The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-23-1990 COUNCIL AGENDA STAFF REPORTSPAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVE= G. BAIRD ATKINSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 April 20, 1990 Mr. Winston Chew 12501 De Sanka Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Abatement Costs Dear Mr. Chew: 00 /e-, 41004,, 4&f- 14"I�eelll� J. M. ATKINSON (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) RN w E APR 2 3 1990 U CITY OF SARATQGq CITY MANAGE R'S OFFICE This letter will advise you that on April 18, 1990, the Saratoga City Council adopted Resolution No. 2620.2 confirming the report of the City Manager on costs to abate a public nuisance existing on your property located at 12501 De Sanka Avenue, Saratoga, CA. Pursuant to Saratoga City Code Section 3- 15.110, you are now obligated to pay the City the sum of $2,261.47. You are hereby put on notice that if the above sum is not received by the City by May 20, 1990, the City Council Resolution setting forth that amount will be forwarded to the Santa Clara County Tax Collector's Office and shall be levied as a special assessment against that property on the next regular tax bill. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in paying the above amount. SGB:fmc cc: Harry Peacock City Manager Very truly yours, Steven G. Baird Deputy Saratoga City Attorney �JI a JAS J� April 6, 1990 13i7i FRl_•I "[��'.� \Ll.= ,AV'EVil'l: • S;A 1��.A" f�OG :\.C.ALIFO1��V'1.��1511i�) 4(181 867-1'1438 COUNCIL. MEMBERS: Mr. Winston Chew 12501 De Sanka Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Chew: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman This letter concerns the costs associated with the nuisance abatement process which took place on your property at 12501 De Sanka Avenue on March 20, 1990. An itemized report of the total abatement cost is presented below: Green Valley Disposal Company ( 35 man hours @ $25.00 per hour) $ 875.00 Green Valley Disposal Company (3 30 -yard dumpsters @ $233.00) $ 699.00 Santa Clara County Sheriff Deputy (5 hours @ 20.33 per hour) $ 111.82 City of Saratoga Community Service Officer (5 hrs. @ $19.93/hr)$ 99.65 City of Saratoga Administrative and Processing Costs $ 60.00 Attornev Fees _ $ 416.00 Total Abatement Cost = $2,261.47 The City of Saratoga will be paying the Green Valley Disposal Company and the Santa Clara County Sheriff Department directly for their services. These costs, along with the above costs incurred by the City of Saratoga for its personnel and administrative processing, are being assessed to you as the property owner. Any payment of the above costs should be made directly to the City of Saratoga. The Saratoga City Council will be given a formal report of the itemized and total abatement costs. This report shall be considered by the Saratoga City Council at the Council Meeting on Wednesday, April 18, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. at the Saratoga City'Hall located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga. During this meeting, you may address the Council with any objections to the abatement costs. The Council may then modify the report if it is deemed necessary. The report may then be confirmed by the City Council by formal resolution. After a confirmation of the report, you will be required to make payment of the abatement cost to the City of Saratoga within thirty days. Failure to make full payment to the City of Saratoga by the prescribed due date will result in the City notifying the County Tax Collector. The County Tax Collector shall add the amount of the abatement costs to the next regular tax bill as a special assessment. If such assessment is delinquent, the amount shall be subject to the same interest and penalties and procedure of foreclosure and sale provided for ordinary municipal taxes. Printed on recycled paper. • Winston Chew Letter Page Two April 6, 1990 Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in handling this matter. Feel free to telephone City Hall at 867 -3438 if you have any questions. Community Services Officer Michael Nottoli will be your proper contact person. Very truly yo , Harry Peacock City nager attachments: 1. Green Valley Disposal Company Billing Statement 2. Santa Clara County Sheriff Department Billing Statement 3. Itemized City of Saratoga Billing Statement 4. City Attorney Billing Statement cc: Todd Argow, Community Services Director Patricia Shriver, Finance Director Betsy Cory, City Clerk MN /jd Printed on recycled paper. 0 l Rp IR 1990 3/20/90 35 MAN HRS @ $ 35.00 3/20/90 3 30YD DOB's @ $233.00 4/20/901 -',City 5 1 05CHEWJOB SERVICE ADDRESS 12501 DeSanka Avenue SERVICE FROM 3/20/90 e ZIP GREEN : VALLEY G REEN =.�T - ;. a1. F- GALLEY 573 u`r;= =_ o O BOX 227 DISPOSAL GATCIS DISPOSAL `GS COMPANY. INC. j CAIJFOR1.14 SsO31 -, 22- COMPANY, INC. RETURN THIS PORTION (408) 354 -2100 WITH PAYMENT • ACCOUNT NO. INVOICE NO. Citv 5 05CHEWJ0 � $ 875.00 For proper credit please write your accccnt ^,' ^er on $ 699.00 your check, and enter the amount paid n the Cox --elow if different than the "amount due ". • r • • SED 4/20/90 I SERVICE ADDRESS 12501 DeSanka AVENUE 'E=aoM SARATOGA CA 95070 $1574.00 AMOUNT DUE $157.4.00 PLEASE SEE BACK OF BILL FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 ! 1' DEPARTMENT FISCAL OFFICER 8 I L I N G� 1990 D / e J sulj"' : SHERIFF'S RESERVE FUND BILLING AND /OR RECEIPT (FUND 10391) GATE: Job No. d -OQ3 Activity — :�o xg a2 ra Client Hoee and Address: j3-7 1 e,6)ii ,44, J e7j--6 -2 � l Date: ��a Hour to Report: /a D cJ Report To: Lvc i - -5 i0� S.J3 Nuaber Required: Requestor: C? o F :i4 2. Date Requested: N E T P A Y R O L L ........$ PLEASE MAKE CHECK. PAYABLE TO: RECAPITULATION: / SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Net Payroll ......................S ATTN: RESERVE OFFICE 3 �� 1005 TIMOTHY DRIVE Workers Coapensation ............. SAN JOSE, CA 95133 Liability Insurance .............. Vehicle Rental ................... other Charges .................... T 0 T A L ..............i 2/8 Frl /RE 501 82 0&M&UQ)(5z- 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Patricia Shriver, Finance Director DATE: 4/5/90 FROM: Michael Nottoli, Community Services Officer SUBJECT: Nuisance Abatement Costs Incurred by the City of Saratoga for the 12501 De Sanka Avenue Case Occurring on 3/20/90 Community Service Officer Time: Michael Nottoli was present at the 12501 De Sanka Avenue address from 12:00 - 5:00 P.M. on March 20, 1990. Dilling rate $19.93 per hour x 5 hours = $99.65 Administrative Processing Costs = $60.00 Total Cost = $159.65 PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G. BAIRD • ATKINSON • FAIRASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM TO: City Manager FROM: City Attorney RE: Abatement of public nuisance on Winston Chew property DATE: April 6, 1990 J. M. ATKINSON (1892-1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915 -1979) Based upon our records and a review of the regular monthly billings submitted to the City of Saratoga, the following is a list of the time charged on each bill by Harold S. Toppel (HST) and Steven G. Baird (SGB) related to the .proceedings for abatement of the public nuisance on the property owned by Winston Chew: STATEMENT: SGB TIME: HST TIME: April 2, 1990 1.4 March 6, 1990 .2 .3 February 5, 1990 .2 January 5, 1990 .2 1.5 December 4, 1989 .6 November 1, 1989 October 3, 1989 .5 September 6, 1989 .3 TOTAL: 1.8 3.4 Combined total: 5.2 Hours X $80 per hour = $416.00 - toal legal fees charged to City PAUL B. SMITH LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL ROBERT K. BOOTH, JR. STEVEN G, BAIRD ATKFNSON • FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 May 16, 1990 Tax Collector County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA. 95110 fy'., - diur- M. ATKINSON (1892-1982) L. M. FARASYN (1915-1979) Re: Winston Chew 12501 De Sanka Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 APN - 386 -25 -32 To Whom It May Concern: The City of Saratoga has adopted a Nuisance Abatement Ordinance pursuant to Government Code §38773.5. Pursuant to that ordinance, the City is entitled to abate a public nuisance and assess the costs of that abatement to the subject property. A copy of Saratoga City Code §3- 15.120, is enclosed herewith. Therefore, I am enclosing herewith a certified copy of Resolution No. 2620.1 of the Saratoga City Council establishing that the abatement cost to be assessed against the above referenced 'property and collected with the next tax bill are in the amount of $2,261.47. Please see to it that this amount is added to that property tax assessment. I am also enclosing herewith a copy of the report establishing those sums. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation with this matter. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Steven G. Baird SGB•fmc Deputy Saratoga City Enclosure Attorney cc: Harry Peacock Todd Argow f t t �- a Z ay � 2 _ 1;3� ; i I�KI'II�'.ALL.A�1:Al'L • S ,AR.� "I(Xi.�.C.ALIFOR�I.iJSO7O COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman April 19, 1990 Barb Koppel Vice Mayor, City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Re: North central Flood Control Zone Assessment Benefit Dear Vice Mayor Koppel: Thank you for your letter of April 16, subject as above. The Saratoga City Council endorsed the measure at its meeting of February 21 by unanimous vote and supported placing it on the June ballot. The Council's position has been transmitted to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Please let me know if you need further information or documentation. Sincerely, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk Printed on recycled paper 7t� 7 ;�,� 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone: (408) 252 -4505 MEMBER CITY COUNCIL April 16, 1990 ON Of Cwperti"O The Hon. Marty Clevenger and City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratog : California a 95070 Re: North Central Flood Control Zone Assessment Benefit Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: P.O. Box 580 Cunertin0, California 95015 5✓ E C E � y E 0 r APR 1 7 1990 CITY OF SARATOGA CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE We strongly urge you to support the Santa Clara Valley Water District Benefit Assessment for the North Central Flood Control Zone. This measure will be before the voters in June asking approval to continue the current assessment of approximately $14 per single - family residence to the year 2000. Passage of this measure is imperative so flood control improvements in the zone can be implemented in the mid and late 1990s. Without the benefit assessment and the ability to bond, these same improvements will be delayed and funding would be on a pay -as you -go basis, delaying the improvements up to 40 years. There are three members on the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors --Joe Donohue, Joe Pandit, Robert Gross—who will actively oppose this measure. Their main objection is the option that is available to them to bond for these improvements. Bonding has and will continue to be a method for which public agencies can generate up front money to construct public improvements that will benefit the public in a timely fashion. Calabazas Creek improvements and others listed in this zone are all needed now and therefore the governmental agencies that are affected by the lack of these improvements must give their full support to counter the board's minority viewpoint and their effort to cause confusion and defeat the measure in June. Your written response of endorsement will be appreciated. Sin ely, //_5A� Barb Koppel Vice Mayor and Member of Santa Clara Valley Water Ccmission BK: lan cc: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Santa Clara Valley Water Board Soma daroVdley Woter District memorandum FC 14 (10- 02 -84) Ron Esau, General Manager FROM: Vicki Lindeman Clerk of the Bd . Of f is SUBJECT: Santa Clara Valley Water Commission DATE: March 22, 1990 Meeting of March 22, 1990 The following motion regarding the Benefit: Assessment ballc- measure was made by the Santa Clara Valley Water Commission, a� its meeting of March 22, 1990: It was moved by Bert Viskovich, seconded by Pat Castillo, and carried that the District continue with the ballot measure and hopefully the Board can see that since the measure has been approved by a majority of the Board that the rest of the Board members unite behind the measure so as to obtain voter approval. Angelo Frosoione abstained. L 3 0 -3 RESOLUTION NO. 90- STATING AND ADOPTING A PLEDGE TO THE VOTERS OF THE NORTH CENTRAL FLOOD CONTROL ZONE OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WHEREAS, Measure D on the June 6, 1990 Election Ballot asks the voters of the North Central Flood Control Zone of this District to provide authority to continue a program of Benefit Assessments to fund needed capital improvements in that zone; and WHEREAS, it would be permitted under said program to continue to levy benefit assessments beyond June 30, 2000, in order to repay debt or obligations incurred before that date; and WHEREAS, it may be feared that the benefit assessments authority granted under. said. Measure D, if approved by,the voters of said zone, would be used by this or future Boards to repay excessive and unlimited . indebtedness without any further voter sanction, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of Santa Clara Valley Water District, that if Measure D on the June 6, 1990 Election Ballot is approved, this District will not issue more than forty million dollars ($40,000,000) of indebtedness which depends for service on benefit assessments levied under.the authority of said'Measure; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, as this Resolution is intended to be and is a pledge to the voters of said zone, it is not subject to amendment or recision once said voters have acted in reliance --thereon. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of Santa Clara Valley Water District this 23rd day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Directors NOES: Directors ABSENT: Directors ATTEST: SUSAN A. PINO Clerk of the Board of Directors SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT By: Chairman ot the board of irec ors -;' NORTH CENTRAL ZONE BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ELECTION MEASURE JUNE 5, 1990 General Analysis A "YES" vote on this measure would authorize the Santa Clara Valley Water District to continue the present procedure of levying benefit assessments to provide flood control services within the North Central Flood Control Zone once the current program expires in 1991. A "NO" vote on this measure is a vote against levying a Flood Control Benefit Assessment to provide flood control services within the North Central Flood Control Zone after the current program expires. Pursuant to state law enacted in 1979 and amended in 1982, districts having flood control responsibility are authorized to levy assessments on real lroperiy based on the estimated benefits of flood control services to that property. State law specifically authorizes those benefits to be measured by proportionate shares of stormwater runoff from each parcel Acting under that authorization and a favorable popular vote in 1982, the Santa Clara Valley Water District established and levied a flood control benefit assessment program in each of the five flood control zones of the district. Because benefits from flood control services are measured by the share of stormwater runoff the individual assessments are based on the land use and size of a- parcel. The assessment for a single - family residential property of one - quarter acre or less was initially set at $11.56 per year subject to increase by not more than 2% per year. The program expires in 1991 unless another election authorizes continuation. The changes now proposed are set out in District Resolution No. 90-7. These provide that if a majority of the electors favor the proposition, when the present procedure expires it will be replaced with a new program. The proposed changes in the program are summarized as follows: 1. The assessment for a single - family residential property of one - quarter acre or less (the basic unit charge) may not exceed $14.06 in 1991 -92. That limit cannot increase beyond the increase in the San Francisco- Oakland Consumer Price Index for future years. 2, if the Governor of '`&,e President declares an area to be within a disaster area, the limit may be increased for not more than two years but only to the extent necessary to cover the cost of repairing damaged flood control works of the District in that zone. 3. The benefit assessment program would end on June 30, 2000 unless the zone has incurred a flood control financing obligation to accelerate construction of flood control facilities and the assessments are pledged to pay the debt. In that case, the program may continue until the debt is paid provided that after 2000 the district cannot assess any more than is necessary to cover the annual debt payments. MC0076. CA 3a s` G3i37�9G 14:37 $/408 266 0271 5.C.VALLEV WATER 02 1 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE D Remember the recent disastrous floods of 19827 1983 and 1986? Floodwaters have been an all too familiar sight in our area of the community. While much has been done to reduce the potential for flood damage, there is still more work to be accomplished. Let's continue to work toward ending the threat and burden of flooding in our area. Measure will continue the benefit assessment program in the North Central Flood Control Zone after the current program expires on June 30, 1991. The measure would continue the current basic rates of assessment with allowance for inflation. Measure will also provide an option to sell bonds so that maximum funds are available to build needed projects sooner. Without Measure we'll be threatened with.floods for the,next.30.years -- _and.beyond. A flood control system works only if it is kept in good repair. Measure will provide for regular creek maintenance. The North Centel Zone needs this continuous maintenance program to keep our waterways open and protected. Only when flood hazards are reduced can mandatory annual flood insurance premium payments made by property owners be ended or reduced. Without Measure people in our area will have to keep making these flood insurance payments for many years to come. Measure will let us meet the necessary cost of flood control work in a sensible way with a lid on assessment increases and a specified end or "sunset ". It is a reasonable program and what we need. Our community cannot afford the cost and anguish of more flood disasters — and we must be prepared. We have homes, businesses and families to protect. LET'S PASS MEASURE AND GET FLOOD PROTECTIONI Jam . Lenihan Director, District 5 Santa Clara Valley Water District I eece, Executive Secretary g and Construction Trades Council Santa Clara and San Benito Counties ohn Puckett, Chairperson, North Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Barbara Rogers, Mayor Cite of Cupertino S g ic cz, Chairman Board of Directors V_ Santa Clara Valley Water D' 'ct Panta Cara Valley Water Nistrict 3 0 — 6 ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE ( ) June 5, 1990 A certificate of participation (or other debt financing) is nothing more than an obligation you will collectively have to pay. This indebtedness is awesome, as it could go on and on for years - WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. In their proposal, they outline cost for this one flood control zone as $163,910,000.00 without interest. Should this debt be financed, the cost with interest will approximate FOUR HUNDRED NINE MILLION DOLLARS ($409,000,000.00). This cost is absurd. Did you read the ballot measure question for this issue? Very vague, isn't it? It doesn't tell you anything. It merely cites Resolution 90 -7. But... what does this resolution say? The last lines of the three page resolution will enlighted you. It says "unless debt or other obligation has been duly authorized and incurred which depends on benefit assessments for service, and in that event assessments may be levied for but not beyond the period for which such debt obligation is outstanding, pro - vidi "ng -that such benefit assessments may not be levied in amounts in excess of the sums necessary to meet the annual repayments of such debt or other obligation." It says they obligate you to pay and they do not require your vote. The seven member board can do this with a simple majority vote of its members. This measure was placed on the ballot by a split vote of the board: 4 for, 2 against, 1 abstaining. Please be assured, we are not against flood control work that is necessary. Our main concern is the method of UNCONTROLLED DEBT FINANCING. We do not know what you think about this measure, but the idea of giving a majority of the board an "OPEN CHECK BOOK" is deplore - able. Do you want to be in debt forever? VOTE NO! CERTIFICATION The undersigned authors of the primary argument against ballot ` measure ( j at the special election in the Santa Clara Valley Water District to be held on Tuesday, June 5., 1990, hereby state this such argument is true and correct to the best of our know- ledge and belief. Signed: 31 q. date'/ //rJ 0 o eph H. Donohue Director, District 4 Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. d ate Charles M. Rieker Director, United Taxpayers County of Santa Clara / 6� - ..� date = v /�c7 obe t . Gross Director, District 3 Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. (�?date Joe B. Pandit Director, District 1 Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. 3o A 0Y�03�90 1Jt3T a 700 ZOO 0ZT1 3.C.VRLLEY WRTER REBUTTAL_ ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE "D" JUNE 51 1990 A flood control system as necessary is not disputed and it never was. BUT) how you are required to pay for it is (in dispute). In the ballot argument above, please notice there is not one red cent of cost identified. Does this mean this is free ? 0� y f r� It also indicates that flood control in the North Central Zone will terminate. This is simply not true. The minutes of the Board of Directors meeting will verify that do otter Was Made t0 support the flood control zone WITHOUT BONDS and that it could be accomplished in the time alloted. This was alternate 5 on Page 23 of the staffs "Proposal for continuing the benefit assessment program in the North Central Flood Control Zone ". We are ready to support any plan that does not take your hard earned money to pay exorbitant high interest on long term debt (bonds) as the majority of the Board of Directors suggest. It is worthy to note that the Board of Directors that voted to place this issue on the ballot DO NOT LIVE IN THE NORTH CENTRAL FLOOD C014TROL ZONE. They will not have to pay the exorbitant high finance charges resulting fromthis issue that will be incurrgd. WE URGE YOU TO VOTE "NO ". CERTIFICATE The undersigned authors of the rebuttal to the argument in favor of Santa Clara Valley Water District Measure D at the election to be held on June 5, 1990 hereby state that such argument is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. date .? dat0 1' �J Robert W. Gross os ph Donohue Vice Chairman, ,� Board of Director Director, District 4 s V S Santa Clara Valley Water District Santa Clara Valley Water District 7�c� '�9 - date Z z f v Charles M. Rieker Director, United Taxpayers County of Santa Clara �a. REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE D The opponents use gross exaggeration to make their points. In fact, the Santa Clara Valley Water District plans to build only $60 million of flood control projects by the year 2000 — NOT $164 million! Only $20 million needs to be borrowed to meet the construction ow abe out $14 NOT $164 million! All this can be done using the assessment rates n in effe&t -- per year per household, plus ordinary indexing for inflation. The alternative is much worse. If we proceed on a pay-as- you -go basis without Measure D, as and our opponents suggest, construction could take up to 40 years, and inflation of loss construction 1 fe and land costs could fat Cx=d any interest on borrowed funds. Also, damage to our homes and businesses from flooding will haunt us until projects can be built (long after the year 2000 without Measure D)! n.cre is widespread support for Measure D. The cities of Santa Clara, Cupertino, Los Gatos, le and Monte Sereno have all endorsed t! The opponents San Jose, Campbell, Saratoga, Sunnyva have not listened. Their information is misleading and not factual. We learned from the recent earthquake that preparation is the best defense against natural disasters. VOTE YES ON MEASURE D! al to A=mm APWM= D $Jatement or Auinosno �.f Re+tt The undersigned authors of the mbultal to the argument against ballot Measure D at the special election in the Santa Clara Valley Water District, to be held on Tuesday, June 5, 1990, hereby state that such rebuttal is true and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief. 4.BA1lRZBAA1RZA Date: Signed: KOPPEL, Vi ayor City of Cupertino pate: Sign "2 g DIANNE MCKENNA, Sup isor Santa Clara County, District 5 Date: Sign ' EDDIE SOUZA, Mayor City of Santa Clara Date: Signed: TOM McENERY, Mayor City of San Jose ; Date: ;?•'2 e • Qd Signed: S SANCHEZ, Cha man Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Water District -30-7 4 0 a Q �� 13 I 777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARA -OGA. (,ALIFORN IA 95070 o off,' 14081867 -3438 COUNCIL :MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger February 26, 1990 DavidMoyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, Ca. 95118 Attn: Stan N. Wolfe, Head, Project Development Branch Re: Flood Control Benefit Assessments in the North - Central Zone Dear Mr. Wolfe: The Saratoga City Council, at its meeting on February 21, considered the District's proposal for continuing a flood control benefit - assessment program in the North - Central Flood Control Zone. The Council voted unanimously to express their support for continuing a benefit - assessment program in the Zone and in particular, endorsed Alternative 4 in the District's report entitled, "A Proposal for Continuing the Benefit - Assessment Program in the North - Central Flood Control Zone ". Further, the Council supported placing the issue before the voters in the Zone on the upcoming June ballot. I have been directed by the Council to inform the District of their action on this matter. As such, please convey this in- formation to the District's Board of Directors. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 867 -3438. Sincerely, Larry I. Perlin City Engineer LIP /df April 23, 1990 s Son& 0M1/dley Water Diskrict ROSH W. am DIRECTOR DISTRICT 3 5750 AWADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265.2600 "OPEN LETTER" MAY 2 19990 Vice Mayor Barb Koppel City of Cupertino P.O. Box 580 Cupertino, California 95015 RE: Your letter dated 4 /16/90, Santa Clara Valley Water District North Central Flood Control Zone Assessment Benefit Measure D on June ballot Dear Vice Mayor: There are some of us, when we went to school, we did more than warm a seat and eat our lunch; It has been said, "it is wiser to keep your mouth shut and thought to be dumb, if you open it, you will remove all doubt." As an elected official (not appointed), I represent the people and the taxpayers, and I have not lost sight of my responsibility to keep the public informed as to the debt my vote would obligate them. Be advised that the minority directors you made reference to are in fact the majority of elected directors of the Santa Clara Valley- Water District. As you Put it, 2 of the so called majority are appointed by the Board of Supervisors at large and are not required to be held accountable to the voter or go thru_ the election process, only the political spoils of the system. As a taxpayer, a voter and an elected person, is this the kind of representation you believe or is a real majority? YES, the zone needs flood control, YES, the zone needs funding to construct various projects, NO, the zone does not need to be deceived, YES, we need the truth of how the zone will be financed and what . will the dollar cost be to the public. HOW do you feel as an elected person? The District staff in their publications pointed out that there were other ways to finance this zone without much delay in the completion of the projects, were you aware of this? Were you aware by using one of the other methods, there would not be the time lost You alluded to, but more important, the voter would know how much debt was against them and not pay for long term bonds which could double the costs? Let me remind you that the people that voted for you, deserve and look for a full commitment by you to investigate, research and evaluate, before you make assumptions that affect, impact their pocket books when we face difficult times of our monies. This is especially true, when-unknown debt financing will be charged against the worker, retired or senior citizens, how do you feel about them or do you care? Yes, I differ in my opinion as an elected Director and Vice Chairman of the District for reasons as stated above. Rather than be critical of my opinion, I am in hopes that you will be enlightened and move ahead to allow the voters to make a decision based on all of the facts and not assumptions that may or may not have been presented to you. After all, we are not the final decision makers and to think you are is more than :.hat you w-ere elected to be. What is more alarming, you have publicly critiqued me, yet, you have failed to meet with me to discuss other alternatives or even get my opinion, indeed, I find this limited view is sad and lacks in good community leadership for all sides to the issue. What is more alarming, that you serve at the pleasure of the Water Board (as a freshman /freshperson) and spend only a limited fraction of your time in dealing with issues that relate to water, I find this amazing you have such great abilities to understand the total relationship of improper land use planning, too many demands on our limited resources etc. etc. of how the District operates and to take the position you have taken is not sound policy. I would no more attempt to advise you on how you function as a council person without proper advice, but yet, you seem to be an expert on flood control. My, my, I am impressed with your abilities. I am proud that I served over 10 years as an advisor to the U.S. Corps of Engineers and SCVWD Advisory Boards prior to becoming elected as a Director and for over the last 2Q- years I have made every effort to continue my advanced education and seminars in the study of related water issues and public financing. So, I don't feel like the new kid on the block and please don't try to treat me in that view. Water is life, life is water, let us together protect this resource. ROBERT W. GROSS Vice Chairman cc: SC County Board of Supervisors SCVWD Board of Directors SCVWD Water Commission SCVWD Flood Control Advisory Boards (all zones) City Councils impacted by NC Flood Control Zone SC County Manufacturing Association SC County Retired and Senior Citizen Association SC County Building &. Construction Trade Council Media � � l NORTH CENTRAL ZONE SCVWD Figure # 3 Benefit Assessment The following information was printed and presented to the Board of Directors from the staff at the District: ALTERNATIVES: 11. Prohibited due to income vs. construction 21. B/A would delay the projects until the year 2008/9 31. Again, B/A would delay 8 projects until the year 2005/6 41. RECOMMENDED by SCVWD staff and approved on a 4 -3 vote B/A OF $14.06 for 10 years, plus bonds against the zone upto $40,000,000.00. Here is where we differ, a proposed B/A of $14.06 would end around the year 2000/1, the zone will be faced with the balance of [debt plus interest] on the bonds AFTER THE SUNSET IS OVER. CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION, OTHER DEBT OR BONDS will be a debt of twice the amount against the zone, example would be $20,000,000.00 debt obligation would be $40,000,000.00 + /- and $40,000,000.00 becomes $80,000,000.00 etc. etc. Also, understand that at any time in the future, the Board of Directors can obligate the zone to additional Certificate of Participation or Bonds WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL in addition to what they have presented. Construction on the 8 projects will be completed around 1999/2000 + / -. 51. WE RECOMMENDED this alternative, B/A of $21.00 with the - Sunset Clause to end the same as alternative 4. This alternative offers to the public: NO BONDS NO LEGAL FEES NO COMMISSIONS NO PRINTING OF BONDS etc. NO INTEREST AGAINST THE BONDS NO DEBT at the close of the B/A Sunset Clause Construction on the 8 projects will be completed around 2000/1 61. Not considered by either side in this issue BENEFIT NORTH CENTRAL ZONE ASSESSMENT ELECTION ALTERNATIVES* 2015 2020 2025 2030 w * THIS GRAPH IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS BASED ON THE BEST INFORMATION 1 /10 /90 AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. AVAILABLE AS OF ** FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES.CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT WILL NOT BE COMPLETED UNTIL AFTER THE YEAR 2030. LEGEND ALTERNATIVE is BAU -0 AFTER 1991 i jLV vi O ALTERNATIVE 2: BAU -S14. 06, CAP -2%. NO COP'S FT ❑ ALTERNATIVE 3: BAU -514. 06, CAP -CPI NO RECOMMENDED � � - -- '- COP'S � C — - - c�,� �s' u P T `i o 0 00 0 F'I; COP ALTERNATIVE 5: BAU -S21. 00, ALTERNATIVE 6: BAU- 528.00. CAP -CPI. COP'S -0 PROPOSED i SUNSET ESTIMATED COST PROJECT (1989 S) 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 CALABAZAS CREEK — BAY TO MILLER 13..700.000 I CALABAZAS CREEK — ' To WAR 6.930.000 SUNNYVALE EAST 5,030.000 x SARATOGA CREEK — PROSPECT 4TH AVE. 550. 000 x SAN TOMAS CREEK — CANON OR I. -05�0, 000 x SUNNYVALE WEST 700.000 N WILDCAT CREEK 950.000 x SEDIMENT BASINS 5.000. 000 SAN TOMAS CREEK — AN TOMAS EXPWY. CULVERT 65.000.000 BAYFAONT LEVEES 2015 2020 2025 2030 w * THIS GRAPH IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS BASED ON THE BEST INFORMATION 1 /10 /90 AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. AVAILABLE AS OF ** FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES.CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT WILL NOT BE COMPLETED UNTIL AFTER THE YEAR 2030. LEGEND ALTERNATIVE is BAU -0 AFTER 1991 i jLV vi O ALTERNATIVE 2: BAU -S14. 06, CAP -2%. NO COP'S FT ❑ ALTERNATIVE 3: BAU -514. 06, CAP -CPI NO RECOMMENDED � � - -- '- COP'S � C — - - c�,� �s' u P T `i o 0 00 0 F'I; COP ALTERNATIVE 5: BAU -S21. 00, ALTERNATIVE 6: BAU- 528.00. CAP -CPI. COP'S -0 [ WE RECOMMENDED AFD THEY TURNED IT DOWN ONLY BECAUSE THEY WANTED "BONDS ".] A 10 YEAR AND A PROGRAM WITH THE ASSESSMENT 10% TAX INCREASE [THIS IS AT $21 WITH A 5% COST 6F LIVING INCREASE THE COUNTY AVERAGE PER THE COUNTY ASSESSOR] TAXES BENEFIT ASSESSMENT ti TOTAL rj 3.273600 3 739/6 ` 67�t6697 /7?/- Y76 /-. !9 9�.- 93 39609 3g .2 9 99.2- 7790`2/ /9'93~ 9y� .356tf7/ 11oal 9.2 S3-77 963 / 91?y - 9s" 7 9.2 I i 9 1�( .2- --2- -'2-,S6 7 90/,y 6 �6 ,�3 0 �i`3 3 6 9S 970 -5 0-45 I9 96 - 97 79F,3�-63 6s3 '3 /0 *153y43 /997 -98' 937 '310 /'Al /998' 00 706 /999 77/7 75-5-' - s3F7/8',�4 /3/06 93 9 7o tQ / 16 / /R- ` J"�/ 6 # 3 6 9 371/3 03. -- /NGow45F / l /F V Fiscal Year Income: h Expenses o?",t f s % Taxes (10 %) B/A (5 %) Construction Other' Total Surplus 2 (Shortfall) ,, 1990-91 6,746,697 2,147,000 3,545,000 5,692,000 1,054,697 1 991 -92 7,248,002 4,172,000 . 3,834,500 8,006,5QO - 758,498 l 1992 -93 7,790,421 4,275,000 4,119,500 8,394,500 - 604,079 1993 -94 8,377,963 3,284,000 4,445,000 7,729,Od0 648,963 1994 -95 9,014,686 4,756,000 4,628,000 9,384,000 - 369,314 1995 -96 9,705,025 7,772,000 4,774,000 12,546,000 - 2,840,975 1996 -97 10,453,843 5,969,000 5,200,000 11,169,000 - 715,157 t �= 1997-98 11,266,459 4,306,000 5,649,000 9,955,000 1,31-1,459 1998-99 12,148,697 9,708,000 6,110,000 15,818,000 - 3,669,303 • ��-' 1999-00 13,106,939 4,320,000 6,593,250 10,913,250 2, i 93,689 $ 95,858,732 50,709,000 48,898,250 99,607,250 - 3.748,518_ t TABLE 2 NORTH CENTRAL ZONE FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS CP,,NNGT Do /ALL a:F K<f,, ABove kT 0"& TlMe) THe y Do NOT 1AOC -t 5Ta Fr= TO w2ITG SP &C c MCAT(0 QS / b e--S (G Ki Co t" P—A, c. T cz)VJ STRJX-- T L� , T4-{c---., SRS i e r6, HT C8� � '- -= STS P-n-1C) U tiT -co ?� -3 o C-) �� o v a +/- -kNp Yo v C f" V-30 - t N CrteIAS 615 1= c.6 w S ",'�) o w kj w MA Uv7 PRMDI NG t� (�cn' Tro�v w N «CA Wi L�- v. S CO(�p S ��R UV �1L. — 50 IT I S A. G Tc �t 2 2-"' o+rZ " UP 'TFtE3 'AOWry ST-o4,1 tZ CAS6� \( A6C)UT -rHP T7- -- ASK cJ6;�rT1UiJS 1 R7592 6 Cost in Project 1989 Dollars Calabazas Creek, Bay to Miller $13,700,000 Calabazas Creek, Miller to Wardell 6,930,000 Sunnyvale East 5,030,000 Saratoga, Prospect - Fourth Street 550,000 San Tomas Creek, Pollard -Canon Drive 1,050,000 Sunnyvale West 700,000 Wildcat Creek 950,000 Sediment Basins (2) 5,000,000 . San Tomas Creek Box Culvert 65,000,000 Bayfront Levees 65,000,000 J $163,910,000 1=1t2s7 �I�H� P(20 �E3�- Ts�3,00v�000 CP,,NNGT Do /ALL a:F K<f,, ABove kT 0"& TlMe) THe y Do NOT 1AOC -t 5Ta Fr= TO w2ITG SP &C c MCAT(0 QS / b e--S (G Ki Co t" P—A, c. T cz)VJ STRJX-- T L� , T4-{c---., SRS i e r6, HT C8� � '- -= STS P-n-1C) U tiT -co ?� -3 o C-) �� o v a +/- -kNp Yo v C f" V-30 - t N CrteIAS 615 1= c.6 w S ",'�) o w kj w MA Uv7 PRMDI NG t� (�cn' Tro�v w N «CA Wi L�- v. S CO(�p S ��R UV �1L. — 50 IT I S A. G Tc �t 2 2-"' o+rZ " UP 'TFtE3 'AOWry ST-o4,1 tZ CAS6� \( A6C)UT -rHP T7- -- ASK cJ6;�rT1UiJS 1 R7592 6 Fanelli. Consulting, Inc. Land Planning/ Property Management 1175 Saratoga Ave., Suite 17 • San Jose, CA 95129 • (408) 996 -8188 April 6, 1988 Mr. Yuchuek Hsia Planning Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca 95070 Dear Yuchuek: On behalf of Rogers and Brook, Inc., and Pacific Associates, we are filing for Tentative Map approval of a 35 lot residential subdivision on the property owned by the International Order of Odd Fellows. The map conforms to the low density residential General Plan and Zoning designations for this property. Because of their concern for preserving the natural amenities of the property and for developing lots with building sites which conform to all the city ordinances, the applicants had extensive studies of the*site made prior to preparing the map. These include studies by a geologist, an arborist and an archeologist as well as engineering studies. The findings of these specialists are reflected in the map and the reports accompany this application. Also included are preliminary grading plans, cut and fill studies, an environmental assessment and a title report. We realize that this is a significant size development in the city. It is our intention to work closely with the staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council and the neighbors in an attempt to address all the issues connected with the development. To accomplish this, we feel it would be beneficial to acquaint.:-the Planning Commission with the application in its early stage of processing, perhaps at a study session-.�,.' Please let us know if the Commission finds such a meeting appropriate. We look forward to working with you. Very truly yours, Vi nia L. Fanelli cc: Janet Harris, Chairperson Planning Commission