According to associate planner John Livingstone, the expansion would mean that the city would be better informed of site development so that design review guidelines could be considered. Under the boundary line agreement, property owners would still be bound to the county's policies. However, the agreement would put the city a step closer to the annexation process.

David Britton, one of the affected property owners, said he does not necessarily object to the proposal, but is concerned about the timing of events and the impact the process has had on his home, which has been on the market for two years. He said there have been several potential buyers, one who expressed interest in building a bed-and-breakfast on the 7.53-acre land and another with plans to rebuild, who lost interest because of stricter regulations they would be subject to should the city decide to annex the property. In addition, Britton said that the issue's state of uncertainty and confusion is driving potential buyers away.

"This has been detrimental to the value of our property," Britton said. "The selling price of our home is now one-third or close to $1 million less than the original offer."

At Jan. 14 and 28 planning commission meetings, residents raised questions about the city's intent in acquiring the properties for possible inclusion in Hakone Gardens. According to Britton, who received the information from his real estate broker, city officials visited his property in August 2003 and expressed interest in having it be a part of Hakone Gardens. He said that if that were the case, he would be willing to make an offer.

"All I want to do is sell my property," he said.

However, Community Development Director Tom Sullivan said that as far as he was concerned, the city has not discussed expanding the 10-acre facility.

Livingstone added that the "purpose of the expansion is to simply protect the historical characteristics of Hakone Gardens."

At the Jan. 28 meeting, Britton read a letter written by his attorney, which stated that "Annexation would provide no benefit to Saratoga" and would first require the owner's consent. Should the city proceed with annexation plans, residents can overrule the decision with a majority vote.

However, Commissioner Cynthia Barry said that there is a benefit to expanding the urban service area boundary line.

Barry said she was "horrified at the amount of concrete being built up on the hillside" and that it is in the city's best interest to preserve the rural atmosphere of the area.

"There is a value to the city to have a voice," Barry said. "This doesn't mean that the city will take control."

After discussion, commissioners approved a resolution recommending that the city council submit a request to the local agency formation commission to expand the boundary line. The commission also deleted any suggestion of annexation from the resolution.