Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.A 05/17/2004• 174 CITY OF PETALTMA,'CALIFORNIA n, d ju AGENDA, BILL U ND 5 w Agenda Title Meeting Date: Public hearing to hear testimony regarding the formation of a 1VIay,17, 2004 Landscape &Lighting Assessment District for Washington Creek Village Subdivision and the counting of ballots:. Meeting Tine ❑ 3:00 PM 7:00 PM . Category (check one) ❑'Consent. Calendar" Public Tearing ❑ New Business ❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Pre a Lion Department Direet : Contaet Person Phone Number Parks & Recreation Jim C , d.Anchordoguy 707- 778 -4321 Cost of Proposal $0 for FY 04 5 " Account Number 25xx Amount Budgeted $0 Name of Fund: Landscape Assessment Districts Attachments' to Agenda Packet Item a. Agenda Report b. Engineer.'s Report. c. Resolution Declaring the Results of Balloting Tabulated in Accordance with Article 39IID of the California Constitution and California Government Code Section 53753, Ordering Improvements and Confirming the - Diagrams and Annual Assessments for the Washington Creek Village Subdivision Pusuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Summary Statement The Community Development Department has required a Landscape & Lighting Assessment District be established for the Washington 'Creek 'Village Subdivision to 'maintain the public or common landscaped areas within the subdivision. A base amount has been established and once .approved cannot be raised more than the CPI without a vote from the property owners. The Washington Creek Village Subdivision base annual assessment is estimated at $347.00 per home based on 37 residential lots. The base year annual cost of $1.2,821 will maintain landscaping and irrigation- systems in medians and common areas that are separate from the residential water meters and street lighting. The level of maintenance is consistent with the -Landscape ;Assessment District landscape maintenance specifications under the current contract adopted. by the City Council on March 3, 2003. The individual property owners will be responsible for the landscaping and street trees in front of their houses. As required by state law, the public hearing, the counting of ballots and approval ofthis resolution will finalize the formation of the Washington Creek Village Subdivision.. Landscape & Lighting Assessment District. Recommended City' Council Action /Suggested Motion Open the public hearing, count the ballots, and adopt the resolution to form the Washington Creek Village Subdivision Landscape &'Lighting Assessment District. ev ew b -.— Ditec c Reviewed by City Attorney Date: A r ity Manager: Date: 'Date: ( to 'I' da ' Date: Revision 9 and Date Revised: File C e: CI'T'Y OE.PETA,L CALIFORNIA MAY 17,20 04 AGENDA REPORT FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR TESTIMONY�REGA]k DING; THE FORMA A „LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT °DISTRICT':FOR WASHINGT CREEK' VILLAGE SUBIDWISION AND THE COUNTING OF BALLOTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Community Development,Department has required.a Landscape & Lighting Assessment District be established for- the Washington Creek Village Subdivision to maintain the public or common landscaped areas within the subdivision: Abase amount has been establi'shed'and once approved cannot be raised more than the” CPI without a vote from the property owners. This base amount can be lowered when estimated costs of any given year are calculated. As required by state law, the resolution included with this staff report and the counting of ballots, will finalize the process to form the Washington Creek Village Subdivision Landscape & Lighting Assessment District. Staff is recommending that the resolution be approved and that the Washington Creek Village Landscape & Lighting Assessment District be formed. 2. BACKGROUND The Community. Development Department has a policy to establish landscape assessment districts (LAD) for all new subdivisions that have common public, landscaped. areas. The requirements are identified iri the tentative map conditions prior to development of the subdivision. These districts maintain various amenities on �pub'lic. land such as landscaped. remnants, islands, medians, pathways, riparian.mitigations, soundwalls, fences and street lights. The costs are spread among all of the private parcels within the district. A homeowner's association maintains any landscaping of common areas on private land. The Washington Creek Village Subdivision base annual assessment is estimated at $347.00 per home based on 37 residential lots. The., base year annual cost of $1.2,821 will maintain landscaping and irrigation systems in medians and comnion areas that are separate from the residential water meters and street lighting. This base amount includes utilities, supervision renovation and repairs, and will establish a reserve. The $5913 estimated for annual landscape maintenance is determined on a square - foot basis usin g y g current,landscape industr costs and estimates from three landscape contractors and consultor wi h a California licensed Landscape Architect. The landscape is not currently in existence and estimates were made from the final,approved landscape plan for the subdivision. The actual annual landscape; maintenance cost_ will be determined through the bid process by.selecting the lowest responsible bidder. The level of maintenance is .consistent' with the Landscape Assessment District landscape maintenance. specifications under`the current contract adopted: by the - City Council on March 3, 2003.' The individual' property owners will be responsible for the landscaping and street trees in front of their houses. The public hearing,, counting of ballots and approval of the resolution will form the : assessment district and, set the base assessment per•parce.l: I This base annual assessment may be increased each year no greater than the CPI without a vote ofthe property owners. The actual annual assessment will be set each year by the City Council,at a noticed public hearing and can be set at a lower amount to cover the estimated costs. If it is necessary to increase the assessment above ,the allowed amount, a formal 45 day notice period with .a vote of the property owners is required. 3. ALTERNATIVES Require the Developer to establish a Homeowners Association and transfer ownership of the properties dedicated to the City to the Homeowners Association to maintain all the landscaping. Do not establish a district .and maintain the landscapes with General. Fund resources. 4. I'+INANCIAL IMPACTS • The estimated base year cost of $12 includes the cost of_landscaping and tree maintenance, utilities, street lighting, direct supervision by City Staff and miscellaneous improvements and repairs. It also includes indirect City Staff support and a reserve. This will provide a reserve to build to a maximum of 50% of the annual landscape maintenance cost. The estimated annual Base year assessments will be $347.00 per house. The base. assessment may be inncreased each year by up to the CPI without a vote of property owners. The attached Engineer's Report is required by law and contains a summary of the estimated first year base cost and estimated annual assessments: Staff.support costs for the formation of the LAD is estimated at 16 hours (1 hour Finance Director, 4 hours Accounting Assistant, 1 hour Parks and Recreation Director, 10 hours. Parks and Landscape Manager).,'The :formation costs, including a reviewwby the City Engineer, City Attorney, for the LAD is Paid from a -formation deposit of $5,000 by the developer. The clerical'staff support costs, including the annual assessment process, are estimated at over 100 hours per year for all of the IADs. These costs are included in each. of the LAD budget§. 'The, estimated clerical support;costs for Washington Creek Village Subdivision LLAD; is esti ated:zt,2% of the landscape maintenance costs. The remaining 0% of city administration fee funds support provided by the Parks: &'Recr"eationDept. 5. CONCLUSION Establish the Washington Creek Village Subdivision .LLAD in order to generate' sufficient revenues for the maintenance of the public landscaping and street lighting ,in the subdivision. The ,base annual assessment of $347.00 per:parcel is sufficient with annual inflation increases "to, adequately maintain the public landscaping that is required as :a condition of development and provide. for reserves for replacement ovkPair of the landscaping. Q Public ,satisfaction with the -landscape maintenance will be measured through the positive or feedback received through phone calls, letters emails. 7. RECOMMENDATION Open the public hearing, count the ballots, and adopt the, resolution to form the Washington Creek Village Subdivision Landscape & Lighting Assessment District. g /forms/2003 agenda bill ENGINEER'S REPORT WASHINGTON CREED VILLAGE ,SIJBDMSION LANDSCAPEILIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT CITY OF PETALUMA • Prepared under the direction of Craig Spaulding, City Engineer Submitted: May 3, '2004 ' LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINE'ER'S REPORT • WASHINGTON CREEK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT 1972 The undersigned respectfully submits the enclosed report as directed by the City Council. Dated: , 2004 Craig Spaulding City Engineer City .of Petaluma. County of Sonoma, CA I HEREBY CERTIFY thatthe�enclosed Engineer's Report, together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with me on the day of , 2004. Gayle Peterson City Clerk City of Petaluma County of Sonoma, CA By I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report; .together with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Petaluma California,. on the day of 2004. Gayle Peterson - 'City Clerk City of Petaluma County of Sonoma,. CA By I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer's Report, together - with Assessment and Assessment Diagram thereto attached, was filed with the County Auditor of the County of Sonoma on the day of , 2004. Gayle Peterson City Clerk City of Petaluma County of Sonoma, CA LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER'S REPORT ENGINEER';S'REPORT WASHINGTON CREEK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 Craig Spaulding, City Engineer and Engineer of Work.for Washington Creek Village Subdivision,Landscape Assessment District, City of Petaluma, Sonoma County, California, makes this report, as.directe.d bythe City Council, Resolution No. , N.C.S., pursuant to Section 22585 of the Streets and. Highways Code (Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972). The improvements which are: the - subject of this report, are briefly - described as follows: The maintenance ofall the public landscaping improvements,as part of "Washington Creek Village Subdivision" consisting of.plant material, trees, outdoor furniture, pathway lighting, irrigation systems, soundwall and street lighting located, in the following public areas. Public landscape areas are defined as those a "teas that are irrigated from water meters separate from water meters. Public landscape Area 1 includes the Washington Creek area.bouiided by Prince Park on the. east, and a line continuing from the western lot line oflot 15 across the, creek to Linnet Lane on the west. This area is bounded' onthe north side of the creek by lots 16 through 20 and.22 through 27 and the south side of the creek by lots 1, 2, 15,'and Catenacci Court. Public landscape Area 2 includes the north side of East Washington St. from back of curb to the soundwall both east and west of Catenancci Court and bounded on the north by lots 3 through 11. Public landscape Area 3 includes' ~the :landscaped islands within the cul -de -sac of Catenacci Court. In addition, the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District shall maintain the street lighting located within the boundaries of Washington Creek Village on Hawk Drive, Noriel Lane and: Catenacci Court. • LANDSCAPE ASSESSMVNT`DISTRICT ENGINEER'S REPORT EXHIBIT A WASHINGTON CREED VILLAGE' SUBDIVISION LANIDSCAPING/LIGRTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FISCAL, YEAR 2005 =06 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THOUGH BOUND SEPARATELY, ARE FILED AS A PART OF THIS RECORD • LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER'S REPORT EXHIBIT B WASHINGTON CHEEK VILLAGE' SUBDIVSION LANDSCAPINGILIGIITING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT CITY OF PETALUMA FISCAL, YEAR 2005 -2006 ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ANNUAL, COSTS Estimate Of Costs for twelve (12) - months Maintenance of Landscaping Utilities Supervision Improvements & Repairs Other Services Street Light Maintenance Total Maintenance Costs Incidental Costs County Collection Fee (1/4 City Administration (15. %)' Total Estimated Costs for Maintenance and Incidental Costs Reserve for Delinquent, Cash Flow, unusual repairs $5,913 $1,700 $500 $500 $500 $1,000 $10,113 $25 $1,517 $11,655 $1,166 Number of Parcels to be Assessed 37 UE LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER'S REPORT EXHIBIT C WASHINGTON CREEK' VILLAGE SURDTYISION LANDSCAPING /LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT CITY OF PETAILUMA .FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06 ASSESSMENT ROLL: Assessment Amount of Assessor's Number Assessment Parcel Number 1 -37 $12,821 (See Attached Property Owner's List) LANDSCAPE ASSESSMMENT'DISTRICT ENGINEER'S REPORT 0 EXHIBIT D WASHINGTON CREEK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPING/LIGHTING MAINTENANCE .DISTRICT CITY OYPET'ALITMVIA FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06 BASIS OF ALLOCATIONASSESSMENTS AND ANN TAL ;INDEXING FACTOR All benefits of the improvements are special benefits to land with the district. General benefits to the public generally are nominal or non - existent. Allocation of Assessments The total maintenance costs per year were: estimated, and incidental.;administrative expenses added to yield, a total annual cost. `This cost was then prorated equally to the 37 lots, so that each lot will share equally in the annual` landscape maintenance expenses. Annual ndexing'Factor In any year the assessment shaltnot'be deemed to have been increased if the amount of the increase is not more than the percentage of the increase in the U: S.. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Prices Indexes, Pacific Cities and the U.S. City Average,. San Francisco- Oakland -San Jose from February Ito the February 1. The first fiscal year 2006 -07 assessment levy increase shall be determined: from the percentage 'increase gfrom February 2005 to February 2006. LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEER'S REPORT EXHIBIT E WASHINGTON CREEK VILLAGE SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPIN.GIL,IGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT CITY .OF"PETALUMA FISCAL Y19AR 2005 -06 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST: Assessment Number Property Owner's Name & Address Assessor's Parcel Number 1 -37 (See Attached.Property Owner's List) (See Attached Property Owner' • WASHINGTON CREEK VH LAGE PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Lot 1 149 - 180 -018 Lot 2 149 -180 -019 Lot 3 1,49 -180 -020 Lot 4 149 - 180 -021 Lot 5- 149 - 180 -022 Lot 6 149 -180 -023 Lot 7 149 -180 -024 Lot 8 149 -180 -025 Lot 9 149 -180 -026 Lot 10 149 -180 -027 Lot 11 149 -180 -028 Lot 12 149 -180 -029 Lot 13 149- 180 -030 Lot 14 149 -180 -031 Lot 15 149- 180 -032 Lot 16 149 -180 -033 Lot 17 149- 180.034 Lot 18 149 -180 -035 Lot 19 149.180 -036 Lot 20 149 -180 -037 Lot 21 149 -180 -038 Lot 22 149- 180 -039 Lot 23 149 -180 -040 Lot 24 149 -180 -04.1 Lot 25 149 -180 -042 Lot 26 149- 180 -043 Lot 27 149 -180 -044 Lot 28 149 - 180 -045 Lot 29 149 -180 -046 Lot 30 149 -180 -047 Lot 31 149 -180 =048 Lot 32 149. -180 -049 Lot 33 149 -180 -050 Lot 34 149 -150 -051 Lot 35 149 -180 -052 Lot 36 149 -180 -053 Lot 37 149 -180 -054 John & Sharon Roehm, 1950 Catanacci Court, Petaluma, CA 94954 Richard & Colleen Grant, 629 Sartori Drive, Petaluma, CA 94954 Xianhong Bai & Ying Ying Wang, 2284 Malachite Way, Santa,Rosa CA 95404 Scott,& Ling Reily, 143.1 Capri Ave. Petaluma, CA 94954 Peter & Maria Aguilar, 5744 Rei'sling Road, P.etaluma,CA 94954 Cobblestone Homes. Inc., 1400,N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400,N.;Dutton -Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Timothy J. & Maria Murphy, 1511 Cero.Sonoma Circle, Petaluma, CA 94954 Kesnel.& Ginette•Jacket, 1918 Catenacci Court, Petaluma, CA 94954 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc.., 1400 N. Dutton,Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401. James & Donna Beels, 1909 Cantenacci Court, Petaluma, CA 94954 Michael & Joanne Murphy, 460 Casa Verde Circle, Petaluma, CA 94954 Robert.& Andrea Balf,1917 Catenacci Court, Petaluma, CA 94954 Miguel & Georgina Sandino, 108 Rose. Petal Court, Petaluma, CA 94954 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes:Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N., Dutton Ave., Suite 1, ,Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone_Homes.Inc: 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone.Homes Inc., 1400 N.,Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 9540.1. Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400 N. Dutton Ave„ Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc., 1400'N. Dutton, Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Cobblestone Homes Inc.,.1400'N. Dutton Ave., Suite 1, Santa Rosa, CA 95401 0 • ARESOLUTION DECLARING THE RE'SUL-TS OF BALOTTING TABULAUD ACCORDANCE" WITH ARTICLE,XHID OF THE' " CALIFORNIA coNSTI.,TtTION AND CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 53753, ORDERING'IMPROV AND: AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAMS AND ANNUAUASSESSMENTS FOR, THE WASHINGTON CREEK VI,LLIGHTING' LAGE'. SUBDIVISION PURSUANfT - 0 THE, LANDSCAPE AND. ACT OF 1972 FOR THE" 2005-2006 FISCAL YEAR WHEREAS the= Land scapeand Lighting Act of 1972 ( " 1972 Act "), codified in California Streets arid. Highways: Code Section 22500 et sea.,, establishes procedures whereby local agencies whose annual taxes. are carried .on the county assessment roll and are collected by the county: may fund the construction and maintenance of improvements by formation of assessment districts; 1 and WHEREAS, the general . procedures for formation of an;assessm ent district under the 1972 Act include: adoption .of&,resolution initiating proceedings, proposing formation of a.district and ,ordering an engineer's report;, approval of the engineer's report; adoption of a. resohition , of intention.to form an assessment district, levy and collect assessments, and, "ifdesired, issue bonds or notes. and, following , canvassing of balloting . that has - been •noticed and conducted in accordance with California, Government Code Section 53753, and anoticed public hearing: on the assessment, adoption of a resolution, ordering the improvements sand formation of the district and confirming ing the diagram and assessment;'' and WHEREAS, improvements. that,.;, may be.'fu under. the 19 1 72Act include: installation or construction of I andscap ffig, - ornamental structures; ;public lighting facilities, appurtenant-, structures; or facilities, park or recreational improvements, acquisition of land or existing improvements for park, recreational or open space purposes, and acquisition or construction of community centers- auditoriums, halls or similar public-facilities, for indoor presentation of performances And events, including , public and private events; 3 and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. adopted: May 3, 2004, the City Council of the City of Potaltima initiated proceedings; -for ' formationof the Washington Creek Village Subdivision Landscape ,& Lighting Assessment District. ("Distncti?),' .designated 'Craig Spaulding, City Engineer-, as the Engineer ofRecord (",Engineer") for the proposed District, and= ordered the Engineer to prepare and file a report pursuant to the 1972 Act; and WHEREAS, the Engineer prepared ,a report ( " Report ") concerning - the District, District. improvements ("Jffiprovements") and the proposed assessment ( " Asse "ssment") in Cal. St'. & 1-L Code '§§22,$0.0 - 22501 2 Cal. St. & lligh.:Code § §2358 - 22587, 22594 3 Cal. St. & High. Code §22525'. accordance with the requirements 1972 Act, filed a copy oftheReport with the • City Clerk and submitted a copy of the Report.to the City Council for consideration and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on May 3, 2004, the City Council o f the City of Petaluma duly considered the Report and found that it complied with all.applicable requirements oftlie 1.972 Act and other applicable law;, including the requirements„ that the: Report refer to the assessment district by its designation, specify°the. fiscal year to which the report applies, and contain improvement plans and specifications an estimate of the costs, a diagram of the. district, an assessment of the estimated cos_ is of the improvements, and estimate of the principal. amount of improvement bonds or notes to be issued, if'any; and . WHEREAS,, by Resolution No.' adopted May 3, 2004 the City Council of the City. of Petaluma preliminarily�approved the Report subject to pending proceedings, including balloting proceedings and. noticed' hearing proceedings concermng the District in accordance with California Constitution Article XIIID, California Government Code Section 53753 and the 1972 Act; and WHEREAS, by Resolution;No. adopted May 3, 2004, the; City Council of the City,of Petaluma, declared its intention to order the levy and collect assessments for the District and set a public hearing on - the formation of 'the District and levy of the proposed assessment' pursuant to the 1972 Act; °and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 53753 (which implements California Constitution Article XIIID, known as.Proposition 218) requite&that - ' rto levying a new or 1 increased assessment local : agencies must provide mailed .notice, including balloting materials and instructions as specified in Section 53753 to each record owner of a parcel within° the proposed assessment at least 45' days, prior w a:public hearing on the assessment; and WHEREAS on April 2, 2004, City staff mailed notices and balloting and instructions to eachrecord owner of a parcel within the District announcing- that ballots would be canvassed.:and a hearing"'conducted on May 17, 2004 on the' °formation of the District and levy and collection ofthe Assessment for the 2005 2006 fiscal year, and, for each fiiture_year following establishment of the District, of the increases specified in the US. Department of labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Prices Indexes,' Pacific Cities and the U.S: City Average, San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose from February l; and WH'EREAS,. the mailed notices included: thetotal amount of the proposed Assessment chargeable to the entire District; the amount chargeable to the record owner's parcel the duration of the payments; the reason for the Assessment and the basis upon which the amount of.the proposed Assessment was calculated, the date, time and; location of a public hearing on the proposed Assessment, a summary of the procedures for the completion return tabulation of the Assessment ballots, including, a -statement that the Assessment shall not be imposed, if the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots: submitted in favor of the Assessment with ballots weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property, an assessment ballot, including the City's address for receipt of ballots a place: for the person returning the, ballot to indicate his or her name, reasonable identification of the parcel, and his or her support of opposition to the proposed Assessment ; and WHEREAS, the 1972\Act requires , one published notice, at least 1-0 days before the public hearing on the Assessment; and WHEREAS, on,May 7, City staff published notice in accordance with California Government Code :Section 6061 of the public hearing on the Assessment; and WHEREAS, ballots mailed:concerning the- proposed Assessment were in a form that concealed their contents once sealed by the person submitting ahe ballot„ and all assessment ballots were received at the address indicated on the ballot for tabulation; and WHEREAS, .on May 1,7, 2004, at a regularly schedule meetingat the time date and place stated in the mailed and the published notices, the City Council of the City Petaluma conducted a hearing on the proposed Assessment, permitted any interested person to present written or oral testimony and considered, all objections or protests to the proposed Assessment, including any objections to the Improvements; maintenance of the Improvements, the extent of the District, and/or any zones within the District, the District diagram, and the Engineer's cost estimate, and the City Council of Petaluma fully considered any such written or oral testimony concerning the proposed Assessment;5 and WHEREAS, ballot& on the Assessment were permitted to be submitted, changed or withdrawn by the person who submitted the ballot until the conclusion of the public testimony at the hearing .on the proposed Assessment, and ballotst remained sealed. until the City Clerk cominenced tabulation of the ballots following the conclusion of public testimony;6 and WHEREAS, if there is a majority protest against the imposition of a new assessment Or the extension increase of an.existing: assessment, the jassessment may not be imposed, extended, or increased;' and WHEREAS,, a.majority protest exists if assessment ballots submitted and not withdrawn in opposition to the proposed assessmenvexceed'the assessment ballots submitted and not withdrawn, in favor of the assessment, weighting the assessment ballots by'the amount of the proposed assessment to be imposed on the identif edy parcel for which each assessment ballot was submitted; and 4 Cal. Gov't. Code §53753(b), (c) 5 Cal..Gov't. Code §'53753(d) 6 Cal. Gov't. Code §53753(c), (e) ' Cal. Gov't. Code §53753(e)(3) s Cal. Gov't. Code §53753(6)(2) WHEREAS following the conclusion ofthe public testimony on the proposed Assessment the City Clerk tabulated ballots submitted and. not withdrawn'in support of the proposed, Assessment, and ballots submitted and not withdrawn in opposition to the proposed Assessment; and WHEREAS', when weighted according to the amount of the proposed Assessment to be unposed upon the parcel for, which each assessment ballot was submitted, the ballots submitted and not withdrawn in opposition to the proposed Assessment did not exceed the ballots submitted and not withdrawn in;support of the proposed Assessment; and thus a majority protest does not exist concerning formation of the Assessment; and WHEREAS if a majorityprotest:has not been filed concerning a proposed assessment, the legislative body may adopt a resolution ordering the improvements and. the formaton.of the assessment district and confirming the diagram and assessment teither as, originally proposed by the legislative body or as changed by it, and adoption of the resolution constitutes levy of an assessment for the first year referred to in the assessment ; and Findings WHEREAS, the City Council of the Cityof-.Petaluma finds, based on substantial evidence 'in the whole record before the .Council, as follows: 1. Formation of the proposed. District and levy 'of the proposed Assessment is for the purpose of meeting ,operating, expenses of maintaining the District and the. Improvements in accordance with the 1972 Act, and/or for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain services within existing service areas in accordance with Title 14, Section 15273, subsection (a)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ') Guidelines. 2. Maintenance of the Improvements funded pursuant to .the* Assessment constitutes maintenance ,of existing landscaping in accordance with Title 14, Section 15301, subsection (l) of the CEQA Guidelines. 3. The Improvements -constitute minor public; alterations in the condition of land water and /or vegetation that do not involve removal of healthy, mature: scenic trees in the form of new gardening or landscaping in accordance with Title 14 Section 15304, subsection. (b). NOW, THEREFORE the City Council. of the City of Petaluma does resolve as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared .to be findings of `the City Council of the City of Petaluma. 9. Cal. St. &.`High. Code §22594 2. Formation of the proposed District:and levy of ffiet proposed.Assessment, the Improvements, and faintenance of the Improvements are exempt, from CEQA .in accordance with:Title 14, Section 45271. subsection (a)(4), Section 15301. subsection (h) and .Section 15304, subsection (b) of the CEQA, Guidelines. 3. All protests against the Improvements the proposed District and annual Assessment proposed for F'i'scal year. 2005= 2006 including protests against maintenance of the Improvements the extent of the District and /or any, zones inthe District, the District diagrams or the Engineer's estimate of the cost of the Improvements and/or their maintenance have ,been'received and considered. 4. The District'that will benefit from and be assessed rfor the Improvements and their construction and/or installation and maintenance is situated in the City of Petaluma, California and is more particularly described in the diagrams of the District contained in the Engmeer's Report on file inihe office of the City Clerk. The Engineer's Report is attached to .and made a part of this °.resolution as Exhibit A. The diagram of the District indicates by a; boundary line rthe extent of the territory` included. in the .District and any zone within the District and the general location of the District. 5. The plans and - specifications for the Improvements (both existing and proposed) within the District as contained in the 'Engineer's Report are adopted and approved. 6. The Engineer's estimate of the cost of the Improvements, and of - constructing and/or installing, and maintaining the Improvements as ,contained in the Engineer's Report is adopted and approved. 7. The public interest convenience and necessity require and the City Council of the City of Peialuma`hereby orders thedniprovements to be made and/or installed and maintained as described in the Engineer's Report. 8. , The public interest, convenience and necessity require and the City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby orders the formation of the District and the levy and collection of assessments, including the annual Assessm_ ent proposed for the 2004 - 2005 fiscal' year pursuant to the :1972 Act and other applicable law for the construction and /or installation and maintenance of the improvements as described in the Engineer's Report. 9. The diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District and the boundaries of any zone within the District and the lines and :dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District as such lot or parcel is shown on the County Assessor's map for the applicable fiscal year, each lot or parcel of land of which has been given a separate number on such diagram, as contained in the Engineer's Report, is approved and confirmed. 10. The Assessment of the total amount of the costs and expenses, including incidental' expenses, concerning the Tmprovements fairly distributes such costs amount all assessable lots or parcels of land within .the :District in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by such lots or parcels from °the Improvements and from the maintenance of the Improvementsaas contained in, the Engineer's Report, such Assessment is.approved and confirmed. 11. The, entire Engineer's. Report concerning; the District, the Improvements; related costs and the Assessment is adopted.and approved. 12. The City Clerk is directed to :file with the Auditor- Controller of Sonoma County the Assessment and any attachments and diagrams as confirmed by,the City Council .of the Cityof Petaluma along with a certificate of such confirmation to be attached to the Assessment. 13. The Sonoma County Auditor - Controller and the Sonoma. County Tax Collector are directed pursuant to the 1972..Act to -apply the Assessment filed with .the Auditor- Coritroller`as icontained in the Engineer's Report on file with the City Clerk to the tax.roll and the Sonoma.County Tax Collectoris directed in pursuant to the 1972 Act to collect the Assessment in the same manner -as all other such assessments :collected. by the Sonoma.!'County .Tax Collector. C:\NrPortbl\EBMAIN\ERIC\658609—I.DOC