Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-1997 Staff Reports SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO: 21'1 35 AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: November 19, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Community Environment CITY MANAGER: DEPARTMENT MANAGER: -0241-*a861-- SUBJECT: Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 71 -152 concerning signs within the public right -of -way. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to introduce the Ordinance by title only waiving further reading. REPORT SUMMARY: The City Attorney has drafted the attached Ordinance which, if adopted, will do two things. First, it will repeal the sunset clause in Ordinance No. 71 -152 which, among its several provisions, added subsection (h) to Section 15- 30.030 of the Municipal Code. Under Ordinance it No. 71 -152, subsection (h) was to have sunset on November 30 of this year, effectively eliminating it from the Municipal Code. The provisions of subsection (h) prohibit the placement of signs within the public rights -of -way with limited exceptions. Second, the proposed Ordinance clarifies that signs in connection with special events for which a Special Event or Temporary Use Permit is issued pursuant to Section 15- 30.180 or Article 15 -60 of the Municipal Code may be placed within the public rights -of -way if specifically approved as a part of the permit. The purpose for this clarification is to remove any future doubts about the legality of mainly directional signs for events such as the Rotary Art Show, the Strawberry Festival, and Celebrate Saratoga. To clarify this point, the City Attorney has added language to subsection (h) which makes reference to Section 15- 30.180 and Article 15 -60. Ordinance No. 71 -152 Page Two The Planning Commission reviewed the draft Ordinance at their October 22 regular meeting. The attached action minutes reflect that the Commission voted 3 -2 in favor of retaining the sunset clause in the Ordinance. The majority of the Commissioners were opposed to adopting the Ordinance on a permanent basis, as they saw its restrictions as an infringement on free speech. The prevailing Commissioners also felt that limiting campaign signs, in particular, would have the effect of benefiting incumbents in an election. The two Commissioners who voted to adopt the ,Ordinance on a permanent basis viewed it as an aesthetic tool that would help to reduce "visual clutter" along Saratoga roads. FISCAL IMPACTS: There are none associated with adoption of the Ordinance. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The Ordinance will not be introduced. Subsection (h) would sunset on November 30. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The Ordinance will be scheduled for second reading and adoption on December 3. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 2. Planning Commission Action Minutes dated October 22, 1997 3. Municipal Code Section 15- 30.180 4. Municipal Code Section 15- 60.010 Ij SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL I' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2J 3r AGENDA ITEM 1 MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 1997 CITY MANAGER: /,;r ORIGINATING DEPT.: COMMUNITY DEPT. HEAD: II r. I ENVIRONMENT I SUBJECT: Vessing Road Assessment District Preliminary Acceptance of Engineer's Report and Scheduling of Protest Hearing RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): 1. Move to adopt the Resolution amending the Resolution of Intention. 7-23, r 2. Move to adopt the Resolution appointing the City Engineer as Superintendent of Streets for assessment district purposes. 3. Move to adopt the Resolution preliminarily accepting the Engineer's Report and setting the Protest Hearing for January 21, 1998. 0 REPORT SUMMARY: Pursuant to Council's actions of May 21, the Engineer of Work for the Vessing Road Assessment District, C2G /Civil Consultants Group, has prepared the Engineer's Report for the proposed assessment district. A copy of the Engineer's Report is attached. In order to continue the process of forming the District, the Council must preliminarily accept the report and schedule the Protest Hearing. The Legal Counsel for the District has prepared the attached three Resolutions for Council's consideration and approval. The three Resolutions if adopted will do the following: 1. The first Resolution will amend the Resolution of Intention No. 97 -23.4 to allow for preliminary design costs associated with the water system improvements to be incurred and reimbursed to the City in the event the District is not formed: 2. The second Resolution appoints the City Engineer as the Superintendent of Streets for Assessment District purposes, a procedural requirement of assessment district law. 3. The third Resolution grants preliminary acceptance of the Engineer's Report and schedules I the Protest Hearing for Wednesday, January 21, 1998. This action establishes preliminary assessment amounts for each parcel in the proposed district which may then only be adjusted downward in the future as final construction and right -of -way acquisition costs become known. At your October 15 meeting when this matter was last before the City Council, the Council tabled action on the above Resolutions so that the City Attorney could address various concerns which were raised by several of the property owners in the proposed district about the proceedings' compliance with Proposition 218. In response, the City Attorney has prepared the attached memo dated October 27 which addresses those concerns. Additionally, I have attached copies of all recent correspondences received about the formation of the assessment district, II some of which contain requests by individual property owners to either be excluded from the boundaries of the district, or to be reimbursed for the cost of prior improvements made to Vessing Court (a public street) in the same manner that the cost for the proposed improvements on Vessing Road would be spread amongst the benefiting properties. Prior to taking action on the Resolutions and preliminarily accepting the Engineer's Report, the Council should consider these requests and rule on them. FISCAL IMPACTS: None at this time. The costs associated with this project would eventually be recovered via the assessments levied against the benefiting properties. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The property owners in the proposed district have been notified of this meeting. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Depending on the Council's actions, the Resolutions would not be adopted and the process of forming the assessment district would be either be delayed or abandoned. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Notices and ballots will be mailed to the property owners in the proposed district prior to November 26. The Protest Hearing will be scheduled for your January 21 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo from City Attorney dated October 27. 2. Resolutions (3). 3. Preliminary Engineer's Report. 4. Various letters. MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER &WILSON I MICHAEL R. NAVE A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION STEVEN R. MEYERS NORTH BAY OFFICE ELIZABETH H. SILVER MICHAEL S. RIBACK GATEWAY PLAZA 666 FIFTH STREET, SUITE 230 KENNETH A. WILSON 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SANTA ROSA, CA 95401 DAVID W. SKINNER TELEPHONE: 1707) 646 -8009 STEVEN T. MATTAS SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA 94577 FACSIMILE: 17071646 -661 I CLIFFORD F. CAMPBELL TELEPHONE: (510) 351 -4300 MICHAEL F. RODRIQUEZ KATHLEEN FAUBION, AICP FACSIMILE: (51 0) 351-4481 CENTRAL VALLEY OFFICE RICK W. JARVIS LARISSA M. SETO DEBBIE F. LATHAM 5250 CLAREMONT AVENUE STOCKTONON, CA CA 96207 WAYNE K. SNODGRASS ARNE B. SANDBERG TELEPHONE: (209) 861.4080 BENJAMIN P. FAY FACSIMILE: 1209) 951-3009 DANIEL A. MULLER U r 1, LIANE M. RANDOLPH f I, r II D\ PATRICK WHITNELL k. 1, U C_) I MEMORANDUM 61'6 OF COUNSEL d N 3 W 1 ANDREA J. SALTZMAN CERTIFIED APPELLATE SPECIALIST CITY 1". f N_A{ '3 O FFICE TO: City Council DATE: October 27, 1997 Interim City Manager City of Saratoga FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE:; Response to Legal issues Raised During Discussion of Vessing Road Assessment District BACKGROUND: At the October -15, 1997, City Council 'meeting, the matter of the Vessing Road. Assessment District was an agendized subject of discussion. In particular, the.City Council was being asked to take certain preliminary actions which would set the stage for a public hearing and "assessment ballot proceeding' for early 1998, to determine whether the Vessing Road Assessment. District would proceed to fruition. During the discussion certain legal issues were raised regarding compliance with Proposition 218. This memorandum is intended to address those legal issues. 11 As the Council knows, Proposition 218 was passed by the voters on November 5,! 1996. It amends the. California Constitution and among other things adds Article XIIID, which establishes new limitations and requirements on the ability of local governments to charge assessments. As the Council learned from the assessment ballot proceedings that related to the City's Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts, the procedures have changed, and in some instances those procedures and the new terminology that accompanies the procedures are confusing. While remedial legislation, which I discussed with the City Council in an August memorandum., has been adopted by the Legislature, 1 TO: City Council, Interim City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Response to Legal Issues Raised During Discussion of Vessing Road DATE: October 27, 1997 PAGE: 2 several questions remain unanswered and will likely be answered only through further legislation or judicial determination. For instance, with regard to assessment districts, the practice prior to Proposition 218, was that when creating an assessment district to pay for projects and services that benefit specific properties, local governments would determine which properties would benefit from a project or service, notify the owners, and set assessment amounts based on the approximate benefit property owners would receive., Often, the rest of the community or region would receive some general benefit from the project or service, but would not pay a share of the costs. Now, Proposition 218 requires local governments to estimate the amount of special benefit land owners would receive from a project or service. (Article XIIID, section 4(a).) The term "special benefit" is defined in Proposition 218 as meaning "A particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the District or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute `special benefit'." (Article XIIID, section 2(i).) If a project provides both special benefits and general benefits, Proposition 218 provides that a local government may charge land owners only for the cost of providing a special benefit. Local government must.use general revenues to pay the remaining portion of the project costs. Typical assessments that provide general benefits include fire, park, ambulance, and mosquito control assessments. Proposition 218 has also shifted the burden to local agencies to prove that the amount of the assessment against each assessed partial is proportional to the special benefit received by the parcel. (Article XIIID, section 4(f).) j 1 TO: City Council, Interim City Manager FROM: Michael S. Riback, City Attorney RE: Response to Legal Issues Raised During Discussion of Vessing Road DATE: October 23, 1997 PAGE: 3 APPLICATION OF PROPOSITION 218 TO VESSING ROAD PROPOSED ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: As stated above, Proposition 218 imposes new requirements on local governments with respect to the proceedings that must be conducted and the determinations that must be made with regard to the proposed assessment district. In particular, the City must determine the special benefit derived by the twenty parcels that are to make up this II assessment district and separate any general benefits to the public at large from the proposed assessment. In this particular instance, the City must determine what the special benefit is to the twenty parcels of having an existing private cul -de -sac road that is currently being maintained by the parcel owners and that does not meet City standards, improved to City standards and all future maintenance becoming the responsibility of the City. While I believe the special benefit to the real property located in the proposed district is implicit in the engineer's report, I have requested counsel for the District and the engineer to prepare an amendment to the engineer's report expressly setting forth the special benefits which they believe will result from this District. Ultimately, it will be the responsibility of the City Council, after reviewing the revised engineer's report and hearing from District counsel and the public, and reviewing the testimony given at the October 15, 1997 Council meeting to determine the extent of the special benefit conferred on real property within the proposed district and whether any general benefit to the public at large will be conferred as a result of this proposed improvement; and if so, whether the general benefit is substantial enough as to be subject to calculation. Michael S. Riback City Attorney MSR:kag c: Phillip D. Assaf, Esq. F: \WPD\MNRSW \273 \01\MEMO \OCT97\COUNCIL.023 i I ENGINEER'S REPORT VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA CIVIL CONSULTANTS GROUP, Engineer of Work for Vessing Road Assessment District, makes this report, as directed by the City Council, pursuant to Section 10204 of the Streets and Highways Code (Municipal Improvement Act of 1913). The improvements which are the subject of this report are briefly described as follows: a) Steps preliminary to the construction of a water supply system consisting of 620 feet; more or less, of water mains, fire hydrant and metered services, including, but not limited to, feasibility studies, engineering plans, cost estimates, legal expenses, and acquisition of easements and rights -of -way necessary therefor. b) The acquisition of property necessary for the improvement of Vessing Road from its intersection with Quito Road to Vessing Court to minimum acceptable City of Saratoga standards by clearing, grubbing, grading, and the construction therein of base, pavement, curbs, gutters, driveway aprons and conforms, striping, signage, retaining structures, utility relocation, where required, and a water transmission system consisting of 620 feet, more or less, of water main, fire hydrant and metered services. c) The acquisition of all lands, easements and rights -of -way and the performance of all work auxiliary to any of the above necessary to complete the same. Bonds representing unpaid assessments, and bearing interest at a rate not to exceed twelve percent (12 per annum, shall be issued in the manner provided by the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10, Streets and Highways Code), and the last installment of the bonds shall mature not to exceed twenty-four (24) years from the second day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date. 1 1 y This report includes the following attached exhibits: EXHIBIT A: Plans and specifications for improvements to be constructed. Plans and specifications are a part of this report whether or not separately bound. EXHIBIT B: An estimate of the cost of the improvements. EXHIBIT C: An assessment roll, showing the amount proposed to be specially assessed against each parcel of real property within this assessment district. Each parcel is described by County Assessor's parcel number or other designation, and each parcel is also assigned a separate "assessment number" for the purposes of this proceeding. EXHIBIT D: A statement of the method by which the undersigned determined the amount proposed to be assessed against each parcel, based on benefits to be derived by each parcel, respectively, from the improvements. EXHIBIT E: A list of the names and addresses of the owners of real property within this assessment district, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll for taxes, or as known to the Clerk. The list is keyed to Exhibit C by assessment number. EXHIBIT F: A diagram showing all of the parcels of real property within this assessment district. The diagram is keyed to Exhibit C by assessment number. EXHIBIT G: A general description of the rights -of -way to be acquired. EXHIBIT H: Proposed annual assessment per parcel for expenses in ,onnection wit the registration of bonds. 7/ Respectfully submitte• I l CMI= CONSULTAN S RO P Engi ear of Work By: Q ROFESS/0 k o cc No. C 14760 c Exp. 3/31/01 OF CAL I EXHIBIT A PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THOUGH BOUND SEPARATELY, ARE A PART OF THIS REPORT I I I EXHIBIT B ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Vessing Road Assessment District Item Unit Item Total I No. Description Quantity Unit Price Cost Cost Street Improvements I 1 Traffic control 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500 2 2" AC overlay 200 TN 50.00 10,000 3 Wedge cut 600 LF 3.25 1,950 4 Pavement fabric 1,500 SY 1.25 1,875 5 Grading 400 CY 35.00 14,000 6 Pavement grinding 17,550 SF 1.00 17,550 7 Finish grading 17,550 SF 0.45 7,898 8 Driveway conforms 8 EA 2,000.00 16,000 9 PCC curb gutter 1,500 LF 21.00 31,500 10 AC pavement 400 TN 55.00 22,000 1 11 Class II aggregate base 500 TN 45.00 22,500 12 Raise manholes 4 EA 275.00 1,100 13 Offset drain inlet 1 LS 5,000.00 5,000 14 Remove AC berm 470 LF 7.00 3,290 15 Remove /replace PCC curb gutter 50 LF 25.00 1,250 16 Clearing and grubbing 1 LS 10,000.00 10,000 17 PCC swale 70 LF 20.00 1,400 18 Drain inlet 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500 Total Street Improvement Costs $172,313 Water System Improvements 19 6 inch DlCL pipe 620 LF 48.00 $29,760 20 Fire hydrant 1 EA 4,140.00 4,140 21 1" metered services 6 EA 1,153.00 6,918 22 1" unmetered service 1 EA 1,153.00 1,153 23 Retirement of existing services 1 LS 2,900.00 2,900 24 Other 1 LS 5,109.00 5, 109 25 Tax gross -up 1 LS 15,020.00 15,020 Total Water System Improvement Costs $65,000 -Total Construction Cost $237,313 Notcs: 1. Estimate of street improvement costs prepared by City of Saratoga 2. Estimate of water system improvement costs prepared by San Jose Water Company 3. Cost of water services revised pCT telephone conversation w/ J. gartiteatr of San Jose Water Company, 9/26/97 ESTIMATED COSTS AND EXPENSES Vessing Road Assessment District l Construction Costs Street Improvements $172,313 Water System Improvements 65,000 Subtotal $237,313 Contingencies +10% 23,687 Total Construction Costs $261,000 Incidental Cosjs Engineering Services Street improvement design $2,500 Water system design 5,000 Preliminary surveys 3,525 Construction engineering 7,500 Subtotal Engineering Services $18,525 Financing and Administrative Costs Bond counsel $15,000 Assessment engineering 9,810 Printing, advertising and bidding 2,000 Bond reserve ±8% 49,600 Bond discount f2% 12,400 Capitalized interest 21,700 Bond printing and advertising 5,000 Paying agent and registrar 3,000 Financial advisor 5,500 Assessment district management 1,000 Other 4,535 Subtotal Financing Administration $129,545 Subtotal $148,070 Contingencies +10% 14,808 Total Incidental Cost $162,878 Land Acquisition Costs Right -of -Way Acquisition $180,000 R/W documents 6,500 Appraisal services 4,000 Legal expense 9,500 Total Land Acquisition Cost $200,000 Credits Landowner contributions for preliminary surveys 3 (,878) Total Balance to Assessment $620,000 EXHIBIT C 10/21/97 Page 1 ASSESSMENT ROLL CITY OF SARATOGA Vessing Road Assessment District Assessment Assessment Parcel Number Amount Description 1 33,934.00 397 -06 -055 2 32,057.00 397 -05 -031 3 40,785.00 397 -05 -029 4 43,271.00 397 -06 -054 5 35,111.00 397 -06 -046 6 35,111.00 397 -06 -045 7 35,111.00 397 -06 -028 8 35,111.00 397 -06 -037 9 46,743.00 397 -06 -048 10 32,057.00 397 -05 -039 11 32,057.00 397 -05 -041 12 24,214.00 397 -05 -067 13 24,214.00 397 -05 -085 14 24,456.00 397 -05 -086 15 24,214.00 397 -05 -087 16 24,214.00 397 -06 -111 17 24,214.00 397 -06 -110 18 24,214.00 397 -06 -109 19 24,456.00 397 -06 -108 20 24,456.00 397 -06 -030 TOTAL: 620,000.00 r 1 EXHIBIT D VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA METHOD OF SPREAD I The amounts to be assessed against the parcels of property to pay the costs and expenses of the work and improvements have been based on the estimated benefits to be derived by the various properties within the assessment district from the proposed improvements. The total assessment to be levied against any parcel of land in the district shall be the sum of the amounts determined by the following: A. Basic Street Improvements (Item 1): The cost of constructing street improvements along Vessing Road and Vessing Court including, but not necessarily limited to grading, paving, land acquisition, local surface drainage facilities, utility relocations and minor traffic signage shall be assessed as follows: 1. Special Benefit: Vessing Road and Vessing Court together form a cul-de- sac approximately 1,250 feet in length. The only purpose of the streets is to provide access to properties fronting either Vessing Road or Vessing Court. The basic street improvements described above provide special and direct benefit to all parcels dependent on Vessing Road for vehicular ingress and egress from Quito Road. The street improvements will eliminate existing broken pavement and potholes which are considered a nuisance and which could pose a potential safety hazard. Additionally, the improved street surface and the addition of a new drainage inlet will provide for improved local drainage conditions. Accordingly, the costs of said improvements will be distributed equally to all properties within the district. 2. General Benefit: Vessing Road and Vessing Court constitute a "dead -end" street which provides for neither "thru- traffic" or general vehicular circulation. Because they provide only for local traffic, it can be fairly assumed that vehicles utilizing either Vessing Road or Vessing Court do so to access one or more of the several properties within the district. Whether the purpose of vehicle trips along these streets is for direct access to individual properties by residents and guests, or results from delivery, service, utility or public safety vehicles, the trips are of direct and specific benefit to the parcels within the district and no benefit is attributable to other properties in the surrounding community or to the public in general. B. Frontage Improvements (Item 2): The cost of concrete curb and gutter shall be spread in accordance with benefit received as follows: 1. Special Benefit: The construction of curb and gutter is typically required along individual property frontages when streets are improved to City standards. Such construction, together with other improvements (such as sidewalks) are commonly referred to as "frontage improvements The construction of curb and gutter will also contribute to improved drainage along the fronting properties. Even if Vessing Road and Vessing Court were not strictly local streets (see Paragraph Al, above), the benefit of frontage improvements would be attributable as a special benefit to the immediate fronting property. Accordingly, the cost of concrete curb and gutter shall be spread to benefitting properties in the ratio that the length of each parcel's improved street frontage bears to the total length of parcel frontage on improved streets within the project. Excepting that parcels having previously constructed comparable frontage improvements shall not be assessed and their frontages shall not be included in the computation of the distribution ratios. 2. General Benefit: Historically, it has been the practice throughout California to associate frontage improvements with the individual property even on major thoroughfares. In the case of non -local streets, general benefit is usually ascribed to "arterial improvements" (such as travel lanes, traffic signals, medians, etc.) which are necessary for community-wide or regional traffic circulation. In contrast, frontage improvements are of direct benefit to the parcels within the district and no general benefit is attributable to other properties in the surrounding community or to the public in general. C. Water System Improvements (Item 3): The total cost of constructing water system improvements shall be spread to the benefitting parcels as follows: 1. Water Main Extension: The cost for the extension of the water distribution main in Vessing Road between Vessing and Quito Road (including pipelines, valves, fire hydrants, and connections to the existing distribution system) shall be spread to each parcel within the service area of the new fire hydrant on an equal basis. II li (a) Special Benefit: The principal purposes for the extension of the water main (to be operated by San Jose Water Company) is to improve fire suppression flow and increase system redundancy for residential properties along Vessing Road. All benefit is specific to those parcels situated along either side of Vessing Road between Vessing Court and Quito Road. (b) General Benefit: The water main extension is totally within the district and no quantifiable general benefit is attributable to other properties in the surrounding community or to the public in general. 2. Relocation of Water Services: The cost for installation of new metered water services and retirement of existing service connections shall be spread to each parcel receiving a new metered service on an equal basis. (a) Special Benefit: All benefit is specific to those parcels receiving new metered services. (b) General Benefit: There is no general benefit to any parcels other than those receiving new metered service connections. D. Rights -of -Way (Item 4): The cost for acquisition of rights -of -way shall be spread to all properties within the district in the same proportions as the costs for Item 1 Basic Street Improvements. The assignment of special and general benefits for rights -of -way are also consistent with those for Item 1. E. Incidental Costs (Item 5): The cost of incidental expenses spread to the various parcels within the district shall be the sum of the following: 1. Street Construction Related Costs: Incidental expenses (such as design engineering and other professional services) identified as related to the construction of street improvements shall be spread in the ratio that each parcels' aggregate assessment for Items 1 and 2 bears to the total of assessments for Items 1 and 2 for all parcels in the district. The assignment of special and general benefits incidental costs related to the street construction shall be the same and in the same proportions as those for their corresponding items for improvement. I I. 2. Water System Related Costs: Incidental costs (including design engineering and tax gross -up expense) identified as related to the construction of water system improvements shall be spread in the ratio that each parcel's aggregate assessment for Item 3 bears to the total of assessments for Item 3 for all parcels in the district. The assignment of special and general benefits for incidental costs related to water system elements shall be the same and in the same proportions as those for their corresponding items of improvement. 3. Financing and Administrative Related Incidental Costs: Incidental expenses (such as assessment engineering, bond counsel and bond costs) identified as related to the financing of the works of improvement shall be spread in the ratio that each parcel's total assessment for Items 1 through 4 (inclusive) bears to the total of assessments for Items 1 through 4 (inclusive) for all parcels in the district. The assignment of special and general benefits for financing and administrative incidental costs shall be the same and in the same proportions as those for their corresponding items of improvement. F. Credit for Preliminary Survey Costs (Item 6): Funds for the initial design surveys were advanced by voluntary contributions from sixteen property owners within the district. A total of $3,525 was expended for this purpose. Credits, including allowances for the 10% contingency mark -up ($352) shall be distributed equally to all properties having advanced funds for this purpose. All credits are for local special benefit. I II Ij EXHIBIT E Page 1 PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST CITY OF SARATOGA Vessing Road Assessment District ASSESSMENT NUMBER(S) NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER 1 Arthur W. Dana Jr. (APN: 397 -06 -055) 18500 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 2 Thomas H. Gurnee (APN: 397 -05 -031) 18545 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 3 Austin M. Barbara J. Kilburn (Tr.) (APN: 397 -05 -029) 18531 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 4 Paul Livia Hug (Tr.) (APN: 397 -06 -054) 18540 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 5 Thomas F. Bonnie L. Mueller (APN: 397 -06 -046) 18564 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 6 Douglas A. Jonathan (APN: 397 -06 -045) 18584 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 7 Dan Manju Banerje (Tr.) (APN: 397 -06 -028) 18594 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 8 Donald H. Shirley J. Hambey (Tr.) (APN: 397 -06 -037) 18600 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 9 Clinton 0. Lois M. Lindseth (Tr.) (APN: 397 -06 -048) 18620 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 10 Kurt P. Gutenberg /Karen E. Louie (Tr.) (APN: 397 -05 -039) 18579 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 11 Abe Maureen A. Piramoon (APN: 397 -05 -041) 18557 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 12 James G. Sandra S. La Maack (APN: 397 -05 -067) 18601 Vessing Road Saratoga CA 95070 EXHIBIT E Page 2 PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST CITY OF SARATOGA Vessing Road Assessment District ASSESSMENT NUMBER(S) NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER 13 Michael A. Carol S. Van Buskirk (APN: 397 -05 -085) 18653 Vessing Court Saratoga CA 95070 I i 14 Donald E. Barbara G. McKenzie (Tr.) (APN: 397 -05 -086) 18681 Vessing Court Saratoga CA 95070 15 Stephen A. Sandra S. Moore (APN: 397 -05 -087) 18691 Vessing Court Saratoga CA 95070 16 Glenn Brenda Yamasaki (APN: 397 -06 -111) 18668 Vessing Court Saratoga CA 95070 17 Bruce A. Thompson (Tr.) (APN: 397 -06 -110) 18656 Vessing Court Saratoga CA 95070 18 John L. Lucy F. Huang (APN: 397 -06 -109) 18644 Vessing Court Saratoga CA 95070 19 James A. Marlene L. Tate (APN: 397 -06 -108) 18632 Vessing Court Saratoga CA 95070 20 Barbara G. McKenzie (APN: 397 -06 -030) 18680 Vessing Court Saratoga CA 95070 END OF LIST I �I 1 EXHIBIT F ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM I EXHIBIT G j VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF RIGHTS -OF -WAY TO BE ACQUIRED I' 1. 14521 Quito Road (A.P.N. 397 -05 -021): The Southerly 17 feet of property as described in Legal Description recorded May 20, 1913 in Book 403 of Official Records, page 389. 2. 18545 Vessing Road (A.P.N. 397 -05 -029): The Southerly 17 feet of property as described in Legal Description recorded May 20, 1913 in Book 403 of Official Records, page 389. 3. 18540 Vessing Road (A.P.N. 397 06-054): The Northerly 17 feet of property as shown on Record of Survey recorded September 2, 1960 in Book 125 of Maps, page e 9. 4. 18620 Vessing Road (A.P.N. 397 -06 -048): The Northerly 17 feet of property as shown on Record of Survey recorded October 31, 1960 in. Book 127 of Maps, page 5. i A li 1 I �I EXHIBIT H PROPOSED ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PER PARCEL FOR EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE REGISTRATION OF BONDS VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Pursuant to Section 8682.1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, the Auditor will annually enter in the assessment roll on which taxes will next become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land, each lot's or parcel's pro rata share of the annual expenses of the City in connection with the registration of bonds. Such expenses will include the amount or estimated amount necessary to pay the fees and charges coming due during the fiscal year covered by the assessment roll of corporate or other authenticating agents, transfer agents, registrars, paying agents, agents engaged to g g g g P Y g g g assist in complying with federal arbitrage requirements or other agents of the City. NOTICE OF IMPROVEMENT I VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA The City Council of the City of Saratoga will conduct a public hearing on the Resolution of Intention (adopted May 21, 1997, as amended), and the Engineer's Report for the proposed Vessing Road Assessment District, City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. At the hearing the City Council will take public testimony, including protests against the proposed improvement, the extent of the assessment district, or the proposed assessment. The public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the City Council, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California: At 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 21, 1998. The proposed improvement is briefly described as follows: a) Steps preliminary to the construction of a water supply system consisting of 620 feet; more or less, of water mains, fire hydrant and metered services, including, but not limited to, feasibility studies, engineering plans, cost estimates, legal expenses, and acquisition of easements and rights -of -way necessary therefor. b) The acquisition of property necessary for the improvement of Vessing Road from its intersection with Quito Road to Vessing Court to minimum acceptable City of Saratoga standards by clearing, grubbing, grading, and the construction therein of base, pavement, curbs, gutters, driveway aprons and conforms, striping, signage, retaining structures, utility relocation, where required, and a water transmission system consisting of 620 feet, more or less, of water main, fire hydrant and metered services. c) The acquisition of all lands, easements and rights -of -way and the performance of all work auxiliary to any of the above necessary to complete the same. The total amount of the proposed assessment chargeable to the entire district, including construction costs, incidental costs, financing and administrative costs, land acquisition costs, costs of steps preliminary to the construction of a water supply system and contingencies is $620,000.00. The amount chargeable to your parcel is set forth below. Bonds representing unpaid assessments, and bearing interest at a rate not to exceed twelve percent (12 per annum, shall be issued in the manner provided by the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10, Streets and Highways Code), and the last installment of the bonds shall mature not to exceed twenty-four (24) years from the second day of September next succeeding twelve (12) months from their date. The basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated is as follows: I fi I The amounts to be assessed against the parcels of property to pay the costs and expenses of the work and improvements have been based on the estimated benefits to be derived by the various properties within the assessment district from the proposed improvements. ii The total assessment to be levied against any parcel of land in the district shall be the sum of the amounts determined by the following: A. Basic Street Improvements (Item 1) The cost of constructing street improvements and appurtenances along Vessing Road and Vessing Court including, but not necessarily limited to: grading, paving land acquisition, local surface drainage facilities, utility relocations and minor traffic signage; shall be assessed equally to all properties within the district. B. Frontage Improvements (Item 2) The cost of concrete curb and gutter shall be spread to benefitting properties in the ratio that the length of each parcel's improved street frontage bears to the total length of parcel frontage on improved streets within the project, except those parcels having previously constructed comparable frontage improvements shall not be assessed and their frontages shall not be included in the computation of the distribution ratios. C. Water System Improvements (Item 3) The total cost of constructing water system improvements shall be spread to the benefitting parcels as follows: 1. Water Main Extension: The cost for the extension of the water distribution main and appurtenances in Vessing Road between Vessing Court and (including pipelines, valves, fire hydrants, and connections to the existing distribution system) shall be spread to each parcel within the service area of the new fire hydrant on an equal basis. 2. Relocation of Water Services: The cost for installation of new metered water services and retirement of existing service connections shall be spread to each parcel receiving a new metered service on an equal basis. D. Rights -of -Way (Item 4) The cost for acquisition of rights -of -way shall be spread to all properties within the district on an equal basis. E. Incidental Costs (Item 5) The cost of incidental expenses spread to the various parcels within the district shall be sum of the following: 1. Street Construction Related Costs: Incidental expenses (such as design engineering and other professional services) identified as related to the construction of street improvements shall be spread in the ratio that each parcel's aggregate assessment for Items 1, 2 and 4 (inclusive) bears to the total of assessments for Items 1 and 2 for all parcels in the district. 2. Water System Related Costs: Incidental expenses (including design engineering and tax gross -up expense) identified as related to the construction of water system improvements shall be spread in the ratio that each parcel's aggregate assessment for Item 3 bears to the total of assessments for Item 3 for all parcels in the district. 3. Financing and Administrative Related Incidental Costs: Incidental expenses (such as assessment engineering, bond counsel and bond costs) identified as related to the financing of the works of improvement shall be spread in the ratio that each parcel's total assessment for Items 1 through 4 (inclusive) bears to the total of assessments for Items 1 through 4 (inclusive) for all parcels in the district. F. Credit for Preliminary Survey Costs (Item 6) Funds for the initial design surveys were advanced by voluntary contributions from sixteen property owners within the district. A total of $3,525 was expended for this purpose. Credits, including allowances for the 10% contingency mark -up ($352), shall be distributed equally to all properties having advanced funds for this purpose. For further particulars you may refer to the Resolution of Intention, as amended, and the Report on file with the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA. Said Report and Resolution are open to public inspection and by reference incorporated herein. All interested parties are referred thereto for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the assessment district. At the public hearing, the City Council will consider all objections or protests, if any, to the proposed assessment and any interested person will be permitted to present written or oral testimony. Inquiries about the improvement proceedings will be answered by Civil Consultants Group, 4444 Scotts Valley, Drive, Suite 6, Scotts Valley, California at: (408) 438 -4420, attention: Gene Scothorn. Pursuant to Section 8682.1 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, the Auditor will annually enter in the assessment roll on which taxes will next become due, opposite each lot or parcel of land, each lot's or parcel's pro rata share of the annual expenses of the City in connection with the registration of bonds. Such expenses will include the amount or estimated amount necessary to pay the fees and charges coming due during the fiscal year covered by the assessment roll of corporate or other authenticating agents, transfer agents, registrars, paying agents, agents engaged to assist in complying with federal arbitrage requirements or other agents of the City. IN ADDITION, THE RECORD OWNER OF THIS PARCEL IS ENTITLED TO VOTE ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE LEVIED. SEE THE ENCLOSED BALLOT FOR INSTRUCTIONS. An Assessment Ballot may be submitted, changed or withdrawn prior to the conclusion of the public testimony portion of the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City will tabulate the assessment ballots submitted, and not withdrawn, in support of or opposition to the proposed assessment. Assessment ballots will be weighted according to the respective amounts of the individual assessments. If the amount of the assessments in opposition to the proposed assessment is greater than the amount of the assessments in support of the proposed assessment, the assessments will not be levied. DATED: November 19, 1997 LARRY PERLIN, City Clerk, City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California 3 r r ASSESSMENT BALLOT VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CITY OF SARATOGA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This assessment ballot is for the use of the property owner of the property identified below by its Assessor's Parcel Number within Vessing Road Assessment District, City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. In order to be counted, this ballot must be signed by the owner or owners whose name(s) and address appear on the last equalized secured property tax assessment roll or, if the owner is not an individual by an authorized representative of the owner. In the case of any public entity, the State of California or the United States, this ballot must be signed by the representative of that public entity. This ballot must be returned either by mail or in person, before the close of the public testimony portion of the hearing, which begins at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, January 21, 1998, to: Larry Perlin, City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Mailing by that date will not be sufficient. The ballot must be physically received by the City prior to the deadline in order to be counted. Ballots will be tabulated after completion of the public hearing on the proposed assessment. Ballots will be weighted according to the respective amounts of the individual assessments. If the amount of the assessments represented by "NO" votes is greater than the amount of the assessments represented by "YES" votes, the assessments will not be levied. Owner(s) Name(s): Assessment Parcel and Diagram Nos.: Assessor's Parcel Nos.: Votes Cast (Assessment Amount): MARK WITH AN "X" OR OTHER MARK. ASSESSMENT BALLOT MEASURE Shall the City establish the proposed Y ES assessment district and levy special assessments in the amounts (or less) and for the purposes stated in the Engineer's Report for Vessing Road Assessment District. NO OWNER SIGNATURE DATE: OWNER SIGNATURE DATE: 'I i w 1 I II 1 Ceiii.:ifrs 1 FROM THE DESK OF 1 DONALD H. HAMBEY, D. V. M. 18600 VESSING ROAD SA CA93070' n I 7.17 TELEPHONE (408) 866 -6022 i a t -c a4 L.4 0 i.,(1 AL- yetAprx-t., rcejc e .41----. /LA. etcot 4tiLt- Ai-e--tt- j6~ a 4 t IAA y 1 Zt Q.� I 1 M ce.ic a- i t.i..0 a-Z-c- A--0-e-1 ..„6„6 a___ AL- g .t.imi la.'2j±'Il i )4(:•<.. eett 1 i j..lit l iC r a 2: t CI4N.12142/ y .2.%.,./rt._.4e,A "'AA) I i i i L e 4 1 i e X4IL 4I'LeLl' rC611 tL- 1 I i Y e e 0 1 I eL iti`et. I I '516"1 r 6 6 4 4 2 71 i pl 1 t i 1 f' 1 3 ,I 9/30/97 Dear Neighbor, jl The purpose of this letter is to express to you, personally, my o Road Assessment District, and to give you my reasons. 1 would opposition to the proposed Vessing if you would read this letter, and would appreciate even more your response, favorable or not. I' I have lived at 18632 Vessing Court since 1982. My wife and son and I love the neighborhood, and see little if anything that needs change. My specific reasons for opposing the assessment are: 1) The proposed widening of the road would be a disaster to the street, the neighborhood and surrounding areas. It would present a 34 foot freeway coming off narrow, quaint and tree lined Quito Road. It would present, instead of a quiet, tree lined lane, a scraped and shaved corner of asphalt. When I moved in, there were speed bumps which limited speed on Vessing to 10 or 15 miles an hour. Now cars go 25 MPH. This would allow people to go REALLY FAST on Vessing. Is this what we want? 2) Clearing out the corner would destroy a lovely little grove of trees and brush. My son walks that part of the area regularly; the last time, he saw a deer, 11 quail, two squirrels, and a gopher snake. Why do we need to destroy their habitat? The corner now is lovely, hidden, and quiet. Why change it? Are we in that much of a hurry to travel the last 100 yards to our houses? Is it that important? 3) The reason I bought in this part of Saratoga was not broad, paint striped streets; it was not lack of vegetation street signs, and asphalt. I bought here because it was secluded, quiet, had lots of vegetation and trees and shade, slow cars, dirt fields down to the road, no sidewalks, no street signs, just Saratoga. Why do we want to change that now? 4) I do not want additional tax indebtedness on my property or changes which will reduce the value of my house if I ever have to leave. If I read the documents handed out at the last meeting correctly, this assessment will increase my property taxes by $3,000 annually for the next 15 years!!! 5) I do not want to exclude our neighbor at the corner who should have a fair say. Is it fair play to take part of his Oand against his will so a few can enjoy curbs and gutters? I know that there are a few property owners who have been pushing r�l p this effort very, very hard. I also believe that this initiative has been presented as a °done deal': there's nothing you can do about it, you might as well sign up." Well, I do not think it is a done deal. There is something you and I can do about it. If you do not agree with this project, or would like to think it over a while longer, sign the attached petition and return it to me in the SASE. If other Vessing property owners want their water service upgraded, they can do that on their own, without destroying the neighborhood and placing huge indebtedness on other owners for things they do not need or want. For those of you who did not attend the last meeting, I am enclosing a copy of the assessment breakdown. Look at what this will cost you every month for the next 15 years. Your neighbor, Jim Tater:D❑,D❑DDED❑❑DDDDC 30D❑00r 6- .i� ❑L I &>4-Ai./A Dear Sirs: It has come to my attention that plans are underway to modify Vessing Road and pave over the intersection of Quito Road and Vessing Road. I am not sure if you are aware of the fact that the property on the northeast corner of this intersection is a home /grazing area for local deer and they can be seen there during early morning and early evening hours. The rendition of facts I have heard about these paving plans suggests that those of us who live in this area will lose the country /rural ambiance that drew us to the Quito Road location in the first place. Coupled with the fact that the environment will become dangerous for the deer, these plans do not have much to offer either the neighbors of this intersection or those of us who live in the general area. It is also baffling why plans for such a change are taking place without the notification of the rest of us as it DOES impact our lifestyle. Those of us who chose to buy in Saratoga and remain in Saratoga would like to maintain the environment of the area as it was when we bought and as it has remained over the 15 years I have been here. I do not like the fact that SOME new people move in and decide they want their new home to look like their old home and change things for the rest of us. Yours truly, e 4 71-4d L Grace Bush D 1 r' 1 18627 Ambleside Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 001 G 1997 CITY or' t3A tATQd'G A CITY MAN. :.ix I:'I .':3 OFFICE I I Austin M. and Barbara J. Kilbum 18531 Vessing Road, Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Home Phone 408- 379 -6887 Email austin.kilbum @DSSI- JCL.COM October 10, 1997 Dear Neighbors, I am writing this letter because I feel that my comments should be Y spread around the neighborhood. We, on Vessing Road, are trying to get our road resurfaced, the water lines in, and at a reasonable cost. The orginal cost to do this was approximately $80,000 for the road and about $55,000 for the water improvements... All of these I i things are needed for our neighborhood. The cost as it stood as of the last meeting at City Hall, was $608,000. This was to cost many of the neighbors here, many who have been hear for years and years.... up to $44,827. Both Barbara and I feel that these extra costs that have been thrown in for bringing the street up to "acceptable" standards to the city of Saratoga are both unnecessary and also ridiculous. I am opposed to the assessment district as it stands and think that there can be alternative ways of doing the road over with the inclusion of water repairs that we so obviously need. I moved here because I loved the quiet neighborhood with the quaint street, deer, quail, and great neighbors. It truly seems. since we have now gotten to know everyone, that it is possible that we can share in a reasonable effort to redo our street, yet keep it quaint, and also at a reasonable price tag. $608,000, (and I heard today that figure is going up), is not reasonable. The fact that some persons have been left out of the notifications of meetings is also reason for me to question the motives of some people who are heavily pushing this improvement. I sincerely hope that we will all keep an open mind, and vote appropriately. I think that it is not impossible for us to accomplish what we truly need a new street, not a super highway where people can drive even faster), and new water lines and a new fire hydrant without boosting our taxes by a sizable amount, and mor a in our homes to pay for unnecessary g g g p Y improvements. I hope that more people will speak their minds and maybe we can straighten this out. It seems that $6,428 or even $8,000 per family would seem more intelligent than a minimum of $34.245 and a maximum of $44,827 should be avoided at all costs. Additionally, all neighbors should be notified of meetings and that has not been done. Thanks for reading my note. and thanks for your responses to everyone. Sincerely Austin d Barbara Kilburn p.s. When the top of the road is done, we are willing to have everyone park in our lower driveway so that they can get home. When the bottom of the road is worked on, we shall all have to resort to bicyling to work. Lucky's, Gene's, etc 1 y; FROM THE DESK OF DONALD H. HAMBEY, D. V. M. 18600 VESSING ROAD I I I SARATOGA, CA 95070 TELEPHONE (408) 866-6022 y TO: CITY COUNCIL 3 7 9 1 C A_ ty.- j "Secit_ec 1-etj et- .Xa..t.,t_ 1.1_24 L. "A-ex a_ j r6 0 o V-6 e2 gla-4.. ai 0 i /C-G 4c, .C...-€__ ?,?_,ILI Q 6 7 A r-f._ _re_.--6-0-C. 02-&(,...i et ./C cr. !sx Al---A .2/ ..V1A.-. to---tLet--1.- 1. LA_a_-0-c-iii- c& a. C,6 72 ,_C_t t YK:e., ,(,t) -i' k cure -t 1 A-A y� c. Ati -4--i 2- --a- L' r -14 112.4-4At `-/f---.e—of-r(--, 1 ",0! 1 1 1 'l 10/13/97 MAYOR GILLIAN MORAN VICE MAYOR DON WOLFE COUNCILMEMBER JACOBS COUNCILMEMBER BOGOSIAN COUNCILMEMBER SHAW The costs of the Vessing Road project were recently provided at a meeting which my husband attended. Our family has no property on the road. We live on the end Court. The cost to us would be almost $45,000 (including interest) over 15 years; that is, $3,000 annually to drive less than 1/8 mile from Quito Road to our home. It takes me one month to earn $3,000. We were not in favor of this burden from the beginning and now object even more II strongly. The costs have gotten out of hand. Why was consideration not given to us in the Engineer's Report for the improvements we already have? Why are we being obligated to pay for everyone else's improvements and they not equally obligated to ours? I am extremely dismayed that all of you might support a group of individuals who would force this hardship on our family against our will. And, sad to think you might support a group who would exclude a neighbor right on the road because he has enough property to vote this assessment district down. We have lived in this quiet enclave for 16 years and have never even considered curbs and gutters. Most of Quito Road and the other small roads and lanes off Quito Road have neither curbs nor gutters. This is a hilly area of fields, barns and orchards that is zoned for horses!!! Most residents do not landscape to the road. And, finishing and enlarging Vessing at Quito Road will cause more accidents and faster drivers. We did not vote four this. I, personally, object to being forced into this assessment district against my will. Before you go any further into this, I would appreciate your advising us how we might extricate ourselves from this unwanted obligation. Sincerely, Marlene Tate 18632 Vessing Court Saratoga cc: Larry Perlin, Acting City Manager October 14, 1997 Dear Mayor Moran, Vice Mayor Wolfe and City Council Members: Attached are tivo letters which have been sent to the neighbors on Vessing Road within the last few weeks expressing displeasure with what is happening to the Vessing Road Assessment District. We believe the information should be considered when making your decisions to approve the Assessment District. As it stands, the Engineer's Report is not very clear on a number of issues. Is the property at the corner of Quito/Vessing included or not? Why isn't the water system a few of the residents are pushing for considered a separate issue? What are the City road standards that let the road be only 20 feet at a corner? Isn't it 34 feet to meet standards? So, before you proceed, please consider what is happening here. Some of the neighbors have not been informed as they should if they did not attend meetings as information was only given out at meetings. Please also consider these costs. Would you want this to happen to you? 18632 Vessing Court aratoga I To the Saratoga City Council: My remarks of October 15, 1997. 1) What does a person do to get out of the assessment district, as it poses a financial burden and is not of any benefit to the owner. How would YOU handle it? 2) The assessment has grown from 150K to over 600K. What keeps it from growing more? What limits our liability? 3) Is the street going to be 34. feet wide at Quito, 17 feet, 20 feet or what? What is the city standard, or is there one? Are they going to acquire land to do this? 4) Safety at the corner is bogus; the corner is safer than on Woodbank; there is better visibility in both directions. The problems at that corner are people driving too fast on Quito, which will not be affected in any way by widening Vessing. 5) The drive by casual drinker /drugger problem which we have on Vessing Court would be made much worse by this. 6) The effort would result, in my case, in a toll of 10$ per day, every day of the year, to drive on 100 yards of new pavement. Others would pay 15 or 20$ per day. This is nonsense. This is crossing the bay bridge 5 times a day. 7) There are no safety p g roblems on Vessing Road. There have been no traffic fatalities, no flood drowning, no houses lost to fire. None. 8) This is a classic case of a small private interest group attempting to enforce their will on others who are uniformed, and perhaps intimidated. 9) You have received four letters from members of the assessment district who feel the same as the position I've presented tonight. I have also received, in the last two days, letters from four other neighbors on Ambleside and Quito who strongly oppose the Vessing widening. All of these and additional petitions will be made available to you. All of this argues that this report not be accepted and that the assessment district be at least delayed, if not canceled. James Tate, 18632 Vessing Ct. (408) 867- 3033 Documentation for Recitation by Art Dana, Re Vessing Rd Saratoga City Council Meeting 10/15/97 We live on the Southwest corner of the intersection of Vessing Quito at 18500 Vessing Rd. I have 2 topics regarding the Vessing Road Assessment District First Topic My wife and I are opposed to this project and hereby respectfully request that the council exclude us from the district for the following reasons: a. This project provides no "special benefit" to our property. We receive our water directly from the Quito Rd water main which passes directly by our property. One fire hydrant is 30 ft from our property on Quito a second is 300 ft away. Our drive way is 60 ft from Quito Rd and is accessed 100% over land owned by us and on which we pay taxes. This strip of land is also the start of Vessing Rd, a private road. The other 96% of Vessing leads only to cul du sacs. For the infrequent times we use it, the current road surface and condition is more than sufficient. The width of the road over which we directly access our property from Quito is more than adequate for this purpose. The road surface on our land is in good repair. Our property bordering Vessing has a well engineered curb and gutter system that feeds directly into the Santa Clara Flood Control system. The curb and gutter system is in good repair and has worked flawlessly for over 20 years. 1 I r Documentation for Recitation by Art Dana Re, Vessing Rd Saratoga City Council Meeting 10/15/97 b. Even worse than providing no "special benefit" to our property, this project will significantly reduce both the value and quiet enjoyment of our property for the following reasons: Widening Vessing and adding curbing to the north side will transform a rare and therefore valuable private country road, into a commonplace and therefore less valuable suburban street. How many private country roads are left in Saratoga? Widening Vessing will eliminate the sound and visual barrier provided by the trees and bushes along the entrance, exposing us to significantly increased noise levels from Quito. At night we will be exposed to headlights from cars going south on Quito. Widening Vessing will increase the speed and therefore the Vessing noise level we are exposed to. Widening Vessing will increase the risk of crossing the road to both our pets and our grandchildren, due to the increased width and increased speed. We have 9 mature trees that border on Vessing. These trees add significantly to the value of the property as well as to the natural beauty of Vessing Rd. The use of heavy equipment to tear up the current road and regrade it will unavoidably damage the roots of these trees inevitably irreparably damaging and or killing some of these trees. 2 From: Art Dana To: Fax#868 -1281 Date: 10115197 Time: 10:34:21 Page 3 of 6 i u Documentation for Recitation by Art Dana Re, Vessing Rd Saratoga City Council Meeting 10/15/97 Second Topic My wife and I urge the council to reject the resolution Y 9 reject the engineers report until the following fatal defect is cured. The engineers report in its current form is in direct violation of Article XIII D Section 4 Paragraphs a and b of the Consititution of the State of California. Specifically it does not estimate the amount of special benefit landowners would receive from the project or service, as well as the amount of "general benefit." The fact that future litigation may possibly result in case law that will modify Article XIIID in some way currently unascertainable, in no way mitigates or cures the current direct violation noted above. I I i 1 3 From: Art Dana To: Fax4868 -1281 Date: 10/15197 Time: 10:34:50 Page 4 of 6 I Documentation for Recitation by Art Dana, Re Vessing Rd Saratoga City Council Meeting 10/15/97 References For your convenience passages relevant to this discussion have been hi- lighted by using bold and enlarged font. ARTICLE XIII D SEC. 4. Procedures and Requirements for All Assessments. ssments. (a) An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. (b) All assessments shall be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California. 4 From: Art Dana To: Fax8868 -1281 Date: 1 W15197 Time: 10:35:26 Page 5 of 6 Documentation for Recitation by Art Dana, Re Vessing Rd Saratoga City Council Meeting 10/15/97 Understanding Proposition 218 Prepared Joy the Legislative Analyst's Office Excerpts of material relevent to this discussion. The full report is available from LAO. An app o f edix contains the full text Articles XIII D. To request this document call (916) 445 -2375. The purpose of this guide is to help the Legislature, local officials, and other parties understand Proposition 218, including the actions local governments must take to implement it. The Calculation Requirement: One of Proposition 218's Most Significant Changes Local governments must recalculate all existing assessments that do not qualify for the exempt list. Our review indicates that in many cases, Proposition 218's provisions regarding the calculation of assessments will result in local governments lowering the amount they collect in assessments from property owners, or eliminating the assessment. We identify the specific calculation provisions below. First: Determine If a Project or Service Provides Special Benefits. The local government must determine whether property owners would receive a "special benefit" from the project or service to be financed by the II assessment. Proposition 218 defines a special benefit as a particular benefit to land and buildings, not a general benefit to the public or a general increase in property values. If a project or service would not provide such a special benefit, Proposition 218 states that it may not be financed by an assessment. Our review indicates that local governments will find it. 5 From: Art Dana To: Fax1/868.1281 Date: 10/15/97 Time: 10:36:01 Page 6 of 6 `fi I I Documentation for Recitation by Art Dana, Re Vessing Rd Saratoga City Council Meeting 10/15/97 Second: Estimate the Amount of Special Benefit. Local government must use a professional engineer's report to estimate the amount of special benefit landowners would receive from the project or service, as well as the amount of "general benefit." This step is needed because Proposition 218 allows local government to recoup from assessments only the proportionate share of cost to provide the special benefit. That is, if special benefits represent 50 percent of total benefits, local government may use assessments to recoup half the project or service's costs. Local governments must use other revenues to pay for any remaining costs. This limitation on the use of assessments represents a major change from the law prior to Proposition 218, when local governments could recoup from assessments the costs of providing both general and special benefits. Third: Set Assessment Charges Proportionally. Finally, the local government must set individual assessment charges so that no property owner pays more than his or her proportional share of the total cost. This may require the local government to set assessment rates on a parcel -by- parcel basis. Properties owned by schools and other governmental agencies previously exempt from some assessment charges- -now must pay assessments. 6 s JAMES A. AND MARLENE L. TATE 18632 VESSING COURT, SARATOGA, CA 95070 867 -3033 October 16, 1997 i t Mayor Gillian Moran Council Member Jim Shaw Vice Mayor Don Wolfe Council Member Paul Jacobs Council Member Stan Bogosian Acting City Manager Larry Perlin Dear Mayor Moran, Council Members and Acting City Manager Perlin: Thank you for reading our letters and hearing our plight at the City Council Meeting of October 15, 1997. We continue to object to the formation of a Vessing Road Assessment District in which we are forced to participate and we would like to be eliminated from the activities. There is no "benefit", general, special or ,g P otherwise to us paying a $3000 annual assessment to drive a short distance. It is detrimental to our family both financially and appearing on our title. We are personally delivering this letter to the City Manager's office. We would like a response prior to your approving the Engineer's Report, if you decide to approve. After doing more research in the Engineering Department, we found that the only repair work really necessary is a 100 yard section in front of the Hugs' property. The remainder to the corner and to the end would only be overlayed. You should note this if you I should decide to drive on over to look at the road. 1 I To reiterate, we are adamantly opposed to the Vessing Road Assessment District. We live on the completed end court. Our 320 feet of curbs and gutters are in and paid for, which is no cost to the Assessment District. The Assessment District has not had to pay us for right -of -way as they will for others. We have not charged anyone for the benefit they receive when using our road. And, it is used often for guest parking when any neighbors along Vessing Road have meetings or parties; some Assessment District meetings have been held at the Huangs, next door; people are constantly driving up to our home looking for Doug Jonathan; and, all the neighbors walk their dogs in our cul -de -sac. We respectfully request that we either be dropped from the Assessment District or be reimbursed for costs for our portion of the road already brought up to City standards, right -of -way costs and general benefit to the other residents at the same calculations used in the Engineer's Report for the other j property owners. We would hope to receive your approval of our request prior to approval of the Engineer's Report in case any new calculations need to be made. Sincerely, t d 7, iiji,m-Odef mes A. and Marlene L. Tate Arthur W. Dana 18500 Vessing Rd Saratoga, CA. 95070 408 379 -4965 Fax 408 374 -7989 E -Mail ARTWDANA@AOL.com October 25, 1997 Mayor Gillian Moran City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: When will a decision be made on our exclusion request? Dear Mayor Moran: At the October 15, 1997 City Council Meeting, my wife Jean and I requested in writing and orally, that the council exclude us from the Vessing Road assessment district. It was our 1st council meeting and we appreciated the thoughtful and efficient manner in which you conducted it. In the documentation provided, we enumerated reasons why there were no "special benefits as required under prop 218, as well as reasons why the widening of Vessing Rd would significantly reduce both the value and quiet enjoyment of our property. A copy of that documentation is enclosed for your convenience, in addition to some captioned pictures of the trees and shrubbery that would be destroyed or put at risk. I also pointed out that the cost allocated to us was in excess of $53,000 and represented a toll of $10 /day for 15 yrs, just to travel over a road which is 100% on our ro e P P rty• Are there any additional steps to take, or any additional information we can provide to the council? When will a decision be made on our exclusion request? Thank you, Art Dana Enc: Documentation for Recitation, Captioned ictures. P P 1 KF£ og o gA D A I (0 fl�g� 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 %V COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw October 30, 1997 Donald L. Wolfe Arthur W. Dana 18500 Vessing Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Proposed Vessing Road Assessment District Your letter to Mayor Moran dated October 25 Dear Mr. Dana: I am responding to the two questions posed in your October 25 letter to Mayor Moran concerning the proposed Vessing Road Assessment District. In response to your first question, there are no additional steps to take, or any additional information you can provide to the City Council that I can recommend at this time. You have clearly and adequately conveyed your concerns about the proposed assessment district to the City Council. The Council understands why you oppose the formation of the district and the construction of the road improvements, and that you wish to be excluded from the district because you perceive no special benefits from the project. I will make certain that the entire Council receives copies of your various correspondences on the subject before the matter returns to them on I November 19 (please refer to my companion memo about the two week delay in the proceedings) and I encourage you to attend this meeting to address the Council again about your concerns during the public testimony portion of the item. As for your second question, the City Council should make a decision on your exclusion request before they take any action on the preliminary Engineer's Report. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, 4 14464: Larry I. Perlin Interim City Manager cc: City Council Printed on recycled paper Cathy, Bruce Thompson 18656 Vessing Court Saratoga, California 95070 Mayor Gillian Moran City Hall.' 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 t October 30,1997' RE: Vessing Read Assessment District Dear. Mayor Moran, We attended-the :City Council's meeting on October 15th and would like you to know that we are strongly in favor of improving our street We live at the end of the street on Vessing Court, which already 'meets city standards. We' believe that the improvements to Vessing Road would add to the value of our property and our neighbors.The street' is run down and in a state of disrepair. It has potholes, ruts, loose gravel and is- unsafe because_ the width of the street varies considerably.. The' project 1 ;would also give many residents a much needed fire hydrant. As was mentioned in. the meeting, the street does not reflect the value and .quality. of'the homes on it We would also gain city services such as police patrols and maintenance.. To us, the,benefits are obvi ous. A few weeks ago, I called the city's maintenance. department for the cleanup following -an accident at Quito and Vessing Road: It was likely due to the corner being unsafe because the road is too narrow with little visibility. Auto debris, medical gloves and glass Were all over the entrance, to Vessing Road. The city responded by cleaning up everything on Quito, but_left_a Ltheglass,in_place on,Vessing,Road Not wanting_to _drive- over_it for days on end, fswept up the glass myself. `We 'are extremely appreciative of Mr. Perlin's efforts'and the ,city's for their involvement iri the development of this assessment district. ,Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ,Cathy &BruceThompson: Abe Piramoon, M.D., F.A.C.S 2505 Samaritan Drive, Suite 508 San Jose, CA 95124 Certified (408) 356 1123 Certified American Board of Pediatric Surgery American Board of General Surgery i Honorable Mayor of Saratoga Ms.Gillian Moran October 30, 1997 City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070 Dear Mayor, My family I have been living in our present home for the last 10 years. When we purchased the house we were and still are under the impression that we have selected the most affluent and highly educated and industrious neighborhood to live amongst. Although the property tax is the highest in the area we are happy to pay since it is well worth it. We did not come here to live in the rural area or village and settle for a small narrow country road and a water main that comes from 3 properties away. For example when our water main broke after the earthquake, we had trouble finding the shut off valve. We had to spend an enormous amount to lay another water line. Still there is a very long distance between the main water valve and our house. Our little private road from Vessing road to our house which is shared between us and the Gurney family became so bad that we had to spend about $10,000.00 for resurfacing. We were under the impression that Vessing road should be taken care of by the City. To our surprise, we found out that this is a private road and we are responsible for its repair. These facts were not disclosed to us before we purchased our house. Now the neighbors got together and with the help of City officials especially Mr. Perlin, we tried to work out a plan that put our street and its protection in the City's and. Unfortunately a small number of people, who never like any change and do not wish to comply with the wish and the decision of the majority and in order to convince others they talk about the highway, increase in traffic and the fact that the only reason they chose here is because its natural beauty and country style atmosphere. I am not sorry if I think that we are living in a very dynamic, very sophisticated area called Silicon Valley III that the eyes of the world are looking and envying. I sincerely believe that we deserve not II only the best road, the best water system we should have the best communication system the best wiring and electrical conduit instead of all these over the head cables and 1 unsightly posts etc. I am sorry to bother you with all these wishes but I am from those people who wish and strive for the better things in life. The very recent history of Silicon Valley people revolutionaized the world. We are still arguing about fixing the street. I believe a safe and beautiful street should be cared for and protected by the City and the .s I water supply that assure the neighbors of its safety and continuity and other city amenities are the least that we are entitled to. These aforementioned reasons are why we humbly request that The City council of Saratoga consider our request for Approval of the Vessing Road Assessment District. Sincerely, Abe Piramoon ii amily cc: Councilmembers: Mr. Donald Wolf, Mr. Jim Shaw Mr. Paul Jacob 1 1 l October 30, 1997 Council member Jim Shaw Saratoga City Council City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Vessing Road Assessment District Honorable council member, Jim Shaw, Enclosed please find a copy of the Position Statement signed by 13 residents of 14 properties. This comprises a 2/3 majority (20 properties total, Ms. McKenzie has 2 properties.) These families are all for the improvement of the Vessing Road and are members of the Vessing Road assessment District. Some of the residents could not be reached at this time and there might be one or to additional votes for the improvement of the road, which will increase the ratio even further. At the last city council meeting, I gave a folder to the city council with some pictures, depicting the sad state of the road as it presently exists. A well -kept street will enhance the neighborhood and is not only the pride of the residents but also the pride of its citizens of Saratoga. We appreciate the effort and time spent by you addressing this project and looking forward to your support. Sincerely, Paul and Livia Hug For the residents who signed the statement. I v. ,Y, POSITION STATEMENT We, the undersigned, are residents of Vessing Road, City of Saratoga. We have watched our private road gradually deteriorate to the point where it is unsightly, unsafe and unfriendly to automobiles. We were not able to repair it as an independent association because there were a few residents who would not participate in that project, so we asked the City's cooperation in forming a Special Assessment District. Fortunately, the City has I! cooperated in every way. Then, we and the City of Saratoga were sued by Les Hinz, who is not even included in the proposed District, and we were forced to hire a lawyer to respond. That lawsuit is still pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Now a few dissatisfied homeowners seem to believe that we are all better off with no road work at all! We hope the City Council will not be influenced by these "nay sayers who never, in a full year, have come up with an acceptable alternative to our plan. We ask the Council to approve the District and allow us to pay for a road that complies with City Codes and enhances our neighborhood. It will be an enormous benefit to both the residents of Vessing Road and the City of Saratoga. SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS 1 t T© 04 f 1 U E Z -g Ak 1(tV -C, Y (,ESS i /J a. I 4A fr�c Th No IA e s V �1n� C,1' 3 0, a c9. i-, .e.4 s 671 p 4 2o R. 4 �f,�., .:&J dr 175 1 &ssi�G Pp- 5 D�}vL BUG /�S 0 l/4 S.s in A. I v 6 J9, r 2Js led 4111i 4,nM Tr a„,2,))/---) 1s-5 Ve s 20 .Gtr 9 1 1 /1 f/ _.€)/J.e,7' /2,< f7ifixei /r1,f- i1 6ot l/6rs .1r/W i ,C3 G,A kvz l /200 ,a, 1i':( ).f 7 A-Am) 13A H5/276: 1$5 vCS.SI/v 4 1 13 of _et i ,?SS: h. 14. 1 15. 16. i 17. 1' II 1 18644 Vessing Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 October 31, 1997 Councilmember Jim Shaw City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Vessing Road Assessment District Dear Councilmember: My family and I have been residents at the above mentioned address for the past twenty years. As much as we do not wish to pile additional tax burden upon ourselves, we would like you to know that we whole heartily in favor of forming the Vessing Road Assessment District for the common good of the neighborhood. We noticed over the years the condition of our street has deteriorated to such a state that it is unsafe to drive on it. In addition, we need a new hydrant along the street for fire protection. Therefore, we feel it is time to upgrade the water system and the surface of our street to the Saratoga city standards. We believe, as a result, all residents of Vessing Road/Court can enjoy the benefits of extra police and fire protection and a safer road. We, also, tend to think the road improvement will bring added value to all properties in the district. We appreciate all of your efforts and the city's time in addressing our problem. We urge you to give our petition a favorable consideration. Sincere y your Joh and Luc "y Huang i li U i Clinton Lois Lindseth 18620 Vessing Road Saratoga, CA 95070 31October 1997 Mayor Gillian Moran Saratoga City Council, City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Moran We have resided at 18620 Vessing Road for 31 years. We want to inform you that we are strongly in favor of the Vessing Road Assessment District. It is essential that Vessing Road be upgraded as soon as possible. It is filled with potholes and is of varying width, making it unsafe for the traffic it must carry, and unsightly for all. Furthermore many of the residences have their water lines running under Vessing Road, all the way to Quito Road where their 7 water meters are located. These lines are highly corroded and subject to developing leaks at any time. (I have already had to dig into the road to replace 20 feet of my line, which leaves about 520 feet which could begin leaking at any time.) It is impractical to upgrade the street to city standards without simultaneously solving the water line problem, or the new street would be continuously torn up as the water lines develop leaks at different times. Some of the residences do not have a nearby water hydrant a safety problem which would also be eliminated by the assessment district project. We appreciate your efforts and the city's time in addressing our problem. We hope to bring our street up to Saratoga standards, adding to the quality of our neighborhood and to the city. We also hope that by making Vessing Road a city street, we will benefit from additional police protection. Although we do not relish the extra costs that an assessment district entails, we feel that it is the only way that the benefits described above can be achieved. Sin, erely Clinton Lois Lindseth I I I MR. MRS. DOUGLAS A. JONATHAN 18584 VESSING ROAD SARATOGA, CA 95070 MAYOR GILLIAN MORAN SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE -SARATOGA,--CA 95070 RE: Vessing Road Assessment District Dear Mayor Gillian Moran, As residents of the town of Saratoga, and more specifically, 18584 Vessing Road, we want to express our most fervent support of the formation of the Vessing Road Assessment District. At present, Vessing Road from Quito Road to Vessing Court which coincidentally is a City owned and maintained court), is in a state of extreme disrepair being both unsafe to motorists and their vehicles. In addition to the failing pavement or what is left of it, the road has no uniform width, dangerously narrowing at Quito Road where we have experienced several near collisions over the years with vehicles as we have either entered or exited Vessing Road to and from Quito Road. Additionally, a majority of homeowners do not have adequate fire protection as there is no fire hydrant on Vessing Road. By forming the District, we finally have the only viable lasting solution to the aforementioned problems and one which fairly allocates the costs to all the homeowners in the District. In addition to the improved road and hydrant, some homeowners will be able to upgrade their deteriorating water lines at their proportioned expense as well as all homeowners having the peace of mind of increased police protection, an increased quality of life, and the substantially increased value of our properties, many of which are in the one million to two million dollar range. We thank you for your support in approving the formation of the Vessing Road Assessment District. Very truly yours, Mr. Mrs. Douglas Jonathan i I I i IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MAYOR GILLIAN MORAN SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 T SENT BY:SAN JOSE ;10 31 97 4 :46PM LAW OFFICES 408 868 1280;4 2 Thomas F. Mueller Bonnie Mueller 18564 Vessing Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Councilmember Donald Wolfe Saratoga City Council City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 RE: Vessing Road Assessment District Dear Councilmember Donald Wolfe, My family and I reside at 18564 Vessing Road. We would like you to know that we are strongly in favor of the Vessing Road Assessment District. We feel that a good street and water system are necessities. Both are badly in need of upgrades. We are among the group of ten (10) residences that have no fire hydrant. This is a very real fire hazard. Please allow us to form a district and bring our neighborhood up to city standards. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Yours very truly, TO ELLER i LAWRENCE R. J BNSEN A T T O R N E Y A T L A W I November 12, 1997 Hon. Gillian Moran Mayor City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Vessing Road Assessment District Dear Mayor Moran: As you know, I represent Les Hinz of 14521 Quito Road, which is the property at the corner of Vessing Road. Mr. Hinz' property is in the path of street widening that may occur as a consequence of the formation of the above referenced assessment district. Mr. Hinz opposes any taking of his land and, primarily for that reason, opposes the formation of the assessment district. I have reviewed some of the letters submitted by proponents of the assessment district. Those letters are instructive at identifying "general benefits" within the meaning of Prop. 218. For instance, Cathy and Bruce Thompson, in their letter, claim that the proposed assessment district improvements will reduce traffic accidents on Quito Road. If this is true, members of the general public traveling on this road presumably will receive a benefit from the proposed improvements, as their, safety and the safety of their automobiles and personal property will be enhanced. The value of this general benefit must be born by the taxpayers at large under Prop. 218; that is, the of Saratoga must of general n h f hi benefit the general public. Ci tyo Sa ato a ust a onto funds the this e ttot eg p g pay The letter of Mr. Mrs. Douglas Jonathan claims that formation of the assessment district will improve safety for all drivers who travel on Vessing Road. Since many of such drivers are undoubtedly delivery drivers, pool maintenance people, gardeners, guests of homeowners, and other members of the general public who will not be subject to property assessment, such a safety benefit must again at least partially be accounted as a general benefit under Prop. 218. And again, the City of Saratoga must pay the proportionate value of that benefit. The letter of the Thompsons and others likewise identify removal of pot holes, ruts and loose gravel as ostensible benefits (it did not seem that bad to me when I recently drove that road). However, to the extent these claimed benefits reduce wear and tear on the trucks and automobiles of members of the general public (like myself), this is a general benefit. The letter of the Jonathans, and of others, claim that the lack of fire hydrants is a safety hazard that will be ameliorated by the proposed improvements. While the primary beneficiaries of fire hydrants are the owners of the properties in their immediate vicinity, the ability to put out a fire 95 SOUTH MARKET STREET, 3RD FLOOR, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 FAX 408/995/3265 PHONE 408/995/3250 1 November 12, 1997 Page before it spreads to other properties not subject to the assessment would clearly have to be accounted as a secondary, general benefit. In their letter, John and Lucy Huang claim that police protection on Vessing Road will be enhanced by the proposed improvements. Obviously, persons other than the local landowners may be the persons present on Vessing Road at the time that such fortuitous police services are rendered. So, if the assessment district does provide this benefit, it would have to inure in part to the benefit of the general public at large. It is beyond dispute that "the opening, widening and extending of a public street within" a city does, indeed, confer a benefit on the general public (The O. T. Johnson Corporation v. The City of Los Angeles (1926) 198 Cal. 308). If there were no public benefit, it would be unconstitutional to form the assessment district, as it is not a proper use of government power to benefit purely private interests. Accordingly, in evaluating the extent of the general benefit, and in enacting any legislation forming an assessment district, you should pay attention to whether or not the benefit to members of the public residing outside the borders of the assessment district has been reasonably identified, valued and accounted for; and further, the City must be prepared to cover the cost of that portion of the overall benefit out of its general funds. Of course, there is another issue which deserves your attention. There is a real question as to whether or not the proposed improvements will, indeed, provide the benefits claimed by the proponents of the assessment district. If they will not, that may reduce the amount of the cost that the City must bear, but it also means that there isn't a good reason to form the assessment district. If there is no general benefit to the public, the city should avoid injecting itself into purely private affairs. If the proposed improvements will so enhance the values of the properties, why is there substantial resistance by many landowners to the proposed assessment? If it is a purely private benefit, the laws of the market place would dictate that the landowners pay for the improvements out of their own pockets voluntarily, as a matter of enlightened economic self interest. That lack of willingness on the part of several of the owners (according to Mr. Hug's statement at the last City Council meeting, 40% are against the formation of the district) speak volumes about the wisdom of forming this assessment district. In fact, beyond the reasons stated above, the only other reason articulated by the proponents for forming the assessment district is to fund replacement of the private, allegedly inadequate water systems of a few residences on Vessing. But is that purely private benefit a good reason to create an assessment district that will (1) impose tens of thousands of dollars in costs on each of the other homeowners, (2) cause the lands of Mr. Mrs. Dana, Mr. Mrs. Kilburn, Mr. Hinz, and others to be taken for road widening purposes, and (3) change the nature of the neighborhood from semi -rural to suburban? Obviously, it is not. November 12, 1997 Page 3 There are much cheaper alternatives, such as to let the private landowners repair their water systems at their own expense. Mr. Jonathan could be advised to slow down when driving on Vessing or turning off or onto Quito Road, in order to avoid the "several near collisions" he has experienced "over the years As the vast majority of the homeowners are already served by adequate access to fire hydrants, the few who are not (I believe it is more like 6 that are further than the recommended distance from a fire hydrant, not 10 as claimed by some) could share the expense of putting in a water tank or other alternative water source on their own property at their own expense, and could grant use and maintenance rights to one another. And those who do not like living on the type of road that they bought a house on could simply sell and move to a neighborhood having the suburbanized landscape, with all the problems that come with that type of neighborhood (such as increased traffic, faster speeds, etc.) they apparently so desire, leaving Vessing Road to those who can appreciate it for what it is. The bottom line is that Prop. 218 was intended to prevent private landowners from having to bear the entire cost of improvements that benefit not only those landowners, but also the public at large. Previously, it was standard operating procedure to have the entire cost of assessment district improvements born by only those landowners having a special benefit, even though it was recognized that some of the benefit inured to the public at large. That is the unfairness that gave birth to Prop. 218. Why should private landowners shoulder the entire expense of improvements that also benefit the general public? Under Prop. 218, it is now no longer permissible to allocate ij all the costs of improvements to property owners within the assessment district; the portion attributable to public benefits now has to be born by the government agency out of its general funds. For the record, Mr. Hinz also wishes to object to the manner in which the City has orchestrated the formation of this assessment district. The petition mechanism for formation of assessment districts contemplates that the landowners will draft a petition, obtain signatures, and present the petition for formation of the assessment district to the government agency. It is intended to be a "grass roots" method for creating assessment districts, in which the landowners take the initiative and bear the initial expenses. But that is not what happened in this case. Instead, a very small cadre of landowners approached Mr. Perlin, who thereon took over the organizing and orchestrating of assessment district formation. Mr. Perlin made himself, legal counsel, city engineers, and city meeting room facilities available to the landowners. Mr. Perlin gave the notices regarding assessment district meetings to landowners. Mr. Perlin caused the proposed assessment district map to be prepared. Mr. Perlin caused the petition to be drafted and circulated. Mr. Perlin apparently is the one who solicited engineers to prepare the engineer's report on a contingent fee basis. Mr. Perlin has been making promises to landowners, such as that their land would not be taken as part of constructing assessment district improvements. Mr. Perlin has been representing to landowners that the City would not bear any expenses regarding the formation of the assessment district, while concurrently assuring them that Prop. 218 does not present a barrier to formation of the district. This does not look like a grass roots petition in any way, shape or form. November 12, 1997 Page 4 Also, for the record, Mr. Hinz has not received any explanation for why his property was "cut out" of the assessment district. Perhaps you are not aware that Mr. Hinz' 11 acre lot was originally included within the assessment district boundaries. However, once it became clear that he was against it, and his eleven acres worth of votes would be cast as "nays the boundaries were mysteriously redrawn to omit his property. Mr. Hinz knows why that happened: given that most of the other landowners' lots are around an acre, his eleven acres, voted along with the other 40% opposition, surely would have resulted in a victory for opposition forces. Instead of accepting that, some person or persons caused the assessment district boundaries to be redrawn to omit Mr. Hinz' land. This simply was an act of gerrymandering, and lends itself to questioning the integrity of the process being used to form this assessment district. In closing, I think it needs to be stated for the record that the most vocal cheer leaders for formation of the assessment district are the few landowners who have aging, broken down private water lines. The real problem is that the City probably should never have let their properties be developed in the first place, as they really do have lousy water service. But it is neither fair, nor legal, to spread the cost of that historic mistake to others who merely happen to live in the immediate vicinity. Very trul ours, wrence R. Jensen cc: client ALBERT H. CAMPBELL 18632 WOODBANK WAY SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 November 1, 1997 To The Saratoga City Council Saratoga, California Subject: VESSING ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Preliminary Engineer's Report dated August 1997 At the request of my neighbor who lives on Vessing Road, I have reviewed the report referred to above and do believe some alternative to the proposed work could be accomplished that would be acceptable to all. I understand water line replacement is needed but road improvements that are somewhat less than those proposed would seem to me to be more in keeping with the objectives of maintaining the rural atmosphere of Saratoga, particularly in the outlying residential areas such as this one. The costly "make the road wider, adding curbs and gutters" approach does seem like overkill. I support my neighbor's concerns and ask that a more reasonable approach to this project be taken. --Yours very truly, l f-b4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. M AGENDA ITEM 7 MEETING DATE: November 19, 1997 CITY MANAGER ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office Jennie Hwang Loft, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Proposed Modified Village Valet Parking Plan Recommended Motion (s): 1. Move to approve the modified valet parking plan for Saratoga Village on a 120 day trial basis. 2. Move to authorize staff to install informational signs about the valet parking program as recommended by the Village Valet Task Force. 3. Move to direct staff to continue to monitor the valet parking experiment and to report back with a recommendation for either canceling or continuing valet parking in the Village beyond the 120 day experimental period. Report Summary: For the past year, the current valet parking program in the Village has been an experimental program. With some adjustments, the City and the valet operators learned that this type of program can be successful in the Village. In addition, there has been interest expressed by several restaurant owners and the public to continue this program. The goal of this plan is to allow diners and other customers of Village businesses to use any valet parking zone in the Village and have his/her car parked regardless of which restaurant or business the client intends to patronize. Restaurant owners, valet parking service operators, the Sheriff's Department, and City staff conferred three times to discuss the Village valet parking plan. From the first meeting, there was unanimous consensus that there is a need and an interest in the Village to have a valet parking program (attachment 1). Criteria was established to determine where valet parking zones should be located. Criteria considerations included traffic safety, easy access to available parking, and equitable distribution amongst the Village restaurants and businesses. Five options were derived from these meetings and the group decided on the three valet parking zones described below. The current experimental valet parking zones are located in front of the Viaggio Restorante, Plumed Horse, and Bella Saratoga restaurants. The three proposed valet parking zones are to be located 1) in front of Viaggio Restorante on 4 Street, 2) in front of the Plumed Horse on Big Basin Way, and 3) in front of the Saratoga Dry Cleaners on Big Basin Way at Turkey Track Lane (attachment 2 The primary difference between the g Y Y P �Y current and proposed plans is to move back the Bella Saratoga location to the Turkey Track Lane location and to extend the Plumed Horse's current location by two more spaces to better accommodate the restaurants on the opposite side of Big Basin Way. The Plumed Horse would continue to operate the valet parking service at its location while Corinthian International Parking Services would continue to operate the Viaggio Restorante and Turkey Track locations. Proposed valet parking hours will be from Monday through Saturday 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The valet operators will continue to park in public and private lots. The operators currently park cars in parts of Parking District #1, a private garage behind the Plumed Horse, a private parking lot behind Viaggio Restorante, parts of Saratoga Elementary School parking lot, parts of Parking District #3, and at the Bank of America parking lot. Additional parking spaces for the proposed plan include 22 private parking spaces behind Dolce Vita restaurant and additional spaces still under negotiation. Signage is an integral part of the proposed Village valet parking plan. Signage was developed by a Valet Parking Task Group including restaurant owners, valet parking operators, and City staff. The proposed signage (attachment 3) to be provided by the City would include two 36" x 36" permanent signs located at either end of Big Basin Way at the entrances to the Village, and four 36" x 24" temporary signs placed at the three valet loading zones (two for Viaggio Restorante facing both directions of Big Basin Way). In addition, the participating restaurants have agreed to inform their customers about the availability and desirability of valet parking by placing additional signage in front of their restaurants, through verbal interactions with their clients particularly when booking reservations, advertising on the Chamber of Commerce's website, and/or distribution of brochures about the plan. If approved, the modified Village Valet Parking Plan will be in place by November 28. Traditionally this date is the Saratoga Village Annual Holiday Open House and the beginning of the busy holiday season. The 120 day trial period will allow the various stakeholders to determine how well the modified plan is working, and will enable the City to monitor and resolve any unforeseen challenges or concerns which may arise. The Village valet parking plan is a unique and comprehensive plan to enhance the limited supply of parking available in the Village during busy periods It provides a convenient and safe parking alternative for the public and complements the Village's image as a visitor friendly destination. Finally this plan demonstrates a public- private partnership between the Village restaurant owners, valet parking operators, and the City. I �I I Fiscal Impacts: The total estimated cost for the six signs is between $750 and $1,000. Sufficient funds for these signs exist in the adopted budget in Activity 33 (Traffic Control). Noticing and Public Contact: Residents who have previously expressed interest or concerns about valet parking in the Village have been contacted. Follow -Up Actions: 1. Order and install signs. 2. Install necessary markings for 3 valet loading zones. 3. Monitor and report back to Council at the end of the 120 day experimental period. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motion(s): Depends on Council's actions. Either the modified plan would not be approved and/or authorization to install signage would not be granted. The Council could decide to maintain the current valet parking arrangement, modify it in some other way, or eliminate valet parking all together. Attachments: 1. Excerpt of Corinthian International Parking Service Survey. 2. Map of Village with proposed valet parking zones. 3. Copy of proposed signage. 4. Letters from interested parties. N -AttacYmnent 1- SARATOGA VILLAGE VALET PARKING SURVEY Corinthian International Parking Services There are definite benefits to having valet site on both sides of the street. The volume of cars parked at Plumed horse is approximately 35 to 40 (guesstimate) and Viaggio parks and average of 28 -32. Should this volume be focus ed on the Plumed Horse side the volume would be 63 -72 average valet parked cars, quite a few cars with a parking site 2 -3 minutes away. Even if a secured parking lot were established there is not any close parking on that side of the street. Corinthian has always made it a policy in the past 3 years to park anybody who would like to utilize the service. We have kept close records of those other restaurant patrons who use the Viaggio valet site (approximately 13 to 18% of our customers are dining at other restaurants) I 3 Years of Valet Service Records Restaurant Cars parked Viaggio 19,656 Le Mouton 3,024 Chef Cha 1,512 Florentines 1,512 La Fondue 1,512 Rancho 456 Mandarin 340 Plumed 300 These are approximate numbers rounded out to averages. I am sure that with the proper advertising to the public these P 9 P numbers would increase significantly. 1 The benefit of having Viaggio valet site is very ry Non- obstructive to the flow of traffic and a very high volume of cars can be parked with moderate person power. A Viaggio valet can park 1 car every 40 to 50 seconds or 35 cars in 27 minutes. This is because !I we are lucky enough to have a 22 space parking lot that we can park 30 to 35 cars comfortably. On a busy night we would double up on staff and would be able to park 60 cars in 40 minutes by parking our initial vehicles at the school and reserving the Viaggio 111 lot for crunch time. Attachment 2- I Big Basin Way Sent Sovi I 1 Hair Salon 1 5th Street 1 Mandarin Chef Le Mouton Moir 1. Plumed Horse Los Rancho Viaggio's 3. 4 th Street Chef Chau Masu Florentine Bella Saratoga La Fondue 3 rd Street Turkey Track Lane 2. Cleaners Dolce Vita La Mere Michele B of A Rendezvous Highway 9 /Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. SARATOGA VILLAGE VALET PARKING ZONE OPTION 2: Three Valet Parking Zones 1) In front of the Plumed Horse 2) In front of the Dry Cleaners 3) In front of Viaggio's Map not to scale Attachment 4 ,o4,„ nt¢.GC Classic Dining Banquets October 23, 1997 Jennie Hwang Loft Administrative Analyst City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Jennie, I feel very strongly about having no more than 3 valet stations in the Village, because it is essential to keep the residents of Saratoga happy and proud of their community. By roping off certain areas for valet service; this will not meet with the approval of residents that drive only 1 or 2 miles to get here and than are more or less forced to take the valet service. All we need is that a few people (voters) write to the council about how they feel about the limited parking spaces and that in my estimation will be the end of the_entire valet parking experience. If properly managed these 3 valet stations should be able to service all restaurants on Big Basin Way. If some customers will have to cross the street walking, I don't consider this a major inconvenience or a safety hazard. 1. In front of the dry cleaner, corner of 3rd and Big Basin Way. 2. In front of Viaggio, exactly where it presently is. 3. In front of the Plumed Horse with 2 added spaces. See you at the next meeting on October 29 Sincerely, I Klaus Pache c.c. Larry Perlin, Interim City Manager 14555 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, CA 95070 Phone (408) 867 -4711 Fax (408) 867 -6919 I 1 November 12, 1997. City Council City of Saratoga Saratoga, CA. 95070 ReY Valet Parking, Viaggio It is my understanding that this subject will be brought up at the November 19th meeting. I would like to make the following comments with regard to this matter. I have made complaints in the past to the restaurant managers, to the Planning Director, to the City Manager. My meighbors have also made complaints with regard to this matter, and also to the Sheriff's Office. We have made complaints with regard to blocking traffic, I with'regard placing orange cones in -the street-which forces us to drive in the oncoming lane, and especially with regard to the valet parking taking up every bit of space on Oak Street. The Oak Street situation does seem to be improving at this time. Fourth Street is not the place for a valet parking stand. It is too narrow for the traffic it gets now, much lets the extra cars that the valet poking brings onto the street. That is why a red zone was placed directly across from the restaurant. end street. It Fourth Street is a dead d generates numerous turn arounds s g both in the private drivewaysiand into and out of the parking lots.On busy evenings there is a cons ant procession of drivers who have not noticed the dead end and are turning around in a driveway. There are those who enter the exit lane of the parking lot, and they, too are turning around. There are drivers who enter the Viaggio lot and then notice the private parking sign, and they, too are backing out. I have witnessed on several occasions 3_.:_.s backing out of 3 different driveways onto Fourth street and thened in and trying to work their way out. In summer we have seen heated altercations where people get out of the car and are ready to do battle because of this. Are you aware that Fourth Street is the ONLY access to the garages of 12 families? May I respectfully suggest that you limit valet parking only to Big Basin Way where there is room to stop and not disrupt the oncoming �I traffic? The Plumed Horse has done this for years and I am sure has not generated any complaints. Valet parking on Fourth Street in front of the Viaggio Restaurant causes problems for residents of Oak Street and for those restaurant patrons who are trying to get into the lots and take care of their own parking. Sincerely, Fay Mongra#J 14591 Oak Street Saratoga, CA. 95070 14 01 cg, S is to C04 °iSa76 Igeli TO tik4, JaAare 0.42t urv,a4. Lally x± 4D 1-e&e Vim St 014.Zul fie, Vi Mv2. oNelg, .Qa.KL ttkaAe h*,; ilLet..Las alfer-- V? f ‘fr 4111)211 Oea 41***) /WM 4 t I C.OAa.) o L i t Sf e0 9'0 Le 1 OUVt i A V g 40 6 .°C41. 414 Kj '/iet; NW )4104tald A ;1 (Id ety erl(11 tg a oft L.; centa "utdie cwoue) at,e4:441 ry cL tots :fiat 44.4.4.‘Qs ‘6o-c4404- 4o t 4)( VetZac F 44‘.43. kt o!1-P4- IM* 4 "Aiv t Q Cji= F C44.40412,AV COW4.84112A4jeCi V VI. C4 14 4 4 a. +0 httla444AAL.• d e OaL Oa; tda, ALZ(.44:t. C)d 1*. •1 cuk+etp_ radt.LtAi 4442-€3. Lti 144- Ld 4 a Aft.t.pi 1f►S1�i t4.4 46 744A4LL v 1 44 7 ekvtaAd41- 1 1114t 3: 414 176477 Ott-& Stt, kio s Ij 01 3 I -ka.trA/Lp‘ CP 1I I -�v� avo f O �it.� may✓ /d- 2 09' Loteoyce, a, .-e,,eiH "AP1 4bo I� .r. AUG -18 -97 11:22 PM ADVANCE 14613 Oak Street Saratoga, CA 95070 August 18, 1997 Jennie Loft Administrative Analyst City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 FAX: 408.868.1280 Dear Ms. Loft: Thank you for contacting me regarding the proper procedure for pursuing the matter of Fourth Street with the City. An unsafe situation exists on Fourth Street near Viaggio's Restaurant during evening hours, primarily due to the valet car services operated by Corinthian Parking which uses Fourth Street as their customer vehicle drop off and pick up area. The situation occurs on Fourth Street between Big Basin Way and the end of the street at the stairs leading up to Oak Street. The street is quite crowded with cars utilizing parking lots, vehicle access for three separate condominium buildings and heavy pedestrian traffic. The situation becomes unsafe when Corinthian Parking operates a valet car service on Tuesday through Saturday evenings by blocking off the area in front of Viaggio's Restaurant with pylon cones. The street is not wide enough to support Corinthian Parking's needs, forcing traffic and pedestrians to maneuver around the cars and people utilizing the valet service. In addition, the pylon cones which mark the valet car service utilize most of the lane which creates an unsafe condition for cars turning onto Fourth Street from Big Basin Way. About a year or so ago, I spoke with the manager of Viaggio's Restaurant about the unsafe conditions on the street and was told he would look into it. Nothing ever happened. Recently, I have spoken with Ms. Karen Grellis of Viaggio's Restaurant about the situation. Ms. Grellis informed me that the valet car service was authorized by the City and she did not have control over the situation. She did give me the name of the valet car service and the name of the owner, Michael Pedirutti. However, I have not subsequently contacted Mr. Pedirutti about the unsafe situation his valet car service creates because of a previous interaction with him. I had the unfortunate experience of speaking with Mr. Pedirutti late one evening when he followed me up my private driveway to my garage to harass me about continually knocking over the pylon cones as I round the corner to come up Fourth Street. Str et. For the record, I drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee and there is not enough room in the designated lane for my car without (a) driving on the wrong side of the road, which is against the law due to the unsafe condition it presents to oncoming traffic or (b) knocking over the pylon cones when the valet car park scrvicc is empty, which is not against the Iaw. When I suggested Mr. Pedirutti consider relocating the i AUG -18 -97 11:22 PM ADVANCED HR 408 872 0377 P.02 Page 2 August 18, 1997 valet car service to Big Basin Way, he told me there was plenty of room because he had the opposite curb painted red to reduce the cars on the street. However, Mr. Pedirutti's valet car service exclusively utilizes the red curb area for their patrons to pick up their cars. Rather a convenient situation for Corinthian Parking. The evening Mr. Pedirutti followed me up to my house, he conducted his entire conversation in front of my nine -year old daughter, which left me more than a bit concerned for her well -being during the interaction. Mr. Pedirutti also concluded his comments to me by saying "nice attitude lady I informed Mr. Pedirutti that he did not have a right to tell me `nice attitude" and that I quite felt the same about his stance on his right to use Fourth Street. As a 10 -year resident of Saratoga, I am concerned with the City employing a vendor that will not conduct themselves professionally and feels compelled to follow people up to their house to them just because pylon cones are knocked over. I am the President of a small company without a lot of time to undertake frivolous matters, but Mr. Pedirutti's unprofessional behavior expedited my taking time from my schedule to pursue this situation. Please arrange to move the drop off and pick up area for the valet car service operated by Corinthian Parking from Fourth Street around the corner to Big Basin Way or, better yet, eliminate it entirely. Although I hope to be able to resolve this directly with the City, I am quite prepared to begin circulating a petition on behalf of the residents and store owners in the area who are forced to cope with the situation on a regular basis. Thank you, in advance, for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, Dee DiPietro Resident, City of Saratoga 408.867.2124 I g dion 14591 ®a ..5e .7axai a,. �O� 95070 July 17, 1997. Mr. Michael Petteruti 14925 Stevens Creek Blvd. #126 Cupertino, CA. 95014 Re: Valet Parking, Saratoga Village Dear Mr. Petteruti: I would like to thank you again for your efforts to improve the valet parking situation, which has caused so many problems for Oak Street residents since it went into effect. There was a Homeowners meeting last night, and this is one of the subjects discussed, and it was believed that in general the situation has improved. Please continue to look for alternative ideas to parking. Commercial parking should not be located on residential streets. The homeowners have a right to find a parking place close to home, and this was impossible when your people were parking on Oak Street. Thank you again for your good work, and for your cooperative attitude. Sincerely, i y/1�lo�ifl SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 2 A 3') AGENDA ITEM I fillyf MEETING DATE: November 19,1997 CITY MGR: r ORIGINATING DEPT.: Administrative Services II Peter Gonda, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: Christmas and New Year Holidays Time Off Schedule Recommended Motion(s): Authorize the City Manager to approve the Christmas and New Year holiday schedule as follows: Thursday, December 25 Friday, December 26, 1997 and Thursday, January 1 Friday, January 2, 1998. Report Summary: This year's Christmas season marks a unique situation for the City with regard to the observed holiday schedule. Under the current MOU, December 24 25 and December 31 January 1 are the specified holidays. However, this year, both Christmas and New Year's Day fall on Thursdays, which would require closing City Hall on Wednesday and Thursday and re- opening on Friday. In 1995, the City Council adopted policies regarding individual holidays which fall on weekends, and the two day Christmas and New Year's holidays when either one or both of the two days falls on a weekend. However, the situation which will occur this year has not been previously addressed. At the request of the City Manager, a survey of all permanent City employees was conducted to measure the preference of observing either the 12/24 -25 and 12/31 -1 /1 combination or the 12/25- 26 and 1/1 -1/2 combination. An overwhelming majority of respondents favored the Thursday Friday combination. Employees who wish to take off the eve days could do so by using accrued leave. Fiscal Impact(s): There are no fiscal impacts relevant to this action. Follow Up Action(s): iI None. Consequences of Not Acting on Recommended Motion(s): The holiday schedule will remain unchanged. Attachment(s): Excerpt from current MOU regarding Holidays. Attachment K °f` leave balance will be considered to be vacation and will be paid out at the employee's regular rate of pay. When an employee voluntarily resigns from employment, no paid leave time will be granted between the time notice of termination is given and the employee's last day of work. Upon retirement from the City through PERS, the employee has the option to consider the entire leave balance as sick leave for the purpose of additional service credit. If the employee does not choose this option, then half of the leave balance shall be considered vacation time for j pay out purposes and the other half of the balance shall be applied to .additional service credit. B. Holidays All City employees observe the following paid holidays: (1) New Year's Day January 1 (2) Martin Luther Ring's Birthday 3rd Monday in January (3) President's Day 3rd Monday in February (4) Memorial Day Last Monday in May (5) Independence Day July 4 (6) Labor Day 1st Monday in September (7) Veteran's Day November 11 21 i Ir (8) Thanks Giving Day 4th Thursday in November (9) Day after Thanks Giving Fri. following Thanksgiving (10) Christmas Eve December 24 (11) Christmas Day December 25 (12) New Year's Eve December 31 If a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday will be observed. If a holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday will be observed. When there are two 1 sequential holidays (Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day) falling on weekends, the nearest additional weekdays will also be If a holiday occurs during a period when an employee is taking paid leave, the holiday will not be charged against the employee's accrued leave. In order to receive holiday pay, an employee must be on the payroll on the last regularly scheduled work day preceding the holiday and the first regularly scheduled work day following the holiday. If the December holidays fall on a Friday /Saturday combination, then the City will be closed on the Mondays following; and if they fall on a Sunday /Monday combination, the City will be closed on the Fiidays 22 ,P M1y preceding those holidays. f�t C. Jury Duty Leave Employees who are called for jury duty continue to receive full pay and benefits for that period of absence. Fees received for jury duty, less expenses, shall be remitted to the City. D. Military Leave An employee in a reserve component of the military forces of the United States is entitled to temporary military leave not to exceed 180 calendar days during any period of ordered duty for active military training. An employee who has been employed by the City of Saratoga not less than one year immediately prior to the day on which the absence begins is entitled to receive full salary and benefits during the. first 30 calendar days of such temporary military leave, in addition to whatever pay is received from the federal government for training. Pay for such purposes shall not exceed 30 days in any one fiscal year. E. Workers' Compensation 23