North 890 24' 07" East 35.83
feet; thence along the arc of a tangent curve to the right, with a radius
of 40.00 feet thru a central angle of 900 11' 53" for an arc distance of 62.97
feet; thence.South 00 24' 0011-East 176.52 feet; thence along the arc of a
tangent curve to the right, ith a radius of 60.00 feet, thru a central angle
of 860 54' 07' for an arc distance of 91.00 feet; thence along the arc of a
reverse curve to the left, with a radius of 225.83 feet, thru a central angle of
250 30' 43" for an arc distance of 100.55 feet; thence South 600 59' 24" West
136.87 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Excepting therefrom -
Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 74 at the Southeast corner of Lot 74
as said lot is shown on Tract No. 3101, Blue Ridge, said Tract having been
recorded in Book 148 of Flaps at pages 25, 26, and 27 Official Records of Santa
C1ara.County; thence running down the Westerly line of the aforementioned Lot
74 N. 50 15' 09" N 73.42 feet; N. 19° 04' 09" E. 85.70'feet; N. 620 10' 33" E.
81.41 feet to the common corner of Lots 73 and 74 of tt�- aforementioned map;
thence running down the Southerly line of Lot 73 N. 870 21' 57" E. 209.24 feet
to a point on the Westerly line of Trinity Avenue as shown on the aforementioned
First American Title
Exhibit A, Page 2
V
PARCEL TWO: (continued)
map; thence running down the Southwesterly line of said Avenue S. 200 10' 00"
E. 28.92 feet; thence on a curve to the left having a central angle of 120 39'
26" a radius of 180 feet and an arc distance of 39.77 feet; thence leave said
Trinity Avenue and running S. 420 56' 00" W. 278.09 feet to a point on the
Northerly line of Saratoga Hills Road; thence running down said Northerly line
N. 580 06' 34" W. 89.03 feet; and thence N. 740 51' 33" W. 67.35 feet to the
point of beginning of this description.
APN: 503- 49 -42, 41
ARB: 503 -49 -15
First American Title
I
Exhibit A, Page 3,,'
... � o...
0 ri(,HI E -Al-iE SEM �A SE SSOA
1 33 Ac
.ync
H
29 \
1
�1
Ofrl(f DI Cr S! t164•j �j EMl kl c�A to ,co. l (AL[D4wLA
1, r,1ON �.,.
TRINITY ; 711
t0. t P o
O�V�
503 a�9
1
it
�J
S(Alf ly= 100'
EXHIBIT "C"
PROPOSED FACTS A,4,�D FINDINGS UNDER
THE WILLIAMSON ACT SUPPORTING CANCELLATION*
A. Pursuant to Section ' 51282 (a) ( 2) , cancellation is in the
public interest in that:
(1) Other public concerns substantially outweigh the
objectives of the Williamson Act as applied to this
property. In fact, this property no longer even
meets the.objectives of the Act, set forth in Section
51220 and summarized as follows:
a) Findings 51220(a), (b) and (c) refer to
preservation of agricultural land for the agri-
cultural economy of the state and to produce
food, to sustaining an agricultural work force
by providing housing on the property for agri-
cultural laborers and discouraging discontiguous
urban development which increase the costs of
public services. to City residents. This
property consists of only 5.1 acres, about 2+
acres of that amount currently in nonproducing
orchard. The cost of preserving the orchard
exceeds any costs of agricultural production.
Certainly the property is not used nor suitable
for housing agricultural laborers, and finally
the property is isolated amongst residentially -
developed lands and is served by City
services. in addition, the property fails to
meet the presumption of agricultural land for
preservation pursuant to Section 51222 which
sets forth parcel sizes large enough to sustain
agricultural use of at _least 10 acres in size if
prime agricultural land, or at least 40 acres if
not prime. Clearly this property fails 'Co meet
either tests.
b) Findings 51220(d) and (e) speak to preserving
agricultural production on lands for open space,
land within a scenic highway corridor or
wildlife habitat having value, and the necessity
of agricultural contracts to protect the public
x
The City Council is not required to make findings other
than findings (1) and either (2) or (3). §51282(f).
-1
interest in agricultural land. Clearly this property does not
serve the public interest nor welfare in preservation of
agricultural lands since its orchard is not producing
commerical crops nor can it do so in an economically -
viable manner (See Section 51201 (b) defining
"agricultural use" as producing an agricultural commodity
for commercial purposes). Neither is it defined under the
Williamson Act as an open space use, since such land
must be within a scenic highway corridor, a wildlife
habitat area, a salt pond, a managed wetland area or a
submerged area, none of which apply to this land. (See
"open space" definition at Section 51201 (o)).
c) Public concerns include an unoccupied and unprotected
parcel of land isolated amidst residential development
which attracts trespassers, vandals and loiterers to the area.
Development of the property will prevent these
intrusions into the neighborhood. There is further a
public concern that the land and its nonproducing orchard
will decay, attracting vectors and illegal dumping onto the
property, which affects the neighborhood.
d) The property cannot be sold for residential development
until the agricultural restrictions are lifted. Such sale is in
the public interest since the net proceed will be added to
the endowment of The community Foundation, the
income of which will be distributed to qualifying charities,
foundations and other community organizations in Santa
Clara County.
(2) There is no proximate noncontracted land which is both
available and suitable for the proposed alternative use of this
property, a residential subdivision. ( "Proximate, noncontracted
land" is defined as land sufficiently close to this site as to be a
practical alternative.) A search was made for subdividable lands
of the same size as this property or larger within a one -mile
radius of the property. There were no noncontracted properties
available flitting that description.
(3) Development of this property would provide more
contiguous patterns of urban development than
development of other "proximate" noncontracted land,
if such land is available, in that this property is entirely
surrounded by developed residential subdivisions.
-2-
(4) There is no other reasonable or comparable agricul-
tural use to which the land may be put other than the
failing, nonproducing orchard of 2+ acres. The
remainder of the property has never been in any
agricultural use, nor is it suitable due to its small
size and topography. The existing agricultural use
is uneconomic for the following reasons:
a) Urbanization on all sides of the property makes
growing difficult because of dust, noise and
irrigation overflows. It is also difficult to
protect the property from theft, vandalism and
trespass.
b) The costs for production of crops on the
property has increased substantially over the
years. The costs now exceed any sale of
product.
B. Cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent
with surrounding uses. An application for a General Plan
amendment and rezoning for residential use 'on this
property has been filed with the City.
The proposed alternative use of the 5.1 acres is for
single- family residential. It is anticipated that 9
homes will be built on the property. The property is
described as two parcels, one parcel backing into a
hillside area constituting 1.33 acres; the other a flat
area of 3.77 acres. A General Plan amendment from open
space /managed resource production (refers to agricultural
use) is required, along with rezoning of the property from
A agricultural to residential. The proposed development
will be in conformance with the density of development on
the surrounding properties.
The City of Saratoga is the only known governmental agency
having permit authority relating to the above - proposed
alternative use.
-3-
MAY -12 -95 FR I 09:35'
I1 rYERS', 14r' VE, RIBACK, SILVER-,& WILSON
r A PROFESSIONAL LAW GUHPOHAfION J'
.. 57[Vtra�..t�.fr1LYLnlF" TA aOSA QFFI�C�
E1.12ARETH H, SH,vek
GATE=WAY PLAZA 555 F :FTH STREET, SUITE M
.� MIGhAR S.,RIBACr.' SANTA RG3A, CA 9r401
„r• _ '! :e,JIrETHA.14'iLSOIJ• 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300.
111( F EL . ODRIn lL - R Cr+ TELEPHONE: 1707) 6;64 €00�J
'p11C}IAEL F.'RbDRI7UEZ SAN LFANDg�, 1 A IFi3RNIQ 94577 FA( $1+4141.x: (707) 645 -6117
KATHLEEN FAUBIQV. AICY TELEPKUNE' (0101 351 =4300
WENDY''A, ROBERTS,
DAVID W. SKINNER., �" FACSlMII.E :, (510) 351 -4481
STEVCN T, MATTAS 1
kl[K U /.,JARVIS
VERONICA A, F. NE99 1
Or CGVN$9L
- ANDREA J. SAL 200AN - -
MEMORANDUM
TO: city Council DATE May 12,' 1995
City Manager
FROM: Michael S. Riblck, Q.T.Nr Attorney
RE: Mllianison Act Contract Cancellation Proceedings
During the prbceedinrys on N /lay 3 regardirt� the request or T-b. e {.'llI �
"Nelson Gardens" property for lVilliauls;ot. Robin Kenncd' },,
zcprescrtting the .rxte +leis d tl `Garden Foundation cited to a recent.'court case she
clairlletl w.IS 11e.levant. to the issue of the Williamson Act contract cancellation. ( S i_nislaus '
Audtjbon SQci.ety, Inc. v. County !)f Suanislaus 95 D.A.1 .''3396, 'Man�h 20, '199 -). The
case involved an application to build a golf course/couiitav club bri land and %: Y "i "ilbainso>,_
Act contra'cr. The issues before the court were whether, the county had prGliedy prepared „
a negative declaration for the projec=t [c.he cUnstruttiv114q the gull cul_irsz`ca1.a :;t :ry ciubl
and whe=ther the golf course use was a "compatible use" permitted unde=r the convra�t.
The case wti iq decided entirely on LE A grounds as the, determined that an ETR
should have been prepared instead of a negative, declaratiull. In fact, the cuu,'+ spec.i-icaU
declined to mile on the Williamson Act issue at al.l, which, in any case had nOtbin4g to do
�.Nith eitl-►er.non- renexval or cancellation of th'c c.otitrart...
fti
Michael S. Ribacic
City Attorney ;
MSR.dsp
�c: Coy imunity Development Director'
J; \wPI7 \Nltt� 3S Alwi 3 ,u1'fEMO\,NLAY9S \GARDE`�S.A4161 - '�"