My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA PACKET 5-5-26
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2026
>
050526 REGULAR
>
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA PACKET 5-5-26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2026 8:59:41 AM
Creation date
5/7/2026 2:41:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/5/2026
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
245
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City of Pleasanton <br />Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 <br />Engineer’s Report <br />Page 27 <br /> <br />Table 5 – City In‐Kind General Benefit Contributions <br />City In‐Kind Contribution Percentage <br />Curb and gutter maintenance, rehabilitation, and <br />replacement 10.0% <br />Storm drainage system maintenance, rehabilitation, and <br />replacement 10.0% <br />Local public streets maintenance, rehabilitation, and <br />replacement 10.0% <br />Amortized value of initial Improvements constructed by <br />Developer 20.0% <br />Total City In‐Kind Contributions 50.0% <br /> <br />Zones of Benefit <br />Ponderosa‐Del Prado Landscape Maintenance District 2026‐1 was formed to provide a <br />funding source for the maintenance and services of landscaping improvements within the <br />boundaries of the Assessment District. The boundaries of the Assessment District have <br />been narrowly drawn to include only properties that will specially benefit from the <br />maintenance and services and would receive a declining level of service if the <br />Assessments were not approved. <br />The SVTA decision indicates: <br />In a well‐drawn district — limited to only parcels receiving special benefits from <br />the improvement — every parcel within that district receives a shared special <br />benefit. Under section 2, subdivision (i), these benefits can be construed as being <br />general benefits since they are not “particular and distinct” and are not “over and <br />above” the benefits received by other properties “located in the district.” <br /> <br />We do not believe that the voters intended to invalidate an assessment district <br />that is narrowly drawn to include only properties directly benefiting from an <br />improvement. Indeed, the ballot materials reflect otherwise. Thus, if an <br />assessment district is narrowly drawn, the fact that a benefit is conferred <br />throughout the district does not make it general rather than special. In that <br />circumstance, the characterization of a benefit may depend on whether the parcel <br />receives a direct advantage from the improvement (e.g., proximity to park) or <br />receives an indirect, derivative advantage resulting from the overall public <br />Page 81 of 248
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.