The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-01-1989 Council Agenda Staff reportsSARATOGA CITY CUUNC I L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. c'� 7 AGENDA ITEM UAi MEETING DATE: November 1, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's SUBJECT: Utility Users Tax Sunset Clause CITY MGR. APPROVAL Recommended Motion: Introduce Ordinance No. repealing Section 5- 30.160 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Report Summary: The Utility Users Tax expires on July 1, 1990. Currently funds are used for street maintenance purposes. Loss of this revenue source would cut _street maintenance funds in.half reducing street mainten- ance expenditures to $700,000, which is only 35%-of the average expenditure by Santa Clara County cities. Loss of this revenue would also deprive Saratoga of additional property tax revenues in the future. Saratoga started programmed street maintenance on a 100 year cycle in 1984. The program spends only 70% of the average cost per street mile compared to other Santa Clara County cities while assuring that the City has well maintained.streets. Revenue and expenditure projections indicate that the Utility Users Tax needs to be .extended to assure long term financial- stability and to assure continuation of existing services and programs. Fiscal Impacts: Gain in revenue, next 8 fiscal years: FY 1990 -91 $486,911 FY 1994 -95 $1,158,490 FY 1991 -92 $675,183 FY 1995 -96 $1,386,425 FY 1992 -93 $789,302 FY 1996 -97 $1,470,908 FY 1993 -94 $960,500 FY 1997 -98 $1,562,879 Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. repealing Section 5- 30.160 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. 2. Report to Council from City Manager dated November 1, 1989. Motion and Vote: ORDINANCE NO. 71. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING SECTION 5- 30.160 OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING UTILITY USER TAX The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby ordains as follows: SECTION 1: Section 5- 30.160 in Article 5 -30 of the City Code is hereby repealed: SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk Mayor E h U. 01 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson November 1, 1989 Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson To: Saratoga City Council Francis Stutzman From: Harry R. Peacock, City Manager Subject: Utility Users Tax Sunset Clause Recommended Action: Introduce Ordinance No. repealing Section 5- 30.160 of the Saratoga Municipal Code. Background: The utility users tax was enacted by the City Council in 1985. The ordinance contained a sunset provision (since codified as Section 5- 30.160SMC) which repeals the tax on July 1990. The tax is part of a revenue package adopted in 1985 to provide addition- al revenue to the general fund to adequately maintain the street system of the City when combined with the gas tax revenues the City receives from the State. These additional revenue sources included the enactment of a transient occupancy tax, an increase to the business license tax and an earmarking of 50% of the total revenue from that source for street maintenance, and the interest income received from the sale of surplus land owned by the City at Cox and Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road. On March 28, 1989, the City Council met to discuss the need to continue the utility users tax beyond June of 1990 to fund con- tinuing street maintenance under the Pavement Management System devised by Harris and Associates for the City in 1983 and updated in 1987. At that meeting the City Council directed the staff to: 1. Seek an Attorney General opinion on the status of the property tax transfer provision of the trial court funding act where a local tax is automatically repealed by a preex- isting sunset provision. 2. Prepare a report on how much work has been done each year under the street maintenance budget and the pavement mainte- nance program, how much work is left to do before the pro- gram has run a complete cycle, and what the unit costs are for each type of work. Saratoga City Council Page 2 Subject: Utility Users Tax Sunset Clause November 1, 1989 3. Poll other cities in the area to determine what they are spending on street maintenance. 4. Determine what problem exists with the seal work done on Norada Court. 5. Prepare a five -year projection on the entire City budget and the utility users tax. On September 6, 1989, the City Council directed the staff to advertise a public hearing for November 1, 1989, to consider the. ordinance which would repeal the sunset provision of the utility users tax. The balance of this report will summarize the staff work done in response to the direction of the City Council. Analysis: Attorney General Opinion Letter. An opinion from the Attorney General's Office was issued on August 15, 1989, (Opinion Number 89 -506 - copy attached). The opinion concludes that "termina- tion of an existing city tax in 1990 as a result of a 'sunset clause' enacted in 1985 will require a reduction in the amount of property taxes allocated to a city under the terms of Revenue and Taxation Code Section 97.35" (emphasis added). This means that the revenue the City is scheduled to begin to receive in fiscal year 1992 -93 under Section 97.35RTC will not be transferred to the City but remain with Santa Clara County. This revenue loss has been calculated as follows (see Utility Tax and Property Tax Transfer Revenue Projection for details): Fiscal Year 1992 -93 1993 -94 1994 -95 1995 -96 Revenue Loss $ 87,111 $230,222 $399,000 $596,556 Fiscal Year 1996 -97 1997 -98 1998 -99 1999 -2000 Revenue Loss $649,444 $708,556 $772,333 $841,556 As stated in the analysis section of the Attorney General's opinion, Section 97.35 requires, "That amount shall be aggregated with any additional amount computed pursuant to this paragraph as a result of the City's reduction in any subsequent year of the tax rate or tax base of the same or any other locally imposed general or special tax." Therefore, a total repeal of the tax means that property taxes transferred to the City shall be reduced by the total amount the utility tax would have gener- ated in each fiscal year. Based on a 4% growth rate for the utility tax and a 7% growth rate in assessed value, these two revenue lines would not cross until fiscal year 2005 -2006. At that time Saratoga would begin to receive property tax transfer revenue. However, the amount without the Utility Tax would be $26,300. With the Utility tax, the amount would be $1,195,500. Saratoga City Council Subject: Utility Users Tax Sunset Clause November 1, 1989 Page 3 Report on Status of the Pavement Management Program. The Program was originally established from a report prepared by Harris and Associates in 1983. The report was updated and re- vised in 1987. Another update and revision is recommended in 1991. A copy of the 1987 Executive Summary and the proposed maintenance for each year through 1996 is attached to this report for reference. The report establishes an ongoing program of repair, resurfacing, overlays and street reconstruction which is designed to maximize the life expectancy of each street to 100 years. It lays out a method of preventative and corrective maintenance designed to provide the most cost effective way for the City to preserve the street system. As with any overall plan, changes are made on a yearly basis depending upon field conditions. However, it does serve as an overall blueprint for the City to follow to keep the street system in-a continual state of good repair on a least cost per year basis. It is important to emphasize that this program as proposed by Harris and Associates and as adopted by the City is for an ongo- ing program, not a one time "catch up" program. To pretend the program was intended to be the latter and not the former is just not the case. The Harris report uses a measure of effort called "added life" to determine whether the program is balancing the added life repre- sented by different maintenance methods used each year against the loss of life represented by the aging of the overall street system each year. Over the long term the program attempts to balance this measure as an indicator of adequacy of maintenance effort. The other factor used in choosing a method of maintenance for any given street in any given year is the observed condition of the street. Page six of the Executive Summary presents in graphic form how various maintenance methods are to be used over time to extend street life to a 100 year reconstruction cycle. As you know; Big Basin Way is being reconstructed right now. By way of example, using the resurfacing and overlay cycles contained in the Harris report, the street should not have to be reconstructed until the year 2090. Every five to six years it would receive a seal coat, every twenty years it would receive an overlay and then be reconstructed in 100 years. Without this process, the street would need to be reconstructed every 20 years. The cost differences greatly favor the former process versus the latter. Following the methodology of the Harris report the Maintenance Director has prepared a report showing the types of work which have been done since Fiscal 1984 -85 and projecting the program through the current budget cycle which ends in June of 1991. This report shows what methods have been used each year, how many square yards of pavement have been maintained, what the unit Saratoga City Council Page 4 Subject: Utility Users Tax Sunset Clause November 1, 1989 costs have been and whether there has been a net gain or loss in extending the overall street system life. Also shown for each year except for 1984 -85 are the routine direct street maintenance costs which go on to routinely maintain the street system and to prepare the streets for surface treatment. These activities include pothole repair, shoulder and flow line maintenance, crack sealing and dig out and replacement repairs. In 1984 -85 the budget and accounting system did not document these costs. In reporting these routine costs it is important to note what is not included in this work. Indirect costs for street maintenance including employee benefits, equipment replacement, fixed asset replacement, and building maintenance are not included. For fiscal 1990 these costs total $142,188. The costs for other street related maintenance, including curb, gutter, and sidewalk repair, traffic control, storm drains and median maintenance which are an overall part of the street system are excluded from the routine maintenance figure. For fiscal year 1990 these costs total $535,352. Overhead costs which total 11.3% of direct costs are also excluded from the street maintenance cost totals shown on the Maintenance Director's report. ONLY THE DIRECT COSTS OF LABOR, MATERIALS AND CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN USED TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY WITH THE HARRIS REPORT METHODOLOGY. The Maintenance Director's report shows that through the first five years of the program the "added life" to the system was 292,816 square yard years, about on par with the needs of the system. Costs for various treatments varied as can be expected based on the amount of work, time of year and year of work. For example, chip seal in 1984 -85 was $0.52 square yard compared to $0.96 in 1985 -86 and $1.67 in 1986 -87. The price of overlays also varied each year, costing $9.21 a square yard in 1984 -85 but only $5.11 in 1985 -86 and $4.99 in 1986 -87. A copy of the report is attached. A map has also been prepared showing the work done overall since the start of the program. Some areas have had work performed twice already and other areas will not be worked on until next year. Generally speaking, about 80% of all streets have received scheduled maintenance. About 15% are relatively new streets which will not need treatment for several years, and 5% have had no scheduled maintenance as yet. Because of the way maintenance is scheduled and because we have shifted away from using a lot of chip seal to more slurry seal and cape seal, it is difficult to say when a maintenance cycle has been completed City -wide. In some areas the cycle is com- pleted and a second cycle has begun, in other areas the cycle is completed but the next cycle hasn't started, while in still others the first cycle has not has yet been completed. A note from the Maintenance Director on program status is attached. Saratoga City Council Page 5 Subject: Utility Users Tax Sunset Clause November 1, 1989 In short, by the end of the next budget cycle, June 1991, the first cycle of the Pavement Management Program will be essential- ly completed. Almost every street we work on for 1991 -92 will have had scheduled maintenance previously under the program. A second report has been prepared which covers the costs of the program since the enactment of the pavement management funding package. A copy of this report, "Street Maintenance Revenue and Expenditure" is attached. The report projects the costs for the program based on the Harris Report data which covers the period through June 30, 1996, adjusted for inflation since the report expresses unit costs based on 1987 dollars. The report shows the revenues set aside for street maintenance by Council policy through the budget and provides a cash flow analysis year by year for revenues and expenditures. When the funding package went into effect in July 1985, the fund balance in the gas tax funds was $377,874. Based on actual revenues and expenses for fiscal years 1986 through 1989, and projected revenues and expenses for fiscal years 1990 through 1996, the street maintenance requirements for the City will exceed revenues by an average of about $71,500 a year. During the eleven years covered by the report, revenues average $1,335,177 a year with the Utility Tax and $703,129 a year with- out the Utility Tax, an average difference of $632,048. Street Maintenance expenditures over the same time period average $1,406,629. Without the Utility Tax the annual revenue shortfall would climb to $700,000. It is feasible, from a budgeting perspective, to find ways to make up an average shortfall of $71,452 a year in an $8,000,000 operating budget. However, finding ways to make up a $703,500 shortfall each year is not feasible without serious damage being done to many services. Data on Other Cities The Finance Director has researched the annual Streets and Roads reports prepared by the State Controller to prepare an analysis of what other cities in Santa Clara County spend on street main- tenance. Her report covers fiscal years 1980 -81 through 1986 -87 (the last year the report was available). In order to compare expenditures, two additional statistics were researched, popula- tion and improved street miles in each city. A copy of this report is attached. This report shows that Saratoga has spent less for street purposes than the average for cities in this County, both on a per capita basis and on a per street mile basis during the period covered by the report. In 1980 -81 Saratoga spent 12% of the average per capita and 9% of the average per street mile. Saratoga City Council Subject: Utility Users Tax Sunset Clause November 1, 1989 The chart below summarizes the Saratoga data: Year Average % Per Capita Page 6 Average % Per Street Mile 1980 -81 12% 9% 1981 -82 37% 32% 1982 -83 82% 63% 1983 -84 74% 63% 1984 -85 83% 65% 1985 -86 87% 67% 1986 -87 78% 70% By both of these measures Saratoga's expenditures for street purposes is below the County average for each of the seven years. Resurfacing of Norada Court The Maintenance Director has reviewed the work history for Norada Court. This street is one of the streets where a chip seal was placed and in a subsequent year a slurry seal was applied over the chip seal. This combined process has now become referred to as a "CAPE" seal and has been used extensively as the resurfacing method of choice over the past year. It was first developed by the City of Salinas four years ago and is now being widely used in northern California. The life cycle for this treatment ap- proaches that of a thin overlay at less than half the cost. Its effectiveness for Saratoga will require an ongoing evaluation. Five Year Budget Projection The final work product prepared is a five year budget projection prepared by the City Manager. It covers the five year period which began on July 1, 1989. The report uses the assumptions concerning growth in revenue and expenses contained in the cur- rent adopted budget. It also projects the schedule for capital improvements contained in the current Capital Improvements Plan adopted in 1987 as modified by staff to coincide with the present budget. The timing for some projects is assumed because a re- vised Capital Improvements Plan to cover the period through Fiscal 1994 has not been presented to the City Council for con- sideration. The City Manager has delayed presentation of the new plan until a final decision on the continuation of the Utility Users Tax has been made by the City Council. The projection also updates both revenues and expenditures to reflect the adjustments made to the budget by the City Council through September 6, 1989, and changes in revenue based upon estimates and actual receipts through August 1989. For purposes of analysis a cash flow projection has been included which tracks the fund balance, revenues, and expenditures and compares this data with the current reserve requirement per City Council poli- cy. This analysis assumes continuation of the utility users tax Saratoga City Council Page 7 Subject: Utility Users Tax Sunset Clause November 1, 1989 and the phase in of the property tax transfer. The opening fund balance for July 1, 1989, is estimated at $6,444,737. At the end of five years the fund balance decreases to $4,452,288. This figure is some $407,711 below the reserve requirement of the City Council. However, any projection which attempts to look five years into the future and which has a margin of error of less than 10% as this one does should be considered within acceptable limits. A copy of this report is attached. Conclusion The various work products produced by members of the staff demonstrate that the Pavement Management System is working and deserves to be continued. While there have been problems with some of the quality of the work performed by outside contractors from time to time, these problems should not be an indictment of the program itself. And while it is always dangerous to use such gross statistics as the comparative data among cities, evidently Saratoga has been able to operate its Pavement Management Program at full funding for four years now and still spend significantly less money than the average for all cities in the County. Thus it can be argued that the Program is not only effective but efficient as well. Last March the staff did show how difficult it would be to con- tinue current operations levels in the absence of the utility tax and the property tax transfer after 1991. The street maintenance funding report and the five year budget projection do show that with these funds Saratoga can continue operations and capital projects as scheduled and not only fully fund pavement manage- ment, but pretty much keep the fund reserve requirements set by the City Council. The conclusion reached by the staff is that continuation of the Utility User Tax is imperative for the long term financial health, of the City. The Pavement Management Program is working. It is both effective and efficient according to the data we have been able to assemble. A by- product of this research effort is that we now have a standard format for data collection and program evaluation. A yearly report using this data format should become a routine annual report to the Council on status of the program. Should the program continue, Council should direct staff to update the data and present it to the Council for review each year. I would also like to thank the Maintenance Director and the Finance Director for all of the time and effort they put into the research and reports which are a part of this report to the City Council. Saratoga City Council Page 8 Subject: Utility Users Tax Sunset Clause November 1, 1989 Prepared by: arry Peacock, City Manager jm Attachments: 1. Attorney General's Opinion 2. Utility Tax and Property Tax Transfer Revenue Projection 3. Harris Report Executive Summary 4. System Life Analysis for Work Completed 5. Pavement Management Program - An Overview of Work Completed Since 1984 6. Street Maintenance Revenue and Expenditures 7. Summary of Revenue and Expenses for Street and Road Purposes 1980/87 8. Five Year Budget Projection 1990 -1994 ATTACHMENT #1 138 AT701LNEY GENERAL'S OPL\'IONS Volume 72 Opinion Number S9.S06- -August 1S, 19S9 Requested by: MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY Opinion by: JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP, Attorney General Rodney O. Lilyquist, Deputy THE HONORABLE CHARLES W QUACKENBUSH, MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY, has requested an opinion an the following quesdo w - WM the termination of an existing city tax in 1990 as a result of a "sunset clause" atacted in 1985 require a reduction in the amount of property taxes allocated oo a city tmderthe terns of Revenue subdivision (f)(2)? and Taxation Code section 97,35, CONCLUSION The termination of an existing city tax in 1990 as a result of a "sunset clause" enacted in 1985 will require a reduction in the amount ofproperty taxes #1 -2 August 1989 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPMONS 139 allocated to a city underthe terms of Revenue and Taxation Code section 97.35, subdivision (f)(2). ANALYSIS We are informed that in 1985 a city imposed a "utility users tax" of 3.5 percent upon the charges incurred for the use of electricity and gas by persons in the city. The utility companies serving the city's inhabitants collect the tax from their customers, and the revenues are deposited in the city's general fund. The 1985 city ordinance imposing the tax contained the following provision: —This Article shall automatically be repealed on July 1, 1990." Such a provision is commonly known as a "sunset clause." The question presented for resolution is whether a city tax imposed in 1985 with a sunset clause terminating the tax in 1990 will affect the city's allocation of property taxes under the terms of Revenue and Taxation Code section 97.35, subdivision* (f))(2)' beginning in 1990. We conclude that a property tax reduction will be required under the statute. Section 97.35 provides in part: {, . ............................... "(b)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, each qualifying city shall, for the 1989 -90 fiscal year. and each year thereafter, be allocated by the auditor an amount determined pursuant to the TEA formula. . ............................... "(f) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), in any fiscal year in which a qualifying city is to receive a distribution pursuant to this section. the auditor shall reduce the actual amount distributed to the qualifying city by the sum of the following: " "(2) The amount of revenue not collected by the MMUfvina city assns dULUUM sO COmputea by the auditor shall Constitute A reduc tt m in the amount of property tax revenue distributed to the 9g Qty Pant to this section in each succeeding fiscal year. That amount shall be aggregated with any additional amount com- Puted pursuant to this paragraph as the result of the city's reduction in any subsequent year of the tax rate or tax base of the same or any other locally imposed general or special tax. 44 . ............................... I All relent m hetnRer to the Revenue and Taxman Code ate by section number only. #1 =3 140 A'170RNEY GENERAL'S OPMONS Volume 72 "(h) The amount not distributed to the tax rate areas of a qualifying city as a result of this section shall be distributed by the auditor to the county. (Emphasis added.) In analyzing the provisions of section 97.35, we first note that the addition of article MIA to the Constitution in 1978 caused a substantial reduction in the amount of property tax revenues available to cities, counties, and other local governmental entities. As a consequence, the Legislature encouraged local governments to seek alternative sources of funding for necessary ser- vices, including the imposition of other types of taxes. (See Gov. Code, § 16270; Martin Hospital Dist. v. Rothman (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 495, 499.) As specified in the Constitution, It]he Legislature may not impose taxes for local purposes but may authorize local governments to impose them." (Cal Cont., art MII, § 24.) The Legislature has specifically authorized cities to levy such taxes as sales and uses taxes (§ 7202), transient occupancy taxes (§ 7280), and taxes upon instruments transferring real property (§ 11911)? A utility users tax is imposed by a number of cities. (See City of Wes>fninster v. County of Orange, supra, 204 CaLApp,3d 623; Fenton v. City of Delano (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 400; Campen v. Greiner (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 836.) Not only does article 3CIIIA of the Constitution limit the amount of Property taxes available to local governments, it directs the Legislature to allocate the property taxes collected among local governmental entities. (Cal. Cont., art M11A, § 1; Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalisation (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 218.) This the Legislature has done by fashioning a statutory allocation formula. ( §§ 93- 100; American C Protection Dist. v. Co Canyon Fire County of Napa (1983)141 Cal.App.3d 100, 105 -106.) Section 97.35 was enacted in 1988 (Stats.1988, ch. 944,16) to adjust this Property tax allocation formula for the distribution of property taxes to local governments. It increases the share of a "qualifying city,,, while it decreases the share of a county, with the county receiving some additional state funds for specified Programs. (See Gov. Code, §$ 77000- 77301; Pen, Code, § 1463.28.) The lbrmula adjustment is made over a period of years for those sees dWOWng to Participate in the Legislature's program to fund trial oourts dMI811M the state. As explained in the Legislative Counsel's Digest 0000aaing the 1988 legislation: "'Under existing Property tax law, provision is made for the allocation by the auditor in each county of property tax revenues to = while a a�artar ' Bud.Idaw"W.v.c W,RdBdM(1"8)?.06 2 227 Qra1IR'u&wkrr( 4 Of 0MRV (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 623, 631), a 8enaral law city has by atama (Gov. Coda, 1 37100.3) vil a the rams aw6ority d a charter city to levy various types of t"CL #1 -4 August 1989 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPL`TONS 141 various entities of local government according to specified formulas. "Under existing property tax law, the auditor in each county with qualifying cities, as defined, is required to make property tax revenue allocations to those cities in accordance with a specified Tax Equity Allocation formula and to make corresponding reductions in the county's property tax revenue allocation. Qualifying cities include those cities, with a single exception for a particularcity, which existed but did not levy a property tax in the 1977 -78 fiscal year and those cities which incorporated prior to June 5, 1987, and had a property tax revenue allocation for the 1987 -88 fiscal year which is less than an amount which would have been received by applying a specified tax rate to its 1987 -88 assessed value. Existing law provides for a 10 -year phase -in of the allocations to those qualified cities by requir- ing that the amounts to be allocated to them be distributed as follows: 10% in the 1988 -89 fiscal year and increasing by 10% each fiscal year thereafter, subject to their receipt of a minimum allocation of no less than they would have received without the application of the TEA formula. Existing law also prohibits a qualifying city from receiving a property tax revenue allocation pursuant to the TEA formula for any fiscal year in which the county in which it is located fails to notify the state of its intent to opt into the Trial Court Funding Act of 1985. 'This bill would generally revise that procedure and replace it with a formula based generally on a 7 -year phase -in rather than a 10 -year phase in.... " Subdivision (f)(2) of section 97.35 ti es together a qualifying city's receipt Of property taxes under the Legislature's formula with the receipt of othertypes of taxes imposed by the city itself. The increase in property taxes under the 1988 amendment will not occur if the city reduces "the tax rate or tax base of any - .. general or special tax" after January, 1, 1988, on a dollar for dollar basis' As stated in the report of the Senate Rules Committer with respect to the Subdivision (f)(2) limitation when it was proposed in 1988: 'This bill reduces the revenues shifted to qualifying cities in three ways: "lax c�u. If a city reduces the rate or base of any general or special tau, thin the county auditor must calculate the amount of tax fm s A -Se d me b ant levW for general gwanmmtel proposes. what a'SPOCW ter:',s miposed pmpMM (C6V- Cade, If 50076.53721: City and Cawy of Sms Fimreiaeo v. F~ (1982) v2 Cd3d 47.11: Cm1� 01"N BrdgJAdavtry As m. v. Govsrniod ad. aapre, 206 CdApp.3d 212.235; Futwr +ty elDelsno, :srpeR 162 CaLApp 3d 400, 408.) The stgnificm ditfereow between the two is that a special to may trot be imposed by a load govensmmt wttbaut first obtaining dw sppm ei d mo.thirda of We vows of the area voting an the were. (CAL Came, era. XMA, 14; Gov. Code, if 50077.53722) Sinn a � asas tat: in question u deposited m the city's genaal fiord, it wMW not be subjtmtto the two.thirds APP�'d requirament. #1 -5 142 ATTORNEY GENHRAL,S OPINIONS Volume 72 revenue which the city did not collect in the first fiscal year following the reduction. That amount becomes a permanent offset against the city's property tax shin For example, if a no- or low- property -tax city repealed its utility user tax and reduced local taxes by $1.5 million a year, county officials must subtract that amount from the city's property tax shift ... " The apparent legislative purpose of this subdivision limitation is to discourage a city from considering its new property tax allocation as a substitute for its own municipal tax revenues. A county will not be forced to lose part of its share of property taxes to a city that eliminates other sources of tax revenues. In applying the terms of section 97.35 to the termination of a city tax under a sunset clause, we are guided by several principles of statutory construction. In Dyna -Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Can. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379,1386 -1387, the Supreme Court recently stated: "Pursuant to established principles, our fir$t task in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. In determining such intent. a court must look first to the words of the statute themselves, giving to the language its usual, ordinary import and according significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose. A construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided. The words of the statute must be Construed in cOMxL keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both iirternally and with each other, to the extent possible. [Citations.]„ The critical date of the subdivision (f)(2) limitation is January 1, 1988. The "city's reduction ... of the tax rate or tax base" must occur after January 1, 1988, for the limitation to apply. If the city's reduction takes place before January 1, 1988, no decrease in the property tax allocation will be required, It may be argued that for purposes of the phrase "the city's reduction after January 1, 1988, of the tax rate or tax base," the enactment of a tax ordinance containing its own sunset clause creates the "reduction" at the time of the OrdinanCe enactment, especially in light of the apparent legislative purpose of the limitrA0M With respect to a tax ordinance with a sunset clause enacted in 1985, for example, it cannot be said that the choice to eliminate the city tax w= due to the Legislature's change in the property tax allocation formula in 1988. The city cannot be characterized as making its choice to reduce municipal UMM at the "expense'• of the county government; the city council voted to reduce (eliminate) the tax without expecting any property tax shift from the county. On the other hand, it may be argued that the actual reduction of a tax by #1 -6 August 1989 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPLNIONS 143 the enactment of a tax ordinance with a sunset clause does not occur until the sunset clause becomes operative. A tax that is repealed on July 1, 1990, for example, under a sunset clause will cause elimination of the tax base and tax rate on the specified date and not before. The tax "reduction" is caused not only by enactment of the sunset clause, but by the failure to repeal the sunset provision prior to its operative date. While both arguments have merit. we believe that a "city's reduction ... of the tax rate or tax base" by enacting a tax ordinance with a.sunset clause does not occur for purposes of section 97.35 until the sunset clause becomes operative. Under the utility users tax ordinance in question, the tax rate and tax base will be reduced on July 1, 1990; no reduction will occur before that date. The critical factor is that the city retains the power to change its decision at any time prior to the operative date of the sunset clause. The reduction will not occur if the sunset clause is repealed. A. county should not be expected to lose its allocation under the new formula to a city that refuses to act, The term "reduction" in subdivision (f)(2) of section 97.35 may reasonably be construed here to include legislative action (enactment of a sunset clause) together with legislative inaction (failure to repeal the clause) without doing violence to the statutory scheme as a whole. In answer to the question presented, therefore, we conclude that the termination of an existing city tax in 1990 as a result of a sunset clause enacted in 1985 will require a reduction in the amount of property taxes allocated to a city under the provisions of section 97.35, subdivision (f)(2). ATTACHMENT #2 Utility Tax and Property Tax Transfer Revenue Projection Fiscal Year UUT(1) PTT(2) 1992 -93 $ 702,191 $ 87,111(3) 1993 -94 $ 730,278 $ 230,222(4) 1994 -95 $ 759,490 $ 399,000(5) 1995 -96 $ 789,869 $ 596,556(6) 1996 -97 $ 821,464 $ 649,444(7) 1997 -98 $ 854,323 $ 708,556 1998 -99 $ 888,496 $ 772,333 1999 -2000 $ 924,036 $ 841,556 2000 -2001 $ 960,997 $ 876,963 2001 -2002 $ 999,437 $ 938,350 2002 -2003 $1,039,414 $ 975,884 2003 -2004 $1,080,991 $1,044,196 2004 -2005 $1,124,231 $1,117,290 2005 -2006 $1,169,200 $1,195,500 Notes: (1) Assumes a 4.0% annual growth in revenue. (2) Assumes a 7.0% annual growth in assessed value. (3) Represents the difference between a 3.3% and a 4.0% share of the general property tax levy. (4) Represents the difference�-between a 3.3% and a 5.0% share of the general property tax levy. (5) Represents the difference between a 3.5% and a 6.0% share of the general property tax levy. (6) Represents the difference between a 3.5% and a 7.0% share of the general property tax levy. (7) Represents full phase in of property tax transfer. ATTACHMENT #3 "- HARRIS & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY --- - - - - -- - - - - - -- The attached Pavement M_a_nageme_nt Study has been developed in accordance with the provisions of an agreement between the City of Saratoga and Harris & Associates, Inc. BUDGET The first section, entitled "Budget ", includes summaries and analysis of the accumulated data. Based on current construction costs, the replacement value of the asphalt pavement in the City of Saratoga street system is in excess of 937.8 million, a major capital investment (see Page 3). On Page 4, calculations are given for three alternative approaches to maintenance of the pavement system. Each alternative shows its real total long -term cost, including ultimate rehabilitation cost (shown as "Depreciation "). The conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that timely application of preventative maintenance processes will preserve that capital investment while providing optimum service to the traveling public at the lowest annual cost. The proposed annual budgets on Pages 10 through 13 outline the preventative maintenance programs recommended for the next three (3) years. C 220 MASON CIRCLE ■ CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 ■ (415) 827 -4900 The average budget totals for the next three years is about 9425,000 per year for rehabilitation work, 9300,000 for preventative maintenance and 975,000 for repairs. However, the actual Repair needs inventory shows a need for much more repairs than the budget estimate and City staff will need to decide which streets need to be repaired and which should be rehabilitated (see first two pages of P.M. Forecast). City has staff already begun rehabilitation on some of the recommended streets and some budget adjustments will be necessary. The listed programs will need to be adjusted to balance the work load over the years. City staff will need to do this balancing while taking into account changes in traffic patterns and future utility and /or development work with each project area. C 220 MASON CIRCLE ■ CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520 ■ (415) 827 -4900 #3 -2 OBSERVATIONS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The review of the City's street system has shown that the on going maintenance program is working fairly well. However, there does appear to be a couple of areas which will need to be reviewed and the program may need to be modified to accommodate these changes. Those areas are: 1. The lack of competitive pricing for oil treatments and oil seals. 2. The poor performance of recent chip seals. 3. The use of petro -mat under thin seals appears to be performing badly. 4. The large amount of cracking observed throughout the street system. - RECOMMENDATIONS --------- - - - - -- 1. The City should phase out oil treatments and oil seals and convert those programs to slurry seals. 2. Chip sealing should be restricted to streets with open ditches on the side. If chip seals are used in residential areas, they should then be covered with a slurry seal. 3. The City should consider doing more heater -remix /leveling prior to slurry seals and overlays to break up cracking patterns and smooth out the pavements. 4. With about 77 miles of cracks, it would be a good idea for the City to purchase a crack sealing unit. The cost of these units runs about 935,000 which includes all the equipment necessary to do permanent crack repairs. The materials which should be used to repair the cracks is a combination of re- cycled automobile tires hot and asphalt melted together and injected into the cracks. This method of crack repair has a service life of about six years which is three times that of the City's current crack filling method. * ** C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A * ** PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT 05/01/87 #3 -3 The "ECONOMICS OF TIMELY PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE" is achieved or fails on the ability of Public Agency officials to communicate with the public. The difficulty the Public Official has in providing effective maintenance at low cost is that the general public, often reflected through elected officials, does not perceive the need for timely maintenance. More specifically, doing work on a pavement that appears to be in relatively fair condition may even enrage some people because "they" know of far worse pavements that "they" feel are more deserving of attention. However in contrast, the public will readily demand that something be done when a pavement is in poor or bad condition at a cost five to hundreds of times greater than that of the basic preventative maintenance programs. It is the above "truism" that makes it difficult to secure timely funding. When conditions get bad enough we tend to be able to secure funds but those same dollars could be spread many times farther had they been provided sooner. We have found during recent years when rehabilitating bad arterial and collector pavements that the cost of major reconstruction work approached $21.50 /sq.yd. while the cost of various preventative maintenance program ranges from $ 0.55 /sq.yd. to $ 4.00 /sq.yd. depending on age and condition. Failure to maintain pavements at a constant service level is little different than quitting ones job and living off savings. When the savings are gone and nothing is left, it will be necessary to work many times harder to get back to previous status. Expressing it in another way, to not adequately maintain our pavements today is to be living off the investment of past generations until at some point, while riding along using up current assets, we begin borrowing and building up a debt for the next generation. The purpose of this report is to show the current and continuing need for pavement maintenance funding. When funding a preventative maintenance program for pavements we can expect alot of success and some failures, but the overall result will be a safer and more cost effective pavement system and program. The methodology used is taken from work done by PMi with its" Automated Management System " and uses the following sequence: 1. The pavement areas are divided into categories by their use. 2. The pavement surface is evaluated and cataloged. 3. The various maintenance techniques are employed so as to provide the longest possible pavement life at the lowest possible cost. PAGE 1 #3 -4 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE REPORT The analysis is based on the life and cost of a square yard of asphalt concrete pavement and various techniques and costs for extending that life. The process centers on a single unit of measurement, the "square yard year" of pavement life. Each passing year a square yard of pavement has one less year of useful life. By doing various preventative maintenance programs at the appropriate time the useful life of the pavement is increased. The amount of increase in useful life varies with the type of traffic, the age of the pavement, previous maintenance activity and the quality of the original design, inspection and construction. The process is not simple enough to be done manually and requires key statistics, maintenance life values and costs per unit of maintenance. A sample of the information gathering procedure is included at the end of this report THE PRESENT PAVEMENT SYSTEM It can be seen on the following charts that even though the value and cost of the major arterials and collectors is high, the cost per vehicle is relatively low. By contrast, residential and other low traffic volume pavements are less expensive to construct but have an extremely high usage cost. Arterials are not as costly as they appear when we consider the number of vehicles served and relate that service to a users cost. Now we can take this "key" data and develop annual cost figures around three varied approaches to dealing with long range pavement management programs. 1. The first method is to do nothing to the pavement and allow it to expend its life over the twenty year design life period and then perform major rehabilitation on the pavement. 2. The second and typical method is to try to install an asphalt cap or. overlay over the surface every ten years. This process would allow a fifty year life at which time the pavemet would have received four overlays and the surface grades and drainage patterns would be such that major correction work would be required. 3. The third and less typical method is to do a comprehensive preventative maintenance program. This program would provide for doing work on pavements prior to their needing major repairs. This process more than doubles the time between overlays, which moves the terminal date for a pavement as a result of surface distortion, to 100+ years. The program also provides different levels of service on different types of pavements. This varied approach gives priority treatment to high traffic volume pavements, while maintaining all pavements in a high degree of serviceability. The numbers generated by these three approaches speak for themselves and reflect the cost savings of properly maintaining asphalt pavements. The data shows that there are significant savings from a Preventative Maintenance Program. It can also be seen that there is a savings in the 10 year overlay program over doing nothing. PAGE 2 -GRAND TOTALS TRAVEL TOTAL LENGTHS -- -LANE MILES - -- -TOTAL SQ /YARDS - -TOTAL REPLACEMENT VALUE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 645,468 245.45 2,243,781 $$ 37,835,392.00 a m a a a m = a a m o s a a a = a a e > > z o s a m a s s a = a s = s a * PMi Pavement Maintenance System ** PAGE 3 #3 -5 * ** C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A * ** CALCULATIONS DESCRIPTION CALCS $ /SQ.YD VALUE ASPHALT PAVEMENTS - MAJOR ARTERIAL TOTAL SQYARDS 209,644 $21.50 $$ 4,507,346 MAJOR ARTERIAL TOTAL LENGTHS 51,465 MAJOR ARTERIAL TRAVEL LANE MILES 20.43 ARTERIAL SEGMENTS TOTAL SQYARDS 152,950 $20.00 $$ 3,059,000 ARTERIAL SEGMENTS TOTAL LENGTHS 45,606 ARTERIAL SEGMENTS TRAVEL LANE MILES 17.82 COLLECTOR SEGMENTS TOTAL SQYARDS 324,159 $19.50 $$ 6,321,100 COLLECTOR SEGMENTS TOTAL LENGTHS 100,032 COLLECTOR TRAVEL LANE MILES 37.41 LOCAL SEGMENTS TOTAL SQYARDS 62,502 $17.50 $$ 1,093,785 LOCAL SEGMENTS TOTAL LENGTHS 17,583 LOCAL SEGMENTS TRAVEL LANE MILES 6.68 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TOTAL SQYARDS 0 $19.00 $$ 0 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TOTAL LENGTHS 0 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL TRAVEL LANE MILES 0.00 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TOTAL SQYARDS 0 $17.50 $$ 0 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TOTAL LENGTHS 0 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TRAVEL LANE MILES 0.00 RESIDENTIAL SEGMENTS TOTAL SQYARDS 1,071,224 $16.00 $$ 17,139,584 RESIDENTIAL SEGMENTS TOTAL LENGTHS 295,559 . RESIDENTIAL TRAVEL LANE MILES 111.95 CUL -DE -SACS TOTAL SQYARDS CUL -DE -SACS TOTAL LENGTHS 423,302 135,223 $13.50 $$ 5,714,577 CUL -DE -SACS TRAVEL LANE MILES 51.13 ASPHALT PAVEMENT TOTAL SQYARDS 2,243,781 ASPHALT PAVEMENT TOTAL VALUE $ 37,835,392 ASPHALT PAVEMENT TOTAL LENGTHS 645,468 ASPHALT PAVEMENT TRAVEL LANE MILES 245.45 PORTLAND CEMENT TOTAL SQYARDS 0 $35.00 $$ 0 PORTLAND CEMENT TOTAL LENGTHS 0 PORTLAND CEMENT TRAVEL LANE MILES 0.00 GRAVEL AREAS TOTAL SQYARDS 0 $ 5.00 $$ 0 GRAVEL AREAS TOTAL LENGTHS 0 GRAVEL AREAS TRAVEL LANE MILES 0.00 DIRT AREAS TOTAL SQYARDS 0 $ 2.00 $$ 0 DIRT AREAS TOTAL LENGTHS 0 DIRT AREAS TRAVEL LANE MILES 0.00 -GRAND TOTALS TRAVEL TOTAL LENGTHS -- -LANE MILES - -- -TOTAL SQ /YARDS - -TOTAL REPLACEMENT VALUE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 645,468 245.45 2,243,781 $$ 37,835,392.00 a m a a a m = a a m o s a a a = a a e > > z o s a m a s s a = a s = s a * PMi Pavement Maintenance System ** PAGE 3 #3 -6 * ** C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A * ** ASPHALT PAVEMENT CALCULATIONS VARIOUS PROGRAM COSTS DESCRIPTION VALUE DO NOTHING 10yr OVERLAY PM PROGRAM MAJ. ARTERIALS $ 4,507,346 DEPRECIATION 225,367 90,146 45,073 LENGTHS 51,465 PROGRAM COST 0 71,278 44,258 TRAVEL LANE MI 20.43 EST.ANNUAL /$ 225,367 161,425 89,331 TRAFFIC /YR. 53,365,696 EST. $ /TRIP $ 0.004 $ 0.003 $ 0.001 SQUARE YARDS 209,644 EST.$ /SQ.YD. $ 1.075 $ 0.770 $ 0.426 ARTERIALS $ 3,059,000 DEPRECIATION 152,950 61,180 30,590 LENGTHS 45,606 PROGRAM COST 0 52,003 32,289 TRAVEL LANE MI 17.82 EST.ANNUAL /$ 152,950 113,183 62,879 TRAFFIC /YR. 28,374,187 EST. $ /TRIP $ 0.005 $ 0.003 $ 0.002 SQUARE YARDS 152,950 EST.$ /SQ.YD. $ 1.000 $ 0.740 $ 0.411 COLLECTOR $ 6,321,100 DEPRECIATION 316,055 126,422 63,211 LENGTHS 100,032 PROGRAM COST 0 110,214 75,036 TRAVEL LANE MI 37.41 EST.ANNUAL /$ 316,055 236,636 138,247 TRAFFIC /YR. 34,575,454 EST. $ /TRIP $ 0.009 $ 0.006 $ 0.003 SQUARE YARDS 324,159 EST.$ /SQ.YD. $ 0.975 $ 0.730 $ 0.426 LOCAL SEGMENTS $ 1,093,785 DEPRECIATION 54,689 21,875 10,937 LENGTHS 17,583 PROGRAM COST 0 21,250 14,468 TRAVEL LANE MI 6.68 EST.ANNUAL /$ 54,689 43,126 25,405 TRAFFIC /YR. 2,430,982 EST. $ /TRIP $ 0.022 $ 0.017 $ 0.010 SQUARE YARDS 62,502 EST.$ /SQ.YD. $ 0.875 $ 0.690 $ 0.406 HVY.INDUSTRIAL $ 0 DEPRECIATION 0 0 0 LENGTHS 0 PROGRAM COST 0 0 0 TRAVEL LANE MI 0.00 EST.ANNUAL /$ 0 0 0 LGT.INDUSTRIAL $ 0 DEPRECIATION 0 0 0 LENGTHS 0 PROGRAM COST 0 0 0 TRAVEL LANE MI 0.00 EST.ANNUAL /$ 0 0 0 RESIDENTIAL LENGTHS $17,139,584 295,559 DEPRECIATION PROGRAM COST 856,979 0 342,791 364,216 171,395 224,957 TRAVEL LANE MI 111.95 EST.ANNUAL /$ 856,979 707,007 396,352 TRAFFIC /YR. 10,215,817 EST. $ /TRIP $ 0.083 $ 0.069 $ 0.038 SQUARE YARDS 1,071,224 EST.$ /SQ.YD. $ 0.800 $ 0.660 $ 0.370 CUL -DE -SACS $ 5,714,577 DEPRECIATION 285,728 114,291 57,145 LENGTHS 135,223 PROGRAM COST 0 143,922 51,736 TRAVEL LANE MI 51.13 EST.ANNUAL /$ 285,728 258,214 108,882 TRAFFIC /YR.' 467,390 EST. $ /TRIP $ 0.6.11 $ 0.552 $ 0.232 SQUARE YARDS 423,302 EST.$ /SQ.YD. $ 0.675 $ 0.610 $ 0.366 ASPHALT TOTALS $37,835,392 DEPRECIATION 1,891,769 756,707 378,353 LENGTHS 645,468 PROGRAM COST 0 762,885 4 746 TRAVEL LANE MI 245.45 EST.ANNUAL /$ 1,891,769 1,519,593 821,100 TRAFFIC /YR. 129,429,526 AVG. $ /TRIP. $ 0.014 $ 0.011 6 j SQUARE YARDS 2,243,781 AVG. $ /SQ.YD. $ 0.843 $ 0.677 $ 0.365 ** PMi Pavement Maintenance System ** PAGE 4 �J ■ L ■ J M ■ #3 -7 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE REPORT In each of the above methods, monies are set aside for depreciation or replacement of the pavement. These are monies which are necessary to re -build and correct pavements which are nearing the end of their life cycle. The other monies are the various program costs which, if not spent, means a de -facto "do nothing" program. A budget must be enacted that provides for the Preventative Maintenance Program if an agency is to prevent large debts in terms of major rehabilitation from coming due prematurely. As with any capital asset, proper maintenance is a vital factor in prolonging useful life, and the lack of maintenance will result in large scale deterioration. This deterioration is avoidable, but only through well - planned and executed maintenance, preservation and reconstruction programs. Failure to provide the needed level of maintenance results in a compounding of poor pavement conditions with each successive year. Continued inaction or insufficient action will allow pavement problems to reach a critical state where the agency is faced with an overwhelming demand that is difficult to fund. An effective maintenance program must have long range goals with specific intermediate steps and strategies. One way to define the most effective strategy is to generate data to identify as many factors in the pavement maintenance program as possible and systematically analyze them. PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE A new pavement that receives no maintenance other than filling pot holes has an anticipated life of 20 years. During this period, the pavement goes through distinct stages that correspond to ride quality. The ride quality is generally acceptable over the first 75% of the life cycle but declines rapidly during the final 25% of the cycle. By using appropriate maintenance activities at critical points during the life cycle, significant gains in pavement life can be achieved. The following page contains two graphs. The first (TOP) illustrates ak typical pavement life cycle and the second shows some typical maintenance operations and the gains that can be realized from each maintenance program. Minor patching and crack sealing are considered as part of each process. The graphs show a typical local pavement and how important it is to stay in the ''good " - "fair" range. Any dollar spent on keeping pavments "good" will save ten dollars in "poor ".pavement corrections. It is important to note that reconstruction must be a part of any comprehensive preservation program because pavement life cycles cannot be extended indefinitely even with good maintenance. The build -up of pavement from repeated maintenance work will eventually distort the pavement surface and create drainage problems. Also subsurface conditions can reach a point where surface treatment will not be effective. PAGE 5 ID W U U W w am* J Z W W Q C16 Q U 4 Milena A966 6 O m C 7 O C v E E _O V V Y u Q Y � V v oGV- N = N In N m D m N )goo d C C Ol e A d C d > d a r 3 . d u a U d J C d a u a a N 0 0 � o z W "� Z Q- �. W U crw -j LL Q > M W H h Q N OOI/lQ i #3 -8 � o 0 � m N n o 0 0 0 v v 0 0 - J O ■ #3 -9 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE REPORT PROGRAM ANALYSIS The method chosen to analyze the pavement maintenance program will compare the pavement life cycles of the various maintenance practices. The method takes the total square yards of pavement surface and assumes that each year the total pavement area loses one -year of life every year. In order to counter this loss, life must be added back to the system. This added life can be measured for comparison, by the same method, square yard - years. For example, a project is planned for overlaying a section of pavement with 30,000 square yards of asphalt. The overlay will add 10 years of life to the pavement. The result is 300,000 square yard - years of life added back to the pavement system. 30,000 sy x 10 yrs. = 300,000 sy yrs. PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE LIFE EXTENSION CHART * Note: Recontstruction occurs at end of Life Cycle. ** Note: Chip Seals are normally limited to stop -gap maintenance or pavements without curb and gutters. PAGE 7 -------------+---------+--------- +--------- +--------- +--- - - - - -: • Maintenance :Years of Pavement Life Extension :Average . -------------------- - ----------- - - - - -- - :Cost of . Activity :MAJOR/ :COLLECTOR:COMERCIAL:RESIDENT /:Process.: :ARTERIAL :HVY.IND. : /LOCAL :CULDE- SAC:$ /sq.yd.: .-------------+---------+--------- +--------- +--------- +--- - - - - -. . OilTreatment: 1- 3 2- 4 3- 5 4- 5 . $0.550 . avg_ /year : $0_275- : $0_183- : $0_137- : $0_122- : :- -$ - +- - +- - +- - +- - +--- - - - - -: . Oil Seal N/A 2 - 5 3 - 6 4 - 6 . $0.550 . avg_ /year $ : $0_183- : $0_122 : $0_110- : - -- - - - - -: - +- - +- - +- - +- - +- :- -$ - - - - -- Slurry Seal : 3- 5 3- 6 5- 8 6- 9 $0.550 . avg. $ /year . $0.137 . $0.122 . $0.084 . $0.073 .-------------+----_----+----_---- +---- +---- +--- - - - - -: Chip Seal ** : 3 5 _---- _---- 4 6 5 9 6 9• $0.750 . avg. $ /year . $0.187 . $0.150 . $0.107 . $0.100 +---- +---- +--- - - - -: :-------------+----_----+----_---- • Overlay 6 10 _---- _---- : • 7 12 • 8 12 • 9 11 • $3.500 . avg. $ /year . $0.437 . $0.394 . $0.350 . $0.400 +--------- +--------- +--- - - - - -: :-------------+---------+--------- *Rehabilitate: 20 20 20 20 • $19.00 . avg. $ /year . $1.075 $0.975 $0.875 $0.800 .-------------+---------+--------- +--------- +--------- +--- - - - - -. * Note: Recontstruction occurs at end of Life Cycle. ** Note: Chip Seals are normally limited to stop -gap maintenance or pavements without curb and gutters. PAGE 7 #3 -10 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE REPORT The optimum position to be in is to have a net loss of square yard years less than or equal to zero. The maintenance program proposed will accomplish this goal, plus put some betterment or extra life back into the system to make up for the many years that lacked preventative maintenance. Further, the need for an expanding maintenance program is reinforced with the increasing size and age of the pavement system. The pavement maintenance program we propose will take advantage of new equipment and new techniques now available for asphalt pavement maintenance. The proposed program is based on different levels of maintenance for different categories of pavements. We feel that this approach is more cost effective and will be able to preserve and improve the pavements to the level of maintenance they need. (See End of Report) BACKGROUND Currently, pavement areas are repaired or rebuilt as they fail and as funds become available. There is no long range program to protect and improve the large capital investment of the pavement system. How odd it is that'no agency, company or person would consider owning anything worth $ 37,835,392.00 without having a maintenance program, yet most all agencies are without a program for their pavement system. A prime reason for this is that until the development of the micro - processor chip, large amounts of data were processed on very large computing systems operated by a select few people who knew little about the needs of the line departments. However, with the speed of micro - processors and their easy operation, the line departments can now do for themselves what was only a dream a few years ago. Most organizations recognize the power of the micro - computer and are beginning to de- centralize their data processing into the line department by putting the tools of the future in the hands of the people who actually get the work done. Pavements, like any other structure, cannot be built and then ignored with the expectation that they will last forever. The life expectancy of pavement is proving to be less than anticipated. Pavements that had been built five to fifteen years ago using high design standards are showing the need for extensive maintenance years before they should. With 2,243,781 /sq.yds. of asphalt surfaced pavements to maintain, we recommend organizing maintenance efforts toward an automated preventative maintenance program. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Based on experience and other data we were able to gather we have established a schedule of maintenance to be performed. A pavement is given a place on the maintenance schedule based on its' age, traffic loadings, area drainage and present surface condition. PAGE 8 #3 -11 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE REPORT The pavements are divided into eight categories based on use characteristics. Each pavement is cataloged and placed on an inventory system as to its age and condition. The next step is to place each pavement in the proper maintenance program for the proper year. These programs include overlays, slurry seals, oil seals, oil treatments, heater remixing, cape seals and chip seal coats. Of course, these are done on an as- needed basis, and we do not limit the work to one particular category of pavement since other pavements may have deficiencies of a higher priority. Restricting maintenance operations to a particular area may reduce the relocation and set -up costs of a program. The first step to the maintenance program is to divide all of the pavements into categories and define a level of maintenance that is both desirable and affordable. The pavement categories are: 1. Major Arterials, 2. Arterials, 3. Collectors, 4. Heavy Industrial, 5. Light Industrial, 6. Local, 7. Residential Pavements, and 8. Cul -De -Sacs. The pavements are also separated by whether or not there are adjacent curbs and gutters. This doubles the number of categories and maintenance programs to sixteen. After the pavements are categorized it is then necessary to define the various maintenance and repair techniques used and to establish which technique is most effective for each pavement. Maintenance methods vary from potholing to overlays, (See Attached), and each pavement category will require a different method of maintenance. Some individual pavements may require special maintenance due to condition, drainage, or traffic volume. By considering the needs of each type of pavement and using the optimum method at the appropriate time we are able to develop the maintenance program for each category of pavement. LATE FALL & EARLY SPRING PROGRAM In order to initiate preventative maintenance, the following repair programs must be undertaken before the summer months and before the maintenance programs are started: 1. Crack filling program using a router grinder to clean out cracks and a rubberized asphalt to seal them. 2. An asphalt leveling program to take dips and bumps out.. 3. A fabric patching program using the reinforcing fabric instead of digging out a lot of failures. BUDGET ESTIMATES The budgets recommended are realistic considering the current condition of the pavements and the amount of pavement there is to take care of. The amount requested is necessary to keep the good pavements in order and at the same time do some corrective action on deteriorated pavements. Below is listed the estimated Pavement Maintenance Program Budget Totals for the next several years. The listing of the actual work to be done is attached. All dollar amounts are in current dollars. PAGE 9 #3 -12 05/01/87 * ** C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A * ** PAGE 10 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1987 -W PROGRAM SQ /YARDS $ /SgYd WORKING BUDGET ADDED SQ /YARD 9' LANES ESTIMATE LIFE YEARS OIL TREATMENT 30,238 $ 0.550 5.79 $ 16,630 3 90,714 OIL SEAL 20,845 $ 0.550 3.99 $ 11,464 4 83,380 SLURRY SEAL 345,267 $ 0.550 66.14 $ 189,896 5 1,726,335 CHIP SEAL 87,673 $ 0.750 16.79 $ 65,754 6 526,038 THIN OVERLAY 13,473 $ 3.000 2.58 $ 40,419 9 121,257 MEDIUM OVERLAY 14,661 $ 3.500 2.80 $ 51,313 10 146,610 HEAVY OVERLAY 17,590 $ 4.000 3.36 $ 70,360 11 193,490 REHABILITATION 22,438 $19.000 4.29 $ 426,322 20 448,760 STRESS -LAYER 111,385 $ 1.000 21.33 $ 111,385 PM PREPARATORY REPAIRS ------------------------------------------------------- $ 55,729 - - - - -- ** TOTALS . . . 663,570 127.12mi. $$ 1,039,276 3,318,994 Total Pavement System Square Yards 2,243,781 Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE 1,075,213 aaaaas= .aaaa. Estimated BUDGET as per -cent of System Value 2.746% + NOTE: Repair estimate is based on 12 1/2% of the MAJOR PM PROGRAM Costs for each year. Actual repair costs should be budgeted, based on a COMPREHENSIVE REPAIR INVENTORY. ++ NOTE: Rehabilitation estimate is based on Rehabilitating 1% of the Pavement System each year. #3 -13 05/01/87 * ** C I T Y O F S A R A T 0 G A * ** PAGE 11 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1988- PROGRAM SQ /YARDS $ /SgYd WORKING BUDGET ADDED SQ /YARD 9' LANES ESTIMATE LIFE YEARS OIL TREATMENT 101,234 $ 0.550 19.39 $ 55,678 3 303,702 OIL SEAL 30,972 $ 0.550 5.93 $ 17,034 4 123,888 SLURRY SEAL 76,318 $ 0.550 14.62 $ 41,974 5 381,590 CHIP SEAL 92,561 $ 0.750 17.73 $ 69,420 6 555,366 THIN OVERLAY 0 $ 3.000 0.00 $ 0 9 0 MEDIUM OVERLAY 9,099 $ 3.500 1.74 $ 31,846 10 90,990 HEAVY OVERLAY 0 $ 4.000 0.00 $ 0 11 0 REHABILITATION 22,438 $19.000 4.29 $ 426,322 20 448,760 STRESS -LAYER 83,001 $ 1.000 15.90 $ 83,001 PM PREPARATORY REPAIRS ------------------------------------------------------- $ 26,994 - - - - -- ** TOTALS . . . 415,623 79.62mi. $$ 752,272 Total Pavement System Square Yards Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE Estimated BUDGET as per -cent of System Value 1.988% + NOTE: Repair estimate is based on 12 1/2% of the MAJOR PM PROGRAM Costs for each year. Actual repair costs should be budgeted, based on a COMPREHENSIVE REPAIR INVENTORY. ++ NOTE: Rehabilitation estimate is based on Rehabilitating 1% of the Pavement System each year. 1,904,296 2,243,781 - 339,485 ** TOTALS . . . 296,682 56.83mi. $$ 679,891 a a a a a s as as a s a a a a a a a x a x as a s xa as a a a s as s a a a s a s as ss s s Total Pavement System Square Yards Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE _ Estimated BUDGET as per -cent of System Value 1.796% + NOTE: Repair estimate is based on 12 1/2% of the MAJOR PM PROGRAM Costs for each year. Actual repair costs should be budgeted, based on a COMPREHENSIVE REPAIR INVENTORY. ++ NOTE: Rehabilitation estimate is based on Rehabilitating 1% of the Pavement System each year. r 1,841,901 2,243,781 - 401,880 ssssssssssss #3 -14 05/01/87 * ** C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A * ** PAGE 12. PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE BUDGET 198940 PROGRAM SQ /YARDS $ /SgYd WORKING BUDGET ADDED SQ /YARI 9' LANES ESTIMATE LIFE YEARS OIL TREATMENT 13,490 $ 0.550 2.58 $ 7,419 3 40,47( OIL SEAL 3,355 $ 0.550 0.64 $ .1,845 4 13,42( SLURRY SEAL 121,663 $ 0.550 23.30 $ 66,914 5 608,31! CHIP SEAL 95,156 $ 0.750 18.22 $ 71,367 6 570,93E THIN OVERLAY 0 $ 3.000 0.00 $ 0 9 MEDIUM OVERLAY 16,000 $ 3.500 3.06 $ 56,000 10 160,00( HEAVY OVERLAY 0 $ 4.000 0.00 $ 0 11 REHABILITATION 22,438 $19.000 4.29 $ 426,322 20 448,76C STRESS -LAYER 24,580 $ 1.000 4.70 $ 24,580 PM PREPARATORY REPAIRS ------------------------------------------------------- $ 25,443 - - - - -- ** TOTALS . . . 296,682 56.83mi. $$ 679,891 a a a a a s as as a s a a a a a a a x a x as a s xa as a a a s as s a a a s a s as ss s s Total Pavement System Square Yards Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE _ Estimated BUDGET as per -cent of System Value 1.796% + NOTE: Repair estimate is based on 12 1/2% of the MAJOR PM PROGRAM Costs for each year. Actual repair costs should be budgeted, based on a COMPREHENSIVE REPAIR INVENTORY. ++ NOTE: Rehabilitation estimate is based on Rehabilitating 1% of the Pavement System each year. r 1,841,901 2,243,781 - 401,880 ssssssssssss #3 -15 13 06/02/87 * ** C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A * ** PAGE -14 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1990 -91 PROGRAM SQ /YARDS $ /SgYd WORKING BUDGET ADDED SQ /YARD 9' LANES ESTIMATE LIFE YEARS OIL TREATMENT 66,565 $0.550 12.75 $ 36,610 3 199,695 OIL SEAL 0 $ 0.550 0.00 $ 0 4 0 SLURRY SEAL 231,347 $ 0.550 44.31 $ 127,240 5 1,156,735 CHIP SEAL 157,392 $ 0.750 30.15 $ 118,044 6 944,352 THIN OVERLAY 0 $ 3.000 0-.00 $ 0 9 0 MEDIUM OVERLAY 12,730 $ 3.500 2.43 $ 44,555 10 127,300 HEAVY OVERLAY 0 $ 4.000 0.00 $ 0 11 0 REHABILITATION 22,438 $19.000 4.29 $ 426,322 20 448,760 STRESS -LAYER 61,755 $ 1.000 11.83 $ 61,755 PM PREPARATORY REPAIRS ------------------------------------------------------------- $ 40,806 ** TOTALS . . . 552,227 105.79mi. $$ 855,334 2,876,842 Total Pavement. System Square Yards Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE Estimated BUDGET as per -cent of System Value 2.260% + NOTE: Repair estimate is based on 12 1/2% of the MAJOR PM PROGRAM Costs for each year. Actual repair costs should be budgeted, based on a COMPREHENSIVE REPAIR INVENTORY. i ++ NOTE: Rehabilitation estimate is based on Rehabilitating 1% of the Pavement System each year. i 2,243,781 633,061 #3 -16 06/02/87 * ** C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A * ** PAGE -Irk PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1991-92 PROGRAM SQ /YARDS $ /SgYd WORKING BUDGET ADDED SQ /YARD 9' LANES ESTIMATE LIFE YEARS OIL TREATMENT 103,391 $ 0.550 19.80 $ 56,865 3 310,173 OIL SEAL 0 $ 0.550 0.00 $ 0 4 0 SLURRY SEAL 163,322 $ 0.550 31.28 $ 89,827 5 816,610 CHIP SEAL 136,820 $ 0.750 26.21 $ 102,615 6 820,920 THIN OVERLAY 0 $ 3.000 0.00 $ 0 9 0 MEDIUM OVERLAY 2,189 $ 3.500 0.41 $ 7,661 10 21,890 HEAVY OVERLAY 0 $ 4.000 0.00 $ 0 11 0 REHABILITATION 22,438 $19.000 4.29 $ 426,322 20 448,760 STRESS -LAYER 6,873 $ 1.000 1.31 $ 6,873 PM PREPARATORY REPAIRS ------------------------------------------------------- $ 32,121 - - - - -- ** TOTALS . . . 435,033 83.33mi. $$ 722,285 Total Pavement System Square Yards Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE Estimated BUDGET as per -cent of System Value 1.909% + NOTE: Repair estimate is based on 12 1/2% of the MAJOR PM PROGRAM Costs for each year. Actual repair costs should be budgeted, based on a COMPREHENSIVE REPAIR INVENTORY. ++ NOTE: Rehabilitation estimate is based on Rehabilitating 1% of the Pavement System each year. 2,418,353 2,243,781 174,572 #3 -18 06/02/87 * ** C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A * ** PAGE -}$ PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE BUDGET 19 9 3 -9f< PROGRAM SQ /YARDS $ /SgYd WORKING BUDGET ADDED SQ /YARD 9' LANES ESTIMATE LIFE YEARS OIL TREATMENT 130,451 $ 0.550 24.99 $ 71,748 3 391,353 OIL SEAL 77,464 $ 0.550 14.83 $ 42,605 4 309,856 SLURRY SEAL 161,462 $ 0.550 30.93 $ 88,804 5 807,310 CHIP SEAL 59,634 $ 0.750 11.42 $ 44,725 6 357,804 THIN OVERLAY 14,984 $ 3.000 2.87 $ 44,952 - 9 134,856 MEDIUM OVERLAY 34,442 $ 3.500 6.59 $ 120,547 10 344,420 HEAVY OVERLAY 21,715 $ 4.000 4.15 $ 86,860 11 238,865 REHABILITATION 22,438 $19.000 4.29 $ 426,322 20 448,760 STRESS -LAYER 0 $ 1.000 0.00 $ 0 PM PREPARATORY REPAIRS ------------------------------------------------------------- $ 62,530 ** TOTALS . . . 522,590 100.11mi. $$ 989,094 3,011,509 Total Pavement System Square Yards 2,243,781 Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE - - - -- 767,728 Estimated BUDGET as per -cent of System Value 2.614% + NOTE: Repair estimate is based on 12 1/2% of the MAJOR PM PROGRAM Costs for each year. Actual repair costs should be budgeted, based on a COMPREHENSIVE REPAIR INVENTORY. ++ NOTE: Rehabilitation estimate is based on Rehabilitating 1% of the Pavement System each year. #3 -17 iS 06/02/87 * ** C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A * ** PAGE tt_ PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1992 -93 PROGRAM SQ /YARDS $ /SgYd WORKING BUDGET ADDED SQ /YARD 9' LANES ESTIMATE LIFE YEARS OIL TREATMENT 17,970 $ 0.550 3.44 $ 9,883 3 53,910 OIL SEAL 0 $ 0.550 0.00 $ 0 4 0 SLURRY SEAL 224,793 $ 0.550 43.06 $ 123,636 5 1,123,965 CHIP SEAL 102,974 $ 0.750 19.72 $ 77,230 6 617,844 THIN OVERLAY 17,983 $ 3.000 3.44 $ 53,949 9 161,847 MEDIUM OVERLAY 35,333 $ 3.500 6.76 $ 123,665 10 353,330 HEAVY OVERLAY 56,656 $ 4.000 10.85 $ 226,624 11 623,216 REHABILITATION 22,438 $19.000 4.29 $ 426,322 20 448,760 STRESS -LAYER 14,019 $ 1.000 2.68 $ 14,019 PM PREPARATORY REPAIRS ------------------------------------------------------------- $ 76,873 ** TOTALS . . . 492,166 94.28mi..$$ 1,132,203 3,326,216 Total Pavement System Square Yards 2,243,781 Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE ------- - - - - -- 1,082,435 Estimated BUDGET as per -cent of System Value 2.992% + NOTE: Repair estimate is based on 12 1/2% of the MAJOR PM PROGRAM Costs for each year. Actual repair costs should be budgeted, based on a COMPREHENSIVE REPAIR INVENTORY. ++ NOTE: Rehabilitation estimate is based on Rehabilitating 1% of the Pavement System each year. #3 -19 06/02/87 17 * ** C I T Y O F S A R A T 0 G A * * *. PAGE -1- PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1994-9S .PROGRAM SQ /YARDS $ /SgYd WORKING BUDGET ADDED SQ /YARD 9' LANES ESTIMATE LIFE YEARS OIL TREATMENT 61,280 $ 0.550 11.73 $ 33,704 3 183,840 OIL SEAL 8,164 $ 0.550 1.56 $ .4,490 4 32,656 SLURRY SEAL 60,241 $ 0.550 11.54 $ 33,132 5 301,205 CHIP SEAL 49,131 $ 0.750 9.41 $ 36,848 6 294,786 THIN OVERLAY 84,326 $ 3.000 16.15 $ 252,978 9 758034 MEDIUM OVERLAY 55,345 $ 3.500 10.60 $ 193,707- 10 553,450 HEAVY OVERLAY 16,704 $ 4.000 3.20 $ 66,816 11 183,744 REHABILITATION 22,438 $19.000 4.29 $ 426,322 20 448,760 STRESS -LAYER 0 $ 1.000 0.00 $ 0 PM PREPARATORY REPAIRS --------------------------------------------------- $ 77,709 ** TOTALS 357,629 68.51mi. $$ 1,125,708 2,740,671 Total Pavement System Square Yards Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE Estimated BUDGET as per -cent of System Value 2.975% + NOTE: Repair estimate is based on 12 1/2% of the MAJOR PM PROGRAM Costs for each year. Actual repair costs should be budgeted, based on a COMPREHENSIVE REPAIR INVENTORY. ++ NOTE: Rehabilitation estimate is based on Rehabilitating 1% of the Pavement System each year. 2,243,781 496,890 #3 -20 /F 06/02/87 * ** C I T Y OF S A R A T O G A * ** PAGE 3t PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE BUDGET 1995 -?k PROGRAM SQ /YARDS $ /SgYd WORKING BUDGET ADDED SQ /YARD 9' LANES ESTIMATE LIFE YEARS OIL TREATMENT 96,197 $ 0.550 18.42 $ 52,908 3 288,591 OIL SEAL 10,847 $ '0.550 2.07 $ 5,965 4 43,388 SLURRY SEAL. 39,030 $ 0.550 7.47 $ 21,466 5 195,150 CHIP SEAL 65,449 $ 0.750 12.53 $ 49,086 6 392,694 THIN OVERLAY 179,611 $ 3.000 34.40 $ 538,833 9 1,616,499 MEDIUM OVERLAY 4,077 $ 3.500 0.78 $ 14,269 10 40,770 HEAVY OVERLAY 0 $ 4.000 0.00 $ 0 11 0 REHABILITATION 22,438 $19.000 4.29 $ 426,322 20 448,760 STRESS -LAYER 0 $ 1.000 0.00 $ 0 PM PREPARATORY REPAIRS ------------------------------------------------------- $ 85,316 ** TOTALS . . . 417,649 80.00mi. $$ 1,194,168 3,025,852 Total Pavement System Square Yards Net Increase or Decrease in SYSTEM LIFE Estimated BUDGET as per -cent of System Value 3.156% + .NOTE: Repair estimate is based on 12 1/2% of the MAJOR PM PROGRAM Costs for each year. Actual repair costs should be budgeted, based on a COMPREHENSIVE REPAIR INVENTORY. ++ NOTE: Rehabilitation estimate is based on Rehabilitating 1% of the Pavement System each year. 2,243,781 782,071 ATTACHMENT #4 SYSTEM LIFE ANALYSIS FOR WORK COMPLETED F.Y. 1984/85 PROGRAM ADDED LIFE WORK COMPLETED ADDED LIFE COST UNIT CO YEARS SQUARE YARDS SQ.YDS.YEARS $ /Sq.Yd. SLURRY SEAL 5 0 0 CHIP SEAL 6 370430 2222580 $191,450 $0.52 CAPE SEAL 8 0 0 THIN OVERLAY 9 92737 834633 $853,750 $9.21 REHABILITATION 20 0 0 TOTAL COMPLETED 3057213 $1,045,200 LIFE SYSTEM NEEDS 2243781 NET GAIN or ( LOSS) 813432 ROUTINE DIRECT STREET MAINTENANCE COSTS N.A. F.Y. 1985/86 PROGRAM ADDED LIFE WORK COMPLETED ADDED LIFE COST YEARS SQUARE YARDS SQ.YDS.YEARS SLURRY SEAL 5 0 0 CHIP SEAL 6 92235 553410 $88,831 $0.96 CAPE SEAL 8 0 0 THIN OVERLAY 9 82778 745002 $423,382 $5.11 REHABILITATION 20 23935 478700 $519,702 $21.71 TOTAL COMPLETED 1777112 $1,031,915 LIFE SYSTEM NEEDS 2243781 NET GAIN or ( LOSS) - 466669 ROUTINE .DIRECT STREET MAINTENANCE COSTS $392,237 TOTAL $1,424,152 F.Y. 1986/87 PROGRAM ADDED LIFE WORK COMPLETED ADDED LIFE COST YEARS SQUARE YARDS SQ.YDS.YEARS SLURRY SEAL 5 0 0 CHIP SEAL 6 163200 979200 $271,927 $1.67 CAPE SEAL 8 0 0 THIN OVERLAY 9 64332 578988 $321,000 $4.99 REHABILITATION 20 11813 236260 $238,751 $20.21 TOTAL COMPLETED 1794448 $831,678 LIFE SYSTEM NEEDS 2243781 NET GAIN or ( LOSS) - 449333 ROUTINE DIRECT STREET MAINTENANCE COSTS $262,320 TOTAL $1,093,998 #4 -2 F.Y. 1987/88 PROGRAM ADDED LIFE WORK COMPLETED ADDED LIFE COST YEARS SQUARE YARDS SQ.YDS.YEARS SLURRY SEAL 5 444805 2224025 $477,688 $1.07 CHIP SEAL 6 0 0 CAPE SEAL 8 0 0 THIN OVERLAY 9 27767 249903 $333,779 $12.02 REHABILITATION 20 0 0 TOTAL COMPLETED 2473928 $811,467 LIFE SYSTEM NEEDS 2243781 NET GAIN or (LOSS) 230147 ROUTINE DIRECT STREET MAINTENANCE COSTS $276,545 TOTAL $1,088,012 F.Y. 1988/89 PROGRAM ADDED LIFE WORK COMPLETED ADDED LIFE COST YEARS SQUARE YARDS SQ.YDS.YEARS SLURRY SEAL 5 106103 530515 $57,540 $0.54 CHIP SEAL 6 12667 76002 $17,000 $1.34 CAPE SEAL 8 98495 787960 $187,567 $1.90 THIN OVERLAY 9 74247 668223 $651,060 $8.77 REHABILITATION 20 17316 346320 $270,264 $15.61 TOTAL COMPLETED 2409020 $1,183,431 LIFE SYSTEM NEEDS 2243781 NET GAIN or (LOSS) 165239 ROUTINE DIRECT STREET MAINTENANCE COSTS $324,523 TOTAL $1,507,954 F.Y. 1989/90 (1) .PROGRAM ADDED LIFE WORK COMPLETED ADDED LIFE COST YEARS SQUARE YARDS SQ.YDS.YEARS SLURRY SEAL 5 112194 560970 $101,830 $0.91 CHIP SEAL 6 0 0 CAPE SEAL 8 87819 702552 $145,513 $1.66 THIN OVERLAY 9 32087 288783 $434,403 $13.54 REHABILITATION 20 0 0 TOTAL COMPLETED 1552305 $681,746 LIFE SYSTEM NEEDS 2243781 NET GAIN or (LOSS) - 691476 ROUTINE DIRECT STREET MAINTENANCE COSTS $331,720 TOTAL $1,013,466 #4-3 (1) Work not completed at present time. (2) Budgeted F.Y. 1990/91 (2) PROGRAM ADDED LIFE WORK COMPLETED ADDED LIFE COST YEARS SQUARE YARDS SQ.YDS.YEARS SLURRY SEAL 5 161518 807590 $96,910 $0.60 CHIP SEAL 6 0 0 CAPE SEAL 8 115122 920976 $230,244 $2.00 THIN OVERLAY 9 27458 247122 $104,340 $3.80 REHABILITATION 20 22438 448760 $426,322 $19.00 TOTAL COMPLETED 2424448 $857,816 LIFE SYSTEM NEEDS 2243781 NET GAIN or (LOSS) 180667 ROUTINE DIRECT STREET MAINTENANCE COSTS $341,999 TOTAL $1,199,815 (1) Work not completed at present time. (2) Budgeted ATTACHMENT #5 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 September 15, 1989 MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman City Council Director of Maintenance PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AN OVERVIEW OF WORK COMPLETED SINCE 1984 During the past six years, we 'have sealed or resurfaced approximately 80% of all currently existing streets in Saratoga. Of the 20% not completed to date, approximately 15% are relatively new streets and will not be needing treatment for the next several years. The remaining 5% are scheduled either next year or the following year. Of those completed, half have had two treatments. The reason for some streets receiving two treatments while others have had none can be explained in one of three ways: 1) The first treatment was a stop -gap measure to prevent further serious deterioration. 2) The first layer was a chip seal, which we are now attempting to cover using a slurry seal. 3) The street did not need immediate attention. Our program calls for a city -wide condition survey every four years, at which time the street surfaces are evaluated. Data reflecting their conditions is inputted for computer analysis. This city -wide survey is scheduled after next year's program is completed. I am certain that all but the newest streets will have been treated during the first two years of the next four -year cycle. I will be more than happy to 4ni,6 , Jr. Director of Maintenance. DT /mt answer any specific questions as ATTACHMENT #6 w M O O P O M O O O 11, w r�- ,O J P N W 10 fz P 10 0m 0Ni�tn4 N rCD N ( co cliO N to 0C. 0iJ d<tnJ010�. -P NCDol ~10tH stn O J c - OP W J 'O J P N f\ > P O N N V1 W to N V1 O w vi Ln r In N N co Q �- N J f.- M N fl- 10 M M > to to P to to Q M N M M J f` v > M O to Q M J v CD M P 10 10 N 10 fl O M co 10 10 fl- N co M P t(! O P O P ff.rry� P co O f• O J P p. O to J O 10 O 1� " P J f` M P to O 01 N 10 to Y P P 10 J M P J M to Y 10 ` N N 10 Y to N CO LL to N m co co LL f"I N LL N N O J 10 O .- Lrl 00 J V1 N N O J O 'O V1 In N P 9 10 00 J 1n N V1 co N to M 10 O pp.. P QO M J � N pp.. �t N N J O P f� O N V01 J P OO N >OP 10 LL 10 M M POrn CO to O CO co YLAP 10� M Y M N J ti J LL ^ r J 10 to 10 W CO J 0 J to N O f� O 00 to 10 10 J N J M O J CO J N 10 J f- tn In 0 O J P M M P P O 10 P to to p1 O P to J to 10 O N O N M M P P O N N J O 01 M M J N YN P10 M PO1pM M Yto MO O 00 Y M M LL to 10 M t`f� P� to LLP co PP 10 .. LL00 to 10F2 N J f� r J M N N J J J J rpn. NO M J 010. +�1 M to MJtnNJ P V1 J �0 U1 to .. Z Mf�Mtntn P10 to O Pti 100 J NP O N P_ O N 10 P P 10 P N P M Y 10 P 10 LL to 10 N M co N N M N O P P Y f` t` J CO h cl _P W J M N J J 1n J to r r v ~ CIJ (m L] OAP 1l0O OMO �n ��0� L P OPO n ti PONO ~P 1M0 Uri w Y V1 P 10 a LL to 10 to 10 J f� 10 V1 P M f� f` 00 M Y P 00 00 N LL M f- > N ` M 0. X N J 10 J to �O J M N J CO O J M LL J M CO P J O w Z t2 N O Q p� to O P 10 O N to to '0 M O N to pppp co M V1 O 01 N 10O N O M .t fM� NN�A O P P 01 It N CO O O N w PP MM EO O PPPOO OO Ln LL to N� to CO to � P 00 00 O 1f) LL P to Y N J P r- W > J cli M M J O, r N CD, LL v W ^ v O N N O co N O to \ co M O O M M f. M O O co M M co W J Ln O U O CO OO f` . �O t J V1 P P N J O f� J N P to P J O J 10 N f� N M N M J h c1 N P �t N P Q Y J 01 10 to to f� J N J O Y N J O J 10 > Z LL^ 10 to co h N co Cl P, LL M J M J V\ LL CD IIt3 ttV W N J 10 M M N J M M M M 1+1 M Q P J O f� M M_ �O O O M P M N O �t J O to 3 P CO M CO CO E CON 10O NPN .M CO 00 co NO 10 r4 t` P O co fn P Ic N O N DO O M N .- f� P to O N .- O N J P f� O t2 W Y M 10 10 w LLtn� 10 J N N O P a0 Y J N O 00 10 f` LL Y O 00 1p P z N J J r�or� 10 P LLN 10 to N(D x LLJ 0 10 V) M N 10 N N N v (n U f� v - r r oppp pppp °o Ccpp .p.ppp 10 rm aO0p 0. 10 - O a00 1P010�0 P PuJi 10� P P o 001�PPM > O M 10 LL J 1� 00 10 (7 P Y 10 N V) 00 10 M > to P 10 00 N J f� J Ln N V1 1n N J M P O LL pn O 01 Ir O f� N to O N CO .CC.pppp �ht M_ M f1^0 O J f� co cli r4 10 O f� O f� to f� 10 to 10 PN011 C- �z MPt� 00 tton P_MPO1 10. .PO COp 2 _J P00010.- �col N OJ �OJ YN `COM N v Y10 `Ntn 10 O LL N N O LL M O O M N to 10 N M 1Q J f` O J aall .t O M 10 M J P O O N CO O P M t 00 .O n N N N O0 .O �t .tom N 10 O f� to to to f� N f� N a0 M M a0 O P N w M f� � .0 c0 c0 f� OO Ln O CO N O Y 0 P 10 D O O M N It 10 N Y ev op M P J Y f-- N J 10 LL J 10 O to .- OP J M CO LL P c0 N .- N J LL f-- tb N M N N 10 J M J to W Z N W V) > OC W w w 9z r a x W Z W > 4 H w Q w w U f- z oe w x r N (m 2 W W 2 2 J W W U U Z Z Ix C w W 2 2 w z S W (A .U.. 0. Z z V1 OC J J C7 W J cc H Z H z (..) S S CO m Q z x Q x CL V) Q z w w H O w � H v Q Ln H Vl x H Z x Z Q 0 Y O W Z 2 S o to d O w X z U oc w CC > > ur ,10 N f� O 1- W O O O M Q 0 = z Q z H Y .; U t- > Q ¢ S = d 1- U x = 1- O LL LL z X cm ei w Q W 0 N Y z Vl C\ z Q Y H J N W 0 W w U' W Q N N N V1 LL LL ] `- Q w H W LL d V! Q > 2 m (N z x H w > V) J Q CO 1 GC J A W J d W W S OC J z W 7 CC O U J Q ex W z 2 2 W w V) d d H 0 N ;: U H \ /- U 2 F- O Ix 1- > N W U W Q w> W d I- O N W w> M O 0. W x J a 0 O O -+ 1- N CL ix nc N f- cc 0 CC w U ATTACHMENT #7 CITY OF SARATOGA SUMARY OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE FOR STREET AND ROAD PURPOSES 1980/87 TOTALS BY CATEGORY - CITY OF SARATOGA REVENUE --------------------------------------------- - - - - -- FISCAL STATE FEDERAL LOCAL TOTAL REVENUE YEAR FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS AVAILABLE EXPENSE POPULATION COST /CAPITA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1980/81 $272,390 $0 $184,766 $457,156 $162,426 29,299 $5.54 1981/82 $258,371 $110,263 $381,854 $750,488 $629,233 29,702 $21.18 1982/83 $353,381 $416,526 $429,679 $1,199,586 $1,248,090 29,971 $41.64 1983/84 $456,115 $324,060 $362,177 $1,142,352 $1,214,618 30,026 $40.45 1984/85 $423,653 $193,281 $356,226 $973,160 $1,434,150 30,026 $47.76 1985/86 $632,792 $24,005 $960,668 $1,617,465 $1,401,414 30,026 $46.67 1986/87 $505,946 $68,868 $1,011,843 $1,586,657 $1,621,499 30,026 $54.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $2,902,648 $1,137,003 $3,687,213 $7,726,864 $7,711,430 29,868 $36.75 (1) TOTALS BY CATEGORY - FIFTEEN CITIES (INCLUDES SARATOGA) REVENUE FISCAL STATE FEDERAL LOCAL TOTAL REVENUE YEAR FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS AVAILABLE EXPENSE POPULATION COST /CAPITA 1980/81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $12,189,371 $5,236,650 $55,091,393 $72,517,414 $72,941,981 1,198,187 $46.47 1981/82 $12,880,126 $2,952,534 $66,680,716 $82,513,376 $85,933,461 1,212,920 $58.00 1982/83 $15,451,010 $2,556,871 $68,456,104 $86,463,985 $85,216,085 1,235,109 $50.87 1983/84 $19,824,461 $2,963,158 $58,819,609 $81,607,228 $78,656,263 1,258,851 $54.37 1984/85 $19,678,225 $2,511,086 $76,211,562 $98,400,873 $96,303,785 1,283,420 $57.51 1985/86 $28,588,694 $2,480,603 $78,497,084 $109,566,381 $97,464,193 1,303,564 $53.39 1986/87 $24,101,619 $5,138,680 $109,907,302 $139,147,601 $133,232,956 1,308,463 $69.10 $132,713,506 $23,839,582 $513,663,770 $670,216,858 $649,748,724 $1,257,216 $55.67 (2) STATISTICAL MEASURES - SARATOGA /SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITIES IN TOTAL --------------------------------------------------- REVENUE FISCAL STATE FEDERAL LOCAL TOTAL YEAR FUNDS FUNDS FUNDS AVAILABLE EXPENSE POPULATION COST /CAPITA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1980/81 2.23$ 0.00% 0.34% 0.63$ 0.22% 2.45$ 11.93$ 1981/82 2.01% 3.73% 0.57% 0.91% 0.73% 2.45% 36.53% 1982/83 2.29% 16.29 %. 0.63% 1.39% 1.46% 2.43% 81.86% 1983/84 2.30% 10.941 0.62% 1.40% 1.54% 2.39% 74.40% 1984/85 2.15$ 7.70% 0.47% 0.99% 1.49% 2.34$ 83.05% 1985/86 2.21% 0.97% 1.22% 1.48% 1.44% 2.30% 87.42% 1986/87 2.10% 1.34% 0.92% 1.14% 1.22% 2.29$ 78.15% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.18% 5.85% 0.68% 1.13% 1.16% 2.38% 64.76% (1) SEVEN YEAR AVERAGE COST PER CAPITA FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA (2) SEVEN YEAR AVERAGE COST PER CAPITA FOR THE CITIES IN SANTA a" COUNTY #7 -2 SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES FOR STREET AND ROAD PURPOSES 1980/81 NILES COST/ TOTAL EXPENSE IMPROVED STREET $ COST/ CITY WITHIN COUNTY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVAILABLE EXPENSE POPULATION COST /CAPITA % PER CAPITA STREETS MILE STREET MILE CA.HPBELL 2,394,789 2,208,674 30,934 $71.40 154% 87 25,504 154% CUPERTINO 1,544,407 1,266,661 36,520 $34.68 75% 118 10,725 65% GILROY 857,033 776,645 22,263 $34.89 75% 66 11,767 71% LOS ALTOS 1,273,054 1,182,068 26,273 $44.99 97% 109 10,875 65% LAS ALTOS HILLS 246,440 223,044 7,487 $29.79 64% 60 3,742 23% LOS GATOS 1,126,987 953,436 26,784 $35.60 77% 150 6,373 381 MILPITAS 2,708,825 2,593,410 38,624 $67.15 144% 118 22,015 133% MONTE SERENO 80,429 44,516 3,466 $12.84 28% 13 3,505 21% MORGAN HILL 572,073 758,097 17,773 $42.65 92% 72 10,558 64% MOUNTAIN VIEW 8,066,044 8,485,742 59,488 $142.65 307% 141 60,012 361% PALO ALTO 3,653,154 5,027,050 55,406 $90.73 195% 193 26,074 157% SAN JOSE 37,204,055 37,595,888 647,542 $58.06 125% 1,588 23,675 143% SANTA CLARA 61309,633 5,280,438 87,746 $60.18 130% 223 23,637 142% SARATOGA 457,156 162,426 29,299 $5.54 12% 113 1,437 9% SUNNYVALE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6,023,335 6,383,886 108,582 $58.79 127% 266 24,027 145% TOTALS 72,517,414 72,941,981 1,198,187 $46.47 234.2 $16,610 1981/82 MILES COST/ TOTAL EXPENSE IMPROVED STREET % COST/ CITY WITHIN COUNTY AVAILABLE EXPENSE POPULATION COST /CAPITA % PER CAPITA STREETS NILE STREET MILE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAMPBELL 2,088,526 4,563,458 31,702 $143.95 248% 87 52,696 300% CUPERTINO 21435,190 4,146,497 36,800 $112.68 194% 118 35,110 200% GILROY 1,215,908 1,055,064 22,948 $45.98 79% 66 15,986 91% LOS ALTOS 1,582,094 1,564,744 26,273 $59.56 103% 109 14,395 82% LOS ALTOS HILLS 139,541 185,418 7,501 $24.72 43% 60 3,111 18% LOS GATOS 1,100,400 1,266,048 27,179 $46.58 80% 150 8,463 48% MILPITAS 1,442,235 1,692,273 39,135 $43.24 751 118 14,366 82% MONTE SERENO 123,712 134,479 3,466 $38.80 67% 13 10,589 60% MORGAN HILL 495,782 475,394 18,304 $25.97 45% 72 6,621 38% MOUNTAIN VIEW 8,317,045 7,585,387 59,847 $126.75 219% 141 53,645 306% PALO ALTO 3,712,093 4,071,437 55,406 $73.48 127% 193 21,117 120% SAN JOSE 43,973,941 43,123,001 658,366 $65.50 113% 1,588 27,156 155% SANTA CLARA 6,361,123 7,003,455 87,709 $79.85 138% 223 31,349 179% SARATOGA 750,488 629,233 29,702 $21.18 37% 113 5,568 32% SUNNYVALE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8,775,298 8,437,573 108,582 $77.71 134% 266 31,756 181% TOTALS 82,513,376 85,933,461 1,212,920 $58.00 234.2 $17,549 1982/83 TOTAL CITY WITHIN COUNTY AVAILABLE MILES EXPENSE IMPROVED EXPENSE POPULATION COST /CAPITA $ PER CAPITA STREETS -------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- #7 -3 COST/ STREET $ COST/ MILE STREET NILE ------------- - - - - -- CAMPBELL 2,028,348 2,000,635 33,067 $60.50 119$ 87 23,102 131% CUPERTINO 2,186,592 1,882,977 37,774 $49.85 98% 118 15,944 91% GILROY 1,184,174 1,206,078 24,330 $49.57 97% 66 18,274 104% LOS ALTOS 1,599,407 1,836,428 27,025 $67.95 134% 109 16,894 96$ LOS ALTOS HILLS 164,628 164,628 7,624 $21.59 42% 60 2,762 16% LAS GATOS 1,554,546 1,847,099 27,450 $67.29 132% 150 12,347 70% MILPITAS 2,102,821 689,113 40,369 $17.07 30 118 5,850 33% MONTE SERENO 135,704 216,037 3,466 $62.33 123% 13 17,011 97% MORGAN HILL 520,618 588,659 18,562 $31.71 62% 72 8,199 47% MOUNTAIN VIEW 6,356,755 6,605,305 60,943 $108.38 213% 141 46,714 266% PALO ALTO 4,301,037 4,545,434 55,886 $81.33 160 193 23,576 134% SAN JOSE 48,032,957 49,510,931 671,819 $73.70 1451 1,588 31,178 177% SANTA CLARA 6,752,690 6,252,268 88,216 $70.87 139$ 223 27,987 159% SARATOGA 1,199,586 1,248,090 29,971 $41.64 82% 113 11,045 63% SUNNYVALE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 81344,122 6,622,403 108,607 $60.98 120% 266 24,924 142% TOTALS 86,463,985 85,216,085 1,235,109 $50.87 234.2 $17,576 1983 /84 MILES COST/ ' TOTAL EXPENSE IMPROVED STREET % COST/ CITY WITHIN COUNTY AVAILABLE EXPENSE POPULATION COST /CAPITA % PER CAPITA STREETS MILE STREET NILE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAMPBELL 2,204,200 1,802,789 33,657 $53.56 99$ 87 20,817 123% CUPERTINO 4,562,467 4,094,627 38,082 $107.52 198% 118 34,671 205$ GILROY 942,481 973,044 25,543 $38.09 70% 66 14,743 87% LOS ALTOS 1,639,515 1,594,137 28,630 $55.68 102% 109 14,665 87% LAS ALTOS HILLS 658,404 654,665 7,710 $84.91 156% 60 10,984 65% LOS GATOS 1,862,329 1,814,254 27,889 $65.05 120% 150 12,127 72% MILPITAS 3,283,668 1,908,305 41,352 $46.15 85% 118 16,200 96% MONTE SEIENO 98,749 239,247 3,466 $69.03 127% 13 18,838 111% MORGAN HILL 899,198 726,147 19,066 $38.09 70% 72 10,113 60% NOUNTAIN VIEW 5,707,470 5,754,393 61,799 $93.11 171% 141 40,696 240% PAIR ALTO 41992,092 4,960,922 56,367 $88.01 162% 193 25,731 152% SAN JOSE 44,572,017 45,777,282 683,801 $66.95 123% 1,588 28,827 170% SANTA CLARA 6,836,717 6,182,328 89,554 $69.03 127% 223 27,674 163% SARATOGA 1,142,352 1,214,618 30,026 $40.45 74% 113 10,749 63% SUNNYVALE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2,205,569 959,505 111,909 $8.57 16% 266 3,611 21% TOTALS 81,607,228 78,656,263 1,258,851 $54.37 234.2 $16,940 #7 -4 1984 /85 RILES COST/ TOTAL EXPENSE IMPROVED STREET % COST/ CITY WITHIN COUNTY AVAILABLE EXPENSE POPULATION COST /CAPITA 1 PER CAPITA STREETS RILE STREET MILE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAMPBELL 2,370,509 2,058,194 43,693 $47.11 821 87 23,767 1218 CUPERTINO 41384,504 4,024,877 38,082 $105.69 184% 118 34,080 173% GILROY 1,124,558 861,372 26,132 $32.96 571 66 13,051 661 LAS ALTOS 1,803,420 1,805,345 28,630 $63.06 110$ 109 16,609 841 LOS ALTOS HILLS 537,143 539,801 7,784 $69.35 121% 60 9,057 46% LAS GATOS 1,848,779 1,855,216 27,889 $66.52 116% 150 12,401 631 MILPITAS 3,186,326 2,076,985 41,853 $49.63 861 118 17,631 901 MONTE SERENO 179,495 123,552 3,466 $35.65 621 13 9,729 491 MORGAN HILL 854,283 839,387 19,717 $42.57 741 72 11,691 59% MOUNTAIN VIEW 4,625,321 4,231,835 61,799 $68.48 119% 141 29,928 152$ PALO ALTO 3,841,685 4,515,510 56,367 $80.11 1391 193 23,421 119% SAN JOSE 51,822,240 52,582,739 696,021 $75.55 131% 1,588 33,113 168% SANTA CLARA 10,532,461 9,372,960 90,052 $104.08 181% 223 41,956 2131 SARATOGA 973,160 1,434,150 30,026 $47.76 831 113 12,692 651 SUNNYVALE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 101346,989 9,981,862 111,909 $89.20 155% 266 37,568 191$ TOTALS 98,430,873 96,303,785 1,283,420 $57.51 234.2 $19,676 1985 /86 MILES COST/ TOTAL EXPENSE IMPROVED STREET 1 COST/ CITY WITHIN COUNTY AVAILABLE EXPENSE POPULATION COST /CAPITA 1 PER CAPITA STREETS MILE STREET NILE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAMPBELL 2,504,711 2,126,033 34,503 $61.62 115% 87 24,550 133% CUPERTINO 3,000,612 3,323,251 38,754 $85.75 1611 118 28,139 152% GILROY 1,012,630 773,270 26,892 $28.75 541 66 11,716 631 LOS ALTOS 2,122,848 1,629,098 28,630 $56.90 107% 109 14,987 811 LAS ALTOS HILLS 520,093 256,152 7,934 $32.29 601 60 4,298 231 LOS GATOS 2,772,077 2,498,878 28,224 $88.54 1661 150 16,704 901 MILPITAS 4,035,607 (1,851,648) 43,418 ($42.65) -801 118 (15,719) -85% MONTE SERENO 216,911 254,925 .3,469 $73.49 1381 13 20,073 109% MORGAN HILL 905,765 694,563 20,803 $33.39 631 72 9,674 521 MOUNTAIN VIEW 5,093,169 4,546,883 62,160 $73.15 1371 141 32,156 174% PALA ALTO 4,846,745 4,965,607 56,831 $87.37 1641 193 25,755 1391 SAN JOSE 57,830,842 56,577,509 717,312 $78.87 1481 1,588 35,628 1931 SANTA CLARA 12,950,341 11,216,562 90,274 $124.25 2331 223 50,208 2721 SARATOGA 1,617,465 1,401,414 30,026 $46.67 871 113 12,402 671 SUNNYVALE 10,136,565 9,051,696 114,334 $79.17 1481 266 34,067 1841 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTALS 109,566,381 97,464,193 1,303,564 $53.39 234.2 $18,480 #7 -5 MILES COST/ 1986/87 TOTAL EXPENSE IMPROVED STREET % COST/ CITY WITHIN COUNTY AVAILABLE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPENSE POPULATION COST /CAPITA t PER CAPITA STREETS MILE STREET MILE CAMPBELL 2,750,838 2,382,862 34,503 $69.06 100% 87 27,516 133% CUPERTINO 8,833,318 8,543,961 38,841 $219.97 318% 118 72,345 351% GILROY 1,153,439 1,100,843 27,459 $40.09 58W 66 16,679 81t LAS ALTOS 1,876,031 2,299,090 28,669 $80.19 116% 109 21,151 103% LAS ALTOS HILLS 715,518 775,818 7,934 $97.78 142% 60 13,017 63$ LAS GATOS 2,138,943 1,991,112 28,224 $70.55 102% 150 13,310 651 MILPITAS 5,009,153 2,421,514 43,913 $55.14 80$ 118 20,556 100$ MONTE SERENO 80,933 (334) 3,469 ($0.10) 0% 13 (26) 0% MORGAN HILL 1,270,621 1,586,984 21,432 $74.05 107% 72 22,103 107% MOUNTAIN VIEW 3,192,074 1,823,432 62,197 $29.32 42% 141 12,896 63% PALO ALTO 6,106,029 6,106,029 56,831 $107.44 155W 193 31,670 154% SAN JOSE 86,575,688 87,789,726 719,466 $122.02 177% 1,588 55,283 268% SANTA CLARA 14,188,387 11,200,662 90,274 $124.07 180% 223 50,137 243% SARATOGA 1,586,657 1,621,499 30,026 $54.00 781 113 14,350 70$ SUNNYVALE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3,669,972 3,589,758 115,225 $31.15 45% 266 13,511 66% TOTALS 139,147,601 133,232,956 1,308,463 $69.10 234.2 $20,612 F C? r 4Y W .l (y� W N W CII L+ to Cn 0 / VI :1^n cn w CII cn (- W #k7 -6 DOLLARS PER PERSON j N L+ 4�+ Cn M ED ED E ID C) O 00 m rn Q 0 > .1 f� W rL hCI T h r9 rn rn � r CD � cd c�+ rn W rn co ca '� #7 -7 TOTAL AMOUNT (Millions) -' N W 4�- �n rn -I Cn iD N W Cn ay FJ N -[ rn \ C) c CO rn pr ;u v TO rn ATTACHMENT #8 Five Year Budget Projection 1990 -1994 REVENUE PROJECTIONS 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 REVENUE SOURCE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE ESTIMATE General Prop Tax 759,945 813,141 870,061 1,017,966 1,226,133 Sales Tax 919,972 975,170 1,033,680 1,095,701 1,161,443 Utility Users Tax 624,245 649,215 675,184 702,191 730,279 Transfer Tax 244,773 269,251 290,791 314,054 339,178 Construction Tax 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Business Licenses 147,519 150,469 153,478 156,548 159,679 Transient Occupancy Tax 82,347 85,641 89,067 92,629 96,335 Franchise Fees 570,451 604,678 640,959 679,417 720,182 Development Permits 854,056 896,759 941,596 988,676 1,038,110 MVL 1,084,668 1,144,325 1,207,263 1,273,662 1,343,713 Off Highway MVL 647 683 721 760 802 Cigarette Tax 51,853 50,816 49,800 48,804 47,828 HOPTR 16,499_ 16,664 16,831 16,999 17,169 Other I. G. Revenue 11,632 11,865 12,102 12,344 12,591 False Alarms 20,580 20,580 20,580 20,580 20,580 Interest 541,358 531,718 465,368 417,881 372,252 Sale of Property 1,379,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Sale Maps /Publicat 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Fines & Forfeitures 23,902 24,858 25,852 26;886 27,962 Refunds & Rebates 118,262 118,262 34,925 36,671 38,504 FEMA 61,392 0 0 0 0 TOTAL GENERAL 7,715,102 6,591,094 6,755,257 7,128,769 7,579,740 TDA 0 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 Revenue Sharing 0 0 0 0 0 HCDA 209,990 193,191 177,736 163,517 150,435 Traffic Safety 141,295 146,947 152,825 158,938 165,296 2107.5 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 2106 154,442 155,214 155,990 156,770 157,554 2107 269,652 269,652 269,652 269,652 269,652 Interest (SGT) 18,064 18,096 18,129 18,162 18,195 FAU Exchange 55,788 50,209 45,188 F.H.W.A. 480,000 480,000 200,000 0 0 Sub -Total Gas Tax 983,946 979,172 694,959 450,584 451,401 Local Drainage 0 0 0 0 0 Hillside Dev Fees 137,500 94,500 94,500 94,500 94,500 Street Construction Sub 0 0 0 0 0 Library Debt Sery 97,800 95,225 92,100 89,425 91,590 State Pk Bond Grants 91,000 0 0 100,000 0 Senior Center Bonds 0 0 0 0 0 Park Development 62,500 62,500 62,500 62,500 62,500 Capital Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 State Urban Parks 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Excursions 57,330 60,197 63,206 66,367 69,685 Class Fees Building Rent 201,276 90,168 231,468 93,775 266,188 97,526 306,116 101,427 352,034 105,484 Park Income 13,842 14,396 14,972 15,571 16,194 Hakone Income 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Tot Entrprise 362,617 399,835 441,892 489,481 543,396 Assessment Districts Parking Dist #3 190,078 262,758 184,587 203,046 223,350 245,685 Housing Assistance 0 223,358 0 222,418 221,478 220,018 Median Assess Dist 679,000 78,500 0 78,500 0 78,500 0 78,500 TOT RESTRICTED FNDS 3,233,484 2,480,815 2,243,475 2,155,272 2,118,321 TOTAL 10,948,586 9,071,909 8,998,732 9,284,041 9,698,061 #8 -2 EXPENDITURE PROJECTION PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 89 -90 FY 90 -91 FY 91 -92 FY 92 -93 FY 93 -94 PROGRAM NAME Police Protection 1,575,037 1,669,526 1,753,002 1,840,652 1,932,685 Communications 217,300 230,340 241,857 253,950 266,647 Code Enforcement 126,293 132,163 138,771 145,710 152,995 Crossing Guards 17,006 18,707 19,642 20,624 21,656 Emergency Mgt 29,234 23,801 24,991 26,241 27,553 TOTAL PUB. SAFETY 1,964,870 2,074,537 2,178,264 2,287,177 2,401,536 Subdivision Reg 71,120 75,363 79,131 83,088 87,242 Inspection Sery 267,021 273,044 286,696 301,031 316,083 General Eng 143,106 147,743 155,130 162,887. 171,031 Zoning Admin 156,277 165,893 174,188 182,897 192,042 Current Planning 83,933 76,963 80,811 84,852 89,094 Advanced Planning 87,480 86,011 90,312 94,827 99,568 Housing Assist 189,315 190,117 137,636 125,021 113,336 TOTAL COMM.ENV. 998,252 1,015,134 1,003,904 1,034,602 1,068,396 Street Maint 696,604 773,493 628,088 624,299 680,971 Curb,Gutter,Sdwalk 23,702 24,955 26,203 27,513 28,889 Traffic Control 144,735 128,168 134,576 141,305 148,370 Flood Control 118,343 125,221 131,482 138,056 144,959 Median /Parkway 108,090 109,175 114,634 120,365 126,384 Parks /Open Space 301,850 250,113 262,619 275,750 289,537 Hakone Gardens 110,972 114,002 119,702 125,687 131,972 TOTAL MAINT. SERV 1,504,296 1,525,127 1,417,304 1,452,975 1,551,081 Recreation Sery 299,657 292,566 315,971 341,249 368,549 Sr. & Vol.Services 100,851 106,161 111,469 117,043 122,895 Cultural Services 4,868 5,157 5,415 5,686 5,970 Youth Services 41,713 43,039 45,191 47,450 49,823 TOTAL COMM.SERVICES 447,089 446,923 478,046 511,428 547,236 Parking Dist #1 24,500 23,500 23,000 22,000 21,000 Parking Dist #2 11,663 11,300 14,508 18,944 18,380 Parking Dist #4 62,850 59,300 65,765 67,307 73,399 Lands /Lght. Dist 80,210 87,898 92,293 96,908 101,753 Library Bonds 97,800 95,225 92,100 89,425 91,590 Parking Dist #3 262,758 223,358 222,418 221,478 220,018 Median Bonds 0 78,500 78,500 78,500 78,500 TOTAL ASSESS.DIST. 539,781 579,081 588,583 594,561 604,639 Community Groups 8,850 9,200 9,660 10,143 10,650 Sister Cityy 3,000 1,000 1,600 100 1,650 Paratransit 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Franchise Serv. 45,121 46,220 23,783 25,447 27,229 Library Services 20,216 21,230 22,292 23,406 24,576 HCDA Admin 11,192 11,861 12,454 13,077 13,731 Comm. Access TV 32,318 33,185 34,844 36,586 38,416 TOTAL COMM SUPP. 125,697 127,696 109,632 113,760 121,252 TOT OPER PROGRAMS 5,579,985 5,768,498 5,775,733 5,994,503 6,294,141 City Council 40,200 34,450 36,173 37,981 39,880 City Commissions 25,540 27,662 29,045 30,497 32,022 City Mgr's Office 135,345 143,775 150,964 158,512 166,438 Financial Mgt 398,245 403,499 423,674 444,858 467,101 Legal Services 80,340 84,282 88,496 92,921 97,567 City Clerk 55,175 54,406 57,126 59,983 62,982 Personnel Mgt 81,137 85,430 89,702 94,187 98,896 Comm. Relations 31,700 33,285 34,949 36,697 38,532 Central Services 78,332 81,766 85,854 90,147 94,654 TOTAL GEN'L GOVT 926,014 948,555 995,983 1,045,782 1,098,071 Employee Benefits 742,173 780,056 834,660 893,086 955,602 Equipment Ops. 197,860 224,803 230,000 241,500 253,575 Fixed Asset Maint 130,638 80,249 85,000 89,250 93,713 Facilities Maint 232,232 222,261 190,000 199,500 209,475 TOT INTRAGOV. SERV. 1,302,903 1,307,369 1,339,660 1,423,336 1,512,365 TOT OPER BUDGET 7,808,902 8,024,422 8,111,375 8,463,621 8,904,576 #8 -3 CAPITAL PROJECTS PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED FY 89 -90 FY 90 -91 FY 91 -92 FY 92 -93 FY 93 -94 901 - Congress Sp Park 902 - Median Landscape 904 - Herriman Signal 905 -Quito Rd. Brdg 543,705 599,600 907 -Sr. Center 908 -P. D. #3 909 - Pavement Mgt 434,403 530,662 455,682 913,616 780,483 910 -Bkpth Sara /Fruit 920 - Bohlman Rd 921 -Trffc Cntrllr 24,000 24,000 24,000 922 -Quito Pk Hdcp 923 - Median -SS Pros 679,000 924 - Median SS Verde -9 355,200 925 - Elva /Cnyn Vw 926 - Wildwood Pk Brg 44,400 927 -Hndp Acc -Govt Bldg 51,000 928 -Sound Sys -Comm Thtr 929 - Computer Upgrade 931 -CC Landscape 932 -Tnns Ct Rsrfc SHS 16,000 933- Brookglen Park 941- Sarahills Drive 159,000 945 -Quito Park 15,843 951 - Seagull Signal 110,000 952- Kirkmont Signal 110,000 953 - Pierce Rd Brdg 250,000 954 -Frtvl Md Lndscp 450,000 955 - Wildwood Pk 51,000 956 -City Hall Exp 202,400 623,100 957 -Big Basin Rcnst 98,500 958 -4th St Sdwlk 15,000 961 -Artrl St Sdwlk 60,000 110,000 963- Prspct Md Lndscp 400,000 964 -Kevin Moran Pk 450,000 973 - Library Lndscp 30,000 974 -Vllg Ped Plz 8,000 975 -Play Equipment 40,000 976 - Computer Repalcemen 70,000 977 - Beauchamps Park 125,000 978 - Hakone Cltrl Bldg 235,000 979 -SW /NE Rd 980 - Skateboard Ramp 10,000 TOTAL CAP PROJ 3,254,451 1,837,362 1,452,682 1,363,616 1,180,483 GRAND TOTAL 11,063,353 9,861,784 9,564,057 9,827,237 10,085,059 CASH FLOW FY1990 FY1991 FY1992 FY1993 FY1994 OPENING FUNDS BALANCE 6,444,737 6,329,971 .5,540,096 4,974,771 4,431,575 REVENUES 10,948,586 9,071,909 8,998,732 9,284,041 9,698,061 OPERATIONS EXPENSE 7,808,902 8,024,422 8,111,375 8,463,621 8,904,576 CAPITAL PROJECTS 3,254,451 1,837,362 1,452,682 1,363,616 1,180,483 TOTAL BUDGET 11,063,353 9,861,784 9,564,057 9,827,237 10,085,059 CLOSING FUNDS BALANCE 6,329,971 5,540,096 4,974,771 4,431,575 4,044,577 FUND BALANCE REQUIRED 3,904,451 4,012,211 4,055,688 4,231,810 4,452,288 DIFFERENCE 2,425,520 1,527,885 919,083 199,765 (407,711) h U (OMYT Qq 0&ihZ1XQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE . SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Martha Clevenger David Moyles October 9, 1989 Donald Peterson Francis Stutzman Mayor Martha Clevenger and City Council Members City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members: You requested the Finance Committee to consider two questions: 1. Should the current utility users tax be continued? 2. Should the continuation of the utility users tax be submit- ted to the electorate of the City? CONCLUSION 1. The utility users tax (which equals approximately $1 per week per household) should be continued to: o Fund the pavement management program; and o Prevent the transfer of more than $4 million, paid by Saratoga residents, to residents of other cities in the County. 2. The continuation of the utility users tax is not an issue which should be submitted to the electorate of the City because: o A public vote is not legally required. o Given the impact to the City of the discontinuation of the utility users tax, there is no viable alternative for selection by the electorate. o The Council is uniquely qualified to decide this issue. Y Saratoga City Council October 9, 1989 Page Two DISCUSSION Continuation of the Utility User Tax 1. While the utility users tax represents approximately $1 per week per Saratoga household, it is a primary source of funding for the maintenance of the City's 113 miles of roads. These roads must, by law, be maintained in a safe condition by the City. While the City's program for per- forming this maintenance costs $1.4 million annually, it is performed at a per mile cost which is 70% of the average of other cities in the County. This cost effective expenditure of $1 per week to ensure the safe condition of the City's streets is one of the best values we receive from govern- ment. 2. Should the utility users tax not be continued, not only will the pavement management program be jeopardized, but the Attorney General tells us that we will also lose an addi- tional $4.3 million over the next eight years. These funds are paid by Saratogans in the form of property transfer taxes. If we fail to maintain the utility users tax, Sara - togans will still pay these taxes but they will be given to the County and used for residents throughout the County. Clearly, the residents of the City who pay these taxes would prefer to have them reinvested in the quality of life in Saratoga. 3. The loss of the utility users tax and the property transfer tax would result in the reduction to the City's budget of more than 14 %. Based on our knowledge of that budget, such a loss would devastate the ability of the City to maintain its services. Additionally, coping with such a reduction would consume the attention of the Council and the staff who would have to plan the reduction while attempting to main- tain the remaining City services at some reasonable level. This reduction and adjustment in services would result in a benefit to the homeowner of $1 per week! In summary, the City has wisely used the proceeds of the utility users tax and the failure of the City to maintain this tax would result in reductions not only to the pavement management program but also to other City services. Saratoga City Council October 9, 1989 Page Three Submission of the Continuation of the Utility User Tax to the Electorate We strongly believe that the Council should seek policy direction from the electorate when options to the resolution of an issue are available and the Council has no special expertise uniquely qualifying it to resolve the issue. The continuation of the utility users tax is not such an issue. First, as discussed above, no responsible option exists to the continuation of the utility users tax. Second, the Council is uniquely qualified to understand the impact of the loss of the utility users tax on the provision of services to the residents of Saratoga. For th inance v sory Committee, en Dougla , Ch GD:RH:jm 21210 Canyon View Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 October 26, 1989 The City Council City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Proposal to abrogate the Sunset clause on the 3.5% Utility Users Tax. About five years ago the Saratoga City Council took recognition of the continuing deterioration of the city's street system. A study to remedy this problem indicated that adequate maintenance of the 230 miles of street surface would cost about $900,000 per year. After due deliberation and consideration of various schemes and potential income from different sources the city council opted for a 3.5% tax on monthly PG &E customer utility bills. This tax was to run for a five year period and terminate with a Sunset clause. Now that the Sunset is approaching cut -off time it is evident that the city council is reconsidering their original promise and now proposes to rescind the Sunset clause. One can well question if this promise was'made with tongue -in -cheek or whether it was a bad hoax from the very beginning? Why is there a reluctance to let our residents and taxpayers have the opportunity to vote on the merits of the 3.5% Utility Users Tax on a five year renewal basis? It might come as a pleasant surprise that the users are favorably inclined to the 3.5% Utility Users Tax. Incidentally, since item is classed as a tax there appears to be a question as to legal conformance with current state law requiring a 2/3 majority vote to initiate any new tax. Sincerely, John H. Haufe 6' 03 REALTOR=' November 1, 1989 Martha Clevenger, Mayor City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Madam Mayor: yr LOS GATOS- SARATOGA BOARD OF REALTORS 20454 Blauer Drive, Saratoga. California 95070 Telephone 408 867 -0922 The Los Gatos - Saratoga Board of REALTORS was asked, in 1985, to be an active participant in considering an "Utility User's Tax." Through this involvement, our members and Board leadership came to see the need for repairing the neglected roadways in our city. The Board of REALTORS supported the implementation of a tax to fund street repair, given that it would "Sunset" in five years. The "Sunset" clause has always been a mechanism for accountability that our organization supports. The Board of REALTORS has recently been asked to study the concept of repealing this "Sunset" clause. Many reasons have been presented for the need to extend this tax, and we recognize the financial concerns involved. The Board of REALTORS would support the continuation of the "Utility User's Tax," if this was accomplished through an extension of the "Sunset ", rather than it being repealed. The necessities of public financing are the reasons behind continuing this tax, but if the provision for "Sunsetting" was repealed, the citizen's ability to hold the city accountable would be reduced. We encourage the council to extend the "Sunset" date by two years, to July 1, 1992. This period of time would offer the citizen's of Saratoga the opportunity to address the tax issue, and the City's use of funds, on regular intervals. We hope that you and the council would consider this alternative, rather than repealing the "Sunset" clause. Sincerely, Meredith D. Harrington President cc: Councilwoman Anderson Councilman Moyles Councilman Peterson Councilman Stutzman REALTOR I — is a registered ma,k w- , r, identifies a professronal in real estate who subscribes to a Strict Code of Ethics as a mernber of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS -� L/ /70 S TOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. AGENDA ITEM / `�] MEETING DATE:November 1, 1989 ORIGINATING DEPT.:City Clerk CITY MGR. APPROVA SUBJECT: Resolution Declaring Weeds Growing on Certain Described Property to be a Public Nuisance Recommended Motion: Adopt resolution declaring weeds growing on certain described property to be a public nuisance. Report Summary: The attached resolution represents the first step in Saratoga's annual weed abatement program administered b the County Building Official. The County has determined that parcels in Saratoga this year haye excessive weed growth which is a fire hazard or otherwise noxious or dangerous.. The Council should pass the resolution setting the ublic hearing for weed abatement -- December 6 this ear. The Coun then sends the owners of the mil/ pparcels notices informing them that the weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by the county; when County abatement will commence; and how they, may present any objections at the public hearin . The public hearing is noticed in the newspapers as well. Af�er the public hearing, the Council passes another resolution ordering abatement on roper ties whose owners did not object or whose objections the ouncil felt were invalid. The final steps take lace next summer, when the County presents the Council with a list of properties whose abatement bills have not been paid and the Council after hearing any objections, passes a resolution declaring liens on those T ro erties. These procedures are the same as those followed for the as several years. Fiscal Impacts: None to City. County recovers its costs from administrative portion of fee charged to property owners. Attachments: 1. Resolution Motion and Vote: OK ,l W < a T S O i 0 0 u a W s v a z H W I � W 7 n L z W a `a < a a uj CK InZ .Y. 7 y J W O O t I i - O O O O O O O O Al p r N N 'N N N N N r ° z! uw J ++ of n .: z d cu y H O 'Wiu � 34 m< �aC< t < �a �< �< Li -9 rra U W< sU Za.9 aN TU ri< CCU <O CCU U U 7U U �U 7U Nu Z < O �7 �J NO qJ at mt W LyJ< < L _ a1 u It Q m � Iy� a �< � 0 Pa +'C ds ~lam NY N2 UYN .7 a<L 2 yy�a ol< a< LA ac N !yN rN VN �O O:A H �6 p�S yN .M ,/� .•d Vl rVl .�N rN j j yLLA n zm OI ui 2' w� Iw i y p� W NE 'a'q1 vI x a^ dZ < y a UA :31 Z W A z a z a W a m vril y � a,o inn n r t —.1.0 I M L 5 i I I I , 1 I r I I ; � � I ' I I I I I m O P O P C P Ip .O 0 N a I N P r I~ I P NO + P N O O r r 1!?� O N •? I O N P r N WN P a T O w p < v "^ U w o x << en of O< y r a = 7U j ^7O �uNi1 < y X11 7u W Q 9� N< y s QO,IU 'J.I < OL3 N< y a' y= 7u W< CO m J 0%< N< y LM y wl. q 7u 5< 9 {,1 b< N< y y In A. s J. �u W< m 'J' N< N-9 r.l y u O t =V o "'�C <� O< �u 2 W NN o vl� O< VI V 2 0.1 .. dY 1Y�Y Wn O J N V I - `QpQ,�f�I �[ y< d 00 m J. O W y= u �eL r J WU < m> O< r VI s u�� Yu < ac Q 6V mr Qt < N< 'r N z ►lu � W YN Q N< y Au 0 f1 < K 7 O> m < O< a N ~Iu 0 O < O yj y i u ru pm?p ay N N< y yq < O LW T T y 7 7 Y 2 a W Q 2 y Y Z r 1C < W > w < s Z 6y O ` 9 wj 7 uj W ►- o < J < N = 6 _ y '7 y W O O gi � 2_ u i Q N O < S Y Q W � < V oC JLJ N N ! S y Y S Q y < N Y uj O wj = S u 2 Y Y uj Y 6 y < VI Y O S Y �( a _ I prpy( Y W Q . W . N O O M 1O T O J O d O b O b O b fn O b M O b N O b 'O n O b a M J b a U b ++ M O b a .� O a M O b nr In r 6" 7 -VL fi'_ Z..,. I I I i fi'_ Z..,. I j i w i u a i ?' ulO u+ LM is iN uuli :u0+ O it UM WN O j 1 O I I WW ui ccx a I a ,-D i OJ m a SN oOCU Ca w +a .N. It y ac Nu �� nti a NQ rVf u =u Qa r �< O< NN a �u d Q In r. ra N rvf ►iv 4 it {<! r ►. OI< "'It N .iN V 6W7 mu n a 1. 1. N1a ry< rN `u ac9 I. �0! <( N°f �N Zs 7i� r3T WO Iyx u y< ,` 'O ,fir cc j u a ru ag C3 -C a o Ta r.s n1< rw J .. < �;u U< w ra .rat r< NN J ac Li uj W a �u u a N< ta[ ra NH y < v+ a mu cn 210 w m X01 -10 m < � a p u « o ya m rN � u J w m �d u� ru Z °L u°! be I. r -aa oc e�t rN a w a z , I o I i W y ;n x ° a Q O W Z Y 7 W x J 1 W = a ' H Y W i 7 V a = 2 a _ Z 7 J 2 J ` r W J a J O Y J = ? J pp Z = Y a Y V. .L.. Y Y y L m zOz a I .� N y 7 N Q X = S � Z < L x. V I CK a 2 W .<i ! CZ3 4 = cc O O y 2 �. = u' � L O = Q Y a WW�j C7 V 1 O < Y W S = S M. O j Y = a a 39 W = J J O V Y r 9 < JJ O Y 2 Z y Nf Y y <_ 2 Y 2 W ! W Y m O. W z O. J < r W O oc r 2 2 r W 19 J r r L J � I S = 1y1 O 7 a = J S O I r a d a O O b "� j O a T .p O o M O 0 O o Pal O b fat O o M Qp I7I o T O b T O o M O b O b O la O b O o j o O b T fi'_ Z..,. L � , , ' 1 � I , 1 I I I I I I O O C iO 'O I O O O ~ O I► . � A A r I .O N P N r 6� P ` P LM a P a co cc O O J vi z V I O I ui J J Q ? N V I I a m Q a Q O Q a W In W Q W O J oG bw z WJ „J s� zu cZ oz Ka J ��o ra <" ruua �" "N o2CW �u OOV = H^ Q V VfI J O �z H �_ ? p��o �-a J J H ya O W ac < u< W m 43 N W p N l7 N< W W 61 Q OC W N< '7 ! r W m iS P Q J! O O 7 O] N Q N yQ O N a d O r'DL W4= W Z N'Y N= to P Y Qi< T cr NQ IH OL rU r V rN rU N:n ..� V rN ru d'O N< aoa Al :/f a P a NQ I NJ NN r V r:if e^ H r N .�N r Nf j I I J Q i .�i uI y (Q9 Y v ►_. J V 31 CC p z a Q � W g 1 u = •' r a Nl� <y of Q Q Y a r J J > ]O� 2O r W wi DQC ` O Z > > W a j 61 cz vi 34 ui W 2 Q O i1 6 Z �Oj N � 7 D O O '7 O O O O I I O O O O c o o b b b b b b b b + r Q S r J9 y� l� IA I I a a a a b d h in d n w n n I i I I i I i i I I P P P 1 N !P IP P J iQ—Q !I Wu J1 QQ y0 ♦�- N Q �p Y N Wu Jf «u 1 0 Inr N < dZ N N Wu S^.7 =►. < •� N oc ►�u ;.yr N < ...1 VI iWu 2f Z m N LU — mr N < .d N ►- Wu O Cr a7 < .� N w u ♦!r .CI 1 N u ua W a N V1 �< U VIu G Or cc y N ac rof rr NQ '� Jf w cJ°a Q'u Y OY aQ N is J w < Nr Tf ..1 N i< J N.r NZ .40 V za _ ,r Or 0: Y N u"i< .y < G ,plr d'Z y o", < z YQ u K Q cc _ ,C� NY ova Q W I ' s J , a 2 n W 1 A J 2 J y I a • a i Y < n a < N Lu J J < N O J S a oc Z y a s V J Z J Y w z J L a z a J > p y �I Q } Q it 2 J x m Z r Z < W Q J V Q z < Y d I O r 9 .W.. Y J Q L cc N _ Y < CD L p W W Y W r W = r r 61 x Q J Q Z N �. Y Y a O z W Z Y O O 2 < 2 Q Q x S O � Z 2 Y O K C J U. O c J �. a Y N aC . ❑ N = LLI o J O s r O m O cr z O N J O h .p O � rq O :� O O � J � 1+1 uY 'n f1 z a 4 a r N a O +1 a N a co — J ti b a » 30 m m m a a s b E I I I i i I � : i i I i I I � 1 i W i a i I • '� � /� I y P � � O 1► 1� I r � � � I � � � � l� � C` SIP Y1 iIP IP N r1 I N r1 Ifs Y� I C C i C G i C p C P W � 14 a <9yj a`C a < wl'• < �' ss a as C7� I I I I I s < z N W 1 O j W 14 uj a I S Y I W LU < 1 Z c z c W O 1 I 7 y Z 2 d Z I< W a +1 ad Y 4. aC J 1L J n i W 9 i :L UA i� I 14 I I I I I a rn m n w r r, r r r Lf i s a a a Ian � 'N I< m 1 0 m j co C M rq 1+1 tq T Iq �1 NI T '1 M 1+1 M M W Y'9 ZI I., I I , I I I I I I I I I I w I I I I I I i I I I I I i I I i i I I I w T !O pan ,P r N 10 'O I N !P O N IO 1N O N 61 M N Iry N i1P IP O P I O IP 111 a O 19, T j O I CA 1 �I _I P W \ cc J V4 -a as , �u z oac < N -j u Y I� N w u w a = N u W _ H M V �� N w 1 CHO 4t Ile ox w 0Z 6<! Nqf" N u� y< m s rN < �Q �0 � -4j0 1.9 < aQu �< in 0 Q w i z I a z z I I Z a Wy a w w = Y at Y < ui _ 9NC ' < z Y < N I I s Q W Z: z Q <�I s low c: =• j I .r = W 39 a Vf i v N xI W al 1 r W u vi Q d _= W N 0 J � H a ac ` H W ccl z W 09 V > cc a , xi < aat; O Y < `w S V < 7 Q Y Q N o m LU S = Y < Q ]L I . I J 'V _ a I O ^� 7 * O T 7 M Al _ M O N1 p Al T O R1 O r N1 ♦ fA r r f�1 p Al A O Al 9 p N1 01 T f - w L' "'WtO IN U $A I I j I i I I I I I I LU LD I » Ifs of r V ( �N �,� 44 N N V s min InO ry r/f U < l3 N V LIV �o ~ Q N V < ��3 ~ < N l u �W q� a < w N 3 �U 49 < N ! H ..O `< au r 0 V < o 04i- O < u N V < J< "a rZ Al < �1 < 8 � � a< m III,,,jJJ < tC = V I = z Y U r 2 W N O J .� W = Q O l Al 1O1 a fn O co co Iq IOI cc Al 1�J M N eq O 'N a Iq '1> V P try O > ♦ 13 rq 7 � w1 M .p O �1 111 Ir 'j O N1 w1 P 1O 1O �1 M j O 1,1 P M NN O Iq T N tm !'1 P N O P I r 'B'. z"V, n P I I I I I 1 1 I I I I a .P P .a IN P !N 'P M1 I? IN P N O• 'P P 'P O� ''� O� ;P 10 O ? IO Ip 1P O I I I i I I j I I i i I LA i P w ~ ~ cr O T O U; d YI y y Uj 3 61 _ Ja JO MV as ul0 ac< m� N H OC .4 S< L r W Qz Ta u0 r < r < 40 p� < 8 i se a< < N a O� .4 < y u rQ Nm Q cc rN < �►< . Y �N aq _< q.� r a .+N cca4� bO < . wQ < 7 y.Ar 1 a W l ; zx u � i Lu a l N <a 1 I w s W a e IZ < Y d Q J S r T O oC w 1 Zi W w OC I I 1 LU In W r W= I w S ` u W J Y WI O s a 2 aa QC W = z S -1 W I wi J l+ t [C O J s W Z Y Z d Z In s 2 c� d < Y I a O a J Y r r •Ji J O I cc H w S O C ! ca Y Z ►O.. V I Z Z 7 Q7 I O T O T � v ^ O P M '> 1 P Al ♦ P M O .s Al ? H1 O 10 � O s '� O • O I+ r O. .r O 1a N O a ♦ ^, O 0 N O 0 N O 0 ' I I L" MI am U.SA i I I I I I I I I i I ! i I 1 r ! I I I I I I I I W � I I ! I I m I a' IP O I I I I I IN i I � T s IO I< I L5 j u w w Q` is W u< ai .�N Or] A= o< CL� < V r°� I WU � a �_ qo °1 N �< yN 10 �, s °! e°� N !N s elf V S w W .r a ai rU 1 O w� �e� 'yN ar< Fs �N ka z N 1y a �< r,at 46, r r i 1 j j I I I W a ; _7 Y S ;w _ iN ILL Y! �y W m Z r w 1L < V o J UA Y S J a[ IL J N u�j J Y >i a J J �y ml ~ s N ; V S'I �=pClli 1y y Y L � < � "' < u �y.J1 N a uj CL OLI y u. < Z L lu v Q W YI ad uuJJ a 4 w u Y S lu m YLLLL.111 dy g W < 39 L <S y J yl 7i W < ' a_ S ° N. 11 r^ ti P In r km ^ T a H1 fN o �+1 IL N1 to °rye 1► M ° ti T e 1 A ti I I\ In n ' ?A T n O A In ,ppo O A 1 A Pp In li I LL '0'7 it�tl i I i i i I j i Q I I I I I i go ! ,O IA m a P .� iP ma, IO I'P IpIn, IP pNia m H a r r J P W Vr _ 2d Z W Ir _ v+u v> I I J y d! <' < N ac U J � w U mJ 6 W 'a =1< W W =W SI< WW IJ WW Ww W W W W W JIK O I� O < NOOO �W ►=•O «�iG I.IO ra o< cc << �� H12 = to < r� -�y �' K If1i ZO Z J P1 'Y 1� �N N� N IrO+v< aN Q i rN JN r:1 1Z rv+ .1 NN "dU No NN 2j V) N NN I Q ! ! z u t ! u 2 n z l I I ii ,u S N Z eC ` u1 _ W N z. .� ze U V7 zi y D Q W 4z 3 a: Z y ui < < < be a 9 Z Z'' Y. W Y J Y Y Y J U l '.9 cc a W < < Y i i.l J Z 9 Y O +, W Q Z J a t ee m o a > > Y L u u a a L a u m a t/1 N C► V f' 7 N' W O Q O O O O In :n N H ! i d ` A a D DN M ♦ '!1 N d IP d 1. b T O r O O I I I I a M T T tit rf1 to T T M FFI Z MI-90 IN U'SA uj tv • 61 1 6� ry fy la. p km 61 wl 61 ui ;A W UA w .91 �l .1 Z -j .4 -j 4 Q U C61 yo 'U uj .9 61 Uh ui iw yj uj uA uj &N FA 0 50 6 ol N L5 NZ c 64 'A 61 IA N 6-1 , z .0 2 In uj t.1 L4 uj 6u kn 'm �w — - t or z um 6-W A 'A A 61 A A 0 9 0-9 14 W, ne LU LU wi w W im co m ui uj LM A co OZ z S 41. ILI P P (P. In O'D zilol cc CP a. Cpl P, tA ly 6� Ir iP CI. at .4 co 4 .Z 4.r 6w >�o cots cot -C 0.9 al 0 C.,9 Cot F-mi A 41 in LD 4c 4A -1 8 it 0 A 0 13,, cs 9 a 4 km WCL 4 r 9 :.w ! a N= 'frg Na mi IA pp c3c w Z- on W U., Lo uj Z z Im Wi uj 6u z V t -C -9 64 bc Y ZZ ii Ic L Of CL 6U Llf Lu z - 0C W 30 d. 6LA J 6LA In -C 99 -9 66 ZI. X LAJ N t^ cc Lij CL 6n Z CP 'a Ift I J t'N N d A r 33 to M111lT[D IM U.�A f 1 I I ( ! I I I i d T m O N ;O N O N O M io 10 I N C. h O N 1!I N Ir IP a O P 10 O P O a a i 0 �� a 10 !N r A .P N iN I+ m P. „ P IN I P V N C'x o ! i = 3c oa �a r n N. 10 a •�v1 > Doi -O ma rv1 now, UN1_ < Irl �u rW om Aw q .. N N O 1_ N �,_ N z < �. N < O e�.• �a ' N W > oa �yz y<j y aW m0 > Inz -` N .~. aGY �J uW� N �� .~. mY �J UI N < Id ae N ' ndp �u7ir ai m J IN I J O J 3 � -1 2 .~.1 N ~ v 0! OC W W � r y; O Y x J z I J r J d a J j W ZZ O ^J D � ` 9 < s w vi o17 ml y J W A W c7 V •Wi J W O W V ' = W SJ /1 J1 < r < > OC YYI W 0— oL a ra v7 N w > O V O ►: N :J 7 V z r V > u7 V r 6U W 0 N r N 0 T N N 0 T a N 0 T .n 0 P 'q 0 P N 0 M a! o *1 M m a r+ r o ab T a N ti n ci N ti M o .+1 ti Ian a o 41 1. M a 'In n a 0 ti °� '� 0 n °- m O 0 �t z w I I y to I P ''O -P O P I iA 10 ^ O IO O 10 ION 10 pO iN O A iNN IN 'N Om A gip. T ppI! ! Cl ¢ lu z a > a d > < ar < N Z L5 za 0 at N a LA <a rdiv < iy a yl t I I < m i < .N .� Q < aN J c i NN aG ❑) O iJ a Z x N N p 0 ~ao < r < . Y 31 J as I I I I I I I I I w a Z it a 1 a i a � Z 2 i w r a O CL w O < > 2 z Y z 1 a w O W w Z ! 7 '� v' vOi 7 = _ o r N O V t it � = C? w m O Vp W J < r.� ii uj Y C? Z' W N °c a x [t r OC �� Q. _ = W m W a w > o d7 J yf Q y CL .Ji > a J .,f Q uj J Z 7 W S m J �: ► H Z. 39 O CL r � cc i 7 x W Z Y v .^ in J. I I J i W w p = O I O r a Q 1 T 1 T I P T r P r P ~ P T 1 a pA. A 1 A I A 1 A ,I r II A I 1' W a 0 T a 0 O T e V a W Y U < 2 '+ W I � Z n 2 W 1 a ' a x a T Y z y e S Q Z LL ....,, ..- .enl.. , 1 i i i I 1 i I_ O s O 61 v+ N T I II. ,� 'r tr P IA V+ I %A .� i i i N f• A i I , i .N i I I N ; . W cc v < C7 Z J Z W W U a N Q N � L' W W U O N Q N Q In J W < J u O Z W O J :r 7% CY WI V JI < P< pNI p� U1' < u 0 W V J< O< Y1 Q u 11; W V 71 m` a Ow 1� QQ��< ^� I N w O Q c ^ Q Qi OC N C71 uJ u 7 J< 10; ' W r Olt N .�N W � < yV% W W_ < S NW N L 0" ••� V 6i M4 U' ti MI< O'1 K '< rN W a V W S` ti ^1< P M r N i LLyJII 00 V W 41 C! H A7< O'I p[ rN N o_ < " d W aG ac 7.z. r7. ► NZ 7 I Q Q K = j i g > G s O of Uj v of r<r 7 > Z y S r > o x O = r cc ^ J < V Z N y i ► W cc = u 2 N W V. Q °: a ►. � T u 2 V U 66 y W Q _ W = W J J oz 6 d J 7 > A Z o O V J I < mm a J J J J d I I < J J J J d u G a 'T O N •y O 1\ '� O U1 O O N O U\ ,r 7 U\ r O f U O U1 r O 0 N r O J, r O 61 -� N 1r1 O A O �p� r O In O M O A I_ r LD CL ,71 P 0 ;, km 10 0 ! 'o, I LA LU 0 is V.- 1113 :0 !O lvl i 5, 159 6M MN 21 JN CK I z A X z w -j 7 y -j z w i z -j LL9 -j CL -j CC' 10 !9 ul X a 4c 7N O zi 0 O O V. 6p a A O LM In LA In 61% Al R1 fq Lf, fit pfn Al ",.nD IM U,SA 0 0 i 12 0. a, T Or I i i i i � I C i I? Cd a Q at DLII LU UA 31 61 -ij 8 19 11 %M 41A -4 . -.40 cz 19 ZO 3I In -LAJ ui df uj Lm cc w ZK us L2. w Z 14 ac L2 d CL r p = 66 co a- WN O 11 o Q 0 0 1,4 N '0 n e'c z,.1. I I I I i i i i I I I I I t I i i U i Q I a IO I I i I P s O I P IN �P 't e' O y" CPI O IN O� C� 10 IN iP IA 'Cl., O N P :O i0 is � IOr Ia !•+a1 110► 10 '� _O �� 10 i� 10 � O P 10 jC < Q P V N N W < < z� OQ Nn Sp NIQ �IH U < p; m J' ■C.� ppQ� Q< d�N = 133 O< NIN U <u �O I 7u �O yNayyyl d <� iV1 OIL! U N t �U WO TI< �1 Vf YJU �a<! �f1I JM '! ` O U NJ =W Oid N< .�U < « a0 �t� �< YW aC0 O< ro << u!� WH d< N N z Ja34 O< �p 1(�N PaC O< N N I 71c <! �jC VyH TI OI- N m d a r u0 �r Pi aC O< N VI Vf < N O Y WV Oa �0<C •11< ` I ! .'�VI I I LA y I I W W z y a I a i I H .J z u Y e I'M r m oC J a j W, J' =• J h Z V V ^ r Z. cc � ac WWy J Q A 3: `� KI 3 r. >. J :L- > m = - Y �. 1; M. cc p Z W J' Uh 2' Q W 8 >y ` _ r A.. OC i 2 _ it Q 2 N Y Q W L = Q z j I Q W t ' u i _ Z O 1!1 r N a N m o N .!'1 1(1 In %A !1 N In N In - N e'c z,.1. C w a r O a 0 0 Q 7 < W z :7 Q Z � L z z y a Q a m 7 i C' n J 1 S 7 1 T W O T P O P w S O S rO. I O . OT 'O P I is N • N P i N •P N 'a IP N i N N i � m W i I I W r � I C3 a O 7 N W u '< 21 = 0 z a aoo < O m� y OQ CL 2 It . < pp z ao K co W 7� 6 2 j alld O W <> ip��Z 2.. Z J M= i d, U .�c <� �O OI � �< r N M 4 :j d J t� W6 N� N U i 6m U WN p of 2 a,.< 1 N I U Ol W 3< Hu P.� N � 06 cc � U OIW g'� O 110 Oi uV� i � U OQ U• d Ci cc P< J � V Q< �fu O �i c <� < W u OW �» 0 C-, Na :/I y< MI L) XZ 00 m � OW 1 W day J V �W N J t -�< r V1 � {<J W< O� r�ir .�! < d< r N � V 4c! C c- N < ♦< r C� � V e: c9 �N p <( < i I C U4 <j e. t� eV < t< V::.. o, j W W i I I � I a O 7 , Q z = V CL (9 z Z y Y < W. Y. Z W Y Q O O ! m ! 2�' p C7 Z = _1 y, w d u J _ > j Z J m z r 1 a O N r I a N N 1 a O N I m N C J1 r I a N O N r i v O N 1 m N O N p I 1 N N U N O I a O N N O I a O N O r a O N r r r T O N O > I O O N r > r N N O I o N ~ O r o N O N . V::.. o, I � I i i , co ;at lug A It 49 LD 4 wl L4 1.3 i 6N 2r, O IC Ch IC uj W uj uj ac uh uj zc -A w u uj vN i LA uj z kj Q 9: Lu W 11 uj uj 10 ta Ic uj it- WI 3 %A LA 4% co 6n vv a 6 a uj 6A AY, In in '0 Lilts cc: cc om -9 cm 61 lu aw 0 Cc c 0-6 tv 4 V) 6q IA Ln La 61 Im uj OF LLJ CL; Z: CLI ze bL Uj� le z 3C 0 w. co IQ M 1 14 A Al In 6M WN Jt v1 in I � I i i , co ;at lug A It 49 LD 4 wl L4 1.3 2r, IC Ch IC uj W uj uj ac uh uj zc -A w u uj vN i uj z kj Q 9: Lu W 11 uj uj 10 ta Ic uj it- WI LA 4% co 6n vv a a cc 6A AY, In in '0 Lilts "JNTCD IN U.SA U. C7, a T a, a A a p IT Ob o 61 Ile 6) 1.4 -g I . " i j Q lu LU I tj -a Lu -a -C " 1.11 -a LU r 12 Q : Q .9 LD IA 0 .9 rg CK P., 10. -4 CZ lK wl 'A 'A -4 : A A WU CK ,XI uj •.1 uj UJI z CL me J Z C I -j 0 UA 7K 4 0 LA Lu Of uj Z 4r 0 I z W i a A M i 19 0 z a 2 Z 30 -1 cc % D.- W DC DG � a 0 Al a If% WN In In In US IiIll O 15 9. O 61) uj I --) I CP CL O ui —0 X"a cc t -9 1 C3 cc -1 9 Ww Lj IA a< yt tt c f z U. -4c 5 WO 2 c 30 ac jjw R 11 . NO 1 10 t MA 4 1 'A NH lu z W It Ir 0 Y uJ N. uj: u. -j Q S1 U0, -A. I CL ji I H UA w -A UA UA 44 ui UA ka m vi UA C6 Y m m! Uh X CL U4 uA 49 2 co 543 m Aj uj cc 6U x cc Co cl ac 6A 9% A tn' A '11 "IWMD IN U.SA ill i i i i i i i � i I 6" CP O. 6A 'J' ; -n . 'A M of W .4 C YC In . c N -C A .9 La .0 T uly mv A NN I �-- I a J .y lf� A � ..gj O 'A A %4m Its z In I IN, Li CV ir Q ! W i z 'A J "S 'A ca a z Lu �c j L) LU CL ra IWO cc UJ 1 4c .4 2 C 31 19 j z 0. N n 0 P 0 0 A UM 5t J% N CY 14 %A 14 In IN a in 1 1 0 6", In WD zLif, n I j : I Q j 6 j CD I I I i I o �- T d P :O� P P ;P 0� 'P IP N y o of °C! LLJ z r, (o - C W Y IL uy0 .0 VC] >jp UI iS ty U' of < r?I AV p ' r� I► Y pY ` O �9O J ►< � rO . Q OI hC . Or y 2 N 6VN.N H 1' uj ' NIN O�U NN Nan -4 NN NN ,Nj vl Q 2 'A w I W I I I i i W L d i N W Q Q i r'1 Q ( I N < Y J 7 w z j `r u uj uj a uj J w r i _ p S O Q Z; JI Z- a' W Y 7 d W W J w S Z r J Y x Z W ' S ^ Lai a W Z Z Y < W Z I p( p[ S N < N Q � < Q J w Y 1 Y W 1 U O Z w oC' N 7. Y O' W y d W N - N w U Z m J I U N O Z O J N N J N N 0D N J a ti tD N m T O 14 N O O O O O O O T n O r = I OI V _ + V 1 I 1 I N N N N N N + U1 N I d 1� A A n r. :► 1A1 �r /r ~ Q T r 0 Q N N N N N N N N N N N W, N 11 N J'I N L B" Z::r: ...WED IM use I I � I I I I 1 W tl a 1 O m IN i A ob 2. I I I I I I I I i I •i O F. � i j N It J vu z O u� tis ra Y vl u J -ji W s0 ^z O i+1!1 p ou z < CC .7 i.z d J1 J uu a< .J!0 r ti K< fM N uj r zu � u� O as `Q2 N ay y =Ir ,A.Jf au2i �1I NN ~ 1.1 2W1< 0— Z 3.0 aqQ O�2 .y N < u m~` WO( M N cool Q WQ a0 Me V42 oa N :/1 �V y< au Ni mC W2 a< N < 0 N as OOu W 0< (� O Aa N 2 OQ N N < V W w0 y ! Ni O ,-C W2 co -R e1I N Y < dQ aCU W O< N - n< N2 Oa N N au u1 �< �f(O� �V 1� m 11!2 O< Y < a[u W OV O N f' m W 2 OQ o°u L+L+++ W< O M1I ` 2 q< J< = W ! c i �> _' > r Z P7 i I Q y i I i N 31 1 I i Z t7 _ s ny W Y J i W < Z Z O J < J W � W u < d 2 Y a a In CL. pp 2 < Y p2 Z a J �! T O i j o I p a li: aa S = d W V L gym! J h L4 J v a N N 2 W J Q V a V1 N s�C �! J a O a N L •� W J v C a CL K � 6u J ca le CL Y W J 7 i ccc W J O a 2d2 Z JI J a �Oxt.' W J 7 s W Y s 0 \1 x Ia z Q 0 O 0 I T O 0 o M O N 0 ill, .'li1 O N O N 0 tq O 1� 0 I 1O 0 o � w1 � 0 0 •o rn N 0 0 0 0 'q N 0 n1 Ill o 0 l O N 0 = O 11 o 0 a T p Y1 a 0 ` p N 0 a T U N ' I •s•o iun I � I I , I I I ! � I I I w I y ,pp 0 '4 ;aD IA !0 iC m ;a m im i0 im d IM O i i �° + o 0 0 o im io T Lr In vi O P ! i P i a In 2 I q I I w DW UA < :J UA V cc 4 U aC u = J �•q 1./ V Z J Y � U Vi � J U =1 U Y O Y U ZZ �L N V) 0 Vim ? �7 �, 4w N �a0'N ��IIntl J N Cpl N yOj r O > > `a w •I � i i � < 2 ! W I , I W i I .0 i l y Q J it T V, •y U :.f UI m JII �1 � Z� .Y., Y � w = J J I 2 :J 6 i.4 J N V Y U UI ' Y 7 1y j d Vfi N N H N N N N Y V7 2 W 7 p YI .WJ.. ypi pW yJ y y W uJ d L W 2 J W J J W J J W J Y 2 a v. J w Y Y' J W Y• Yp s aG O ir 7 at I f y O a Q. or: C Z oC' i Y: Y r to ., cc d = i I z a a n I t I I I t I I 1 .11 ell a;n n 61 a+ 0 LL .............. ............. i i i i i ui 0 10 61 In 6A CP i O I i � I 'A 'A lu K 4c . -C mi -C u C. -j Ir ;� I 0 C7 X ag "I "IN O Cl 16 Z 0 0 Z z m z -04. Z A Q< 49 CK cc -09 1 IOI 0 cc w �o 61 4A .0 j^ L4 6M -C I - 'A A c .4 06: 'A -4 LA 0 X IA 99 U4 L: H I X 60 z 9 N In N 'A cc 7 z 9 % cx el vi 6W ji Ic UA 3c x W uj Y me uj 0 a: In j CL O 'O 61 co uj cc x cc Mi AJ <: x 0 uj 61 x -C -2 x CL co m Q 0 K N N N ID T 4- In U1 N In In I a I ' i I I I I uj I �• a' 'N :O N i0 N .00 N Ip .O O O O O ul O :N O N ! I a P < Iw QC iQ O J _ la 'Z iN a J W Y yi Y �.� 4 J W. Z z'<'J .O �i OC OiN Q J W L w +a rY OQ NN c W -C ii r O< nk V1 <• J W -C � V is NN <j W Yu 1!u< ii~ NN u � 11.4 .'1 �< WQ rVI �!I < �� Lei Ot N•< rN ►: 21. 7 N � A -00 00 ..�J W "A JO N~ 4 dO< d� NN I u W J< ~� Oa NLA > Go VSO ,gu OIO rJ O at Ju S 7Q co ~` tQ r./1 r aCV '.] i< 'I �� 'r4 "'�V1 d ,^+j u C �C:J � Iry< rN I j i I a w I ' p Z J S 7 N W O ` J > O Z J 2 JJJf •L O i IW 2 9L O Z J L VI J W Z t� > O' Z J L J ? Z ud JI Z J J Z T1 jj O L J Z J y Z W N O ►. W V 3 u Y W + O � :W A. Q 9 L Y A. lo J 2 Z J Q Q O Q J 2 4 W J S a 9 Z Q JJ < Q i I S r 4 4 „�� O N r f N r � 7 N r O N •O O N IL Ir V � O N A P1 N .r O O Iq A N O d +1 P1 o •D w1 S O 1` .1 A N O In Ir •O O +1 rr O _ I i VC c.:•. Z 9 F d „O F M U F O A F A O 0 O caU F $$yF W W W ca Z M Q 0 A A N v.y N 00 N04 � 1 00.100 N N N N n Ot Ol 01 01 01 U 6 6 6 6 ZV pNN!�!��jj 4 D F F who a � aFza� UN�W O O no 1D f'1 .d O N f'1 N N m U" r N N1�1 r1NN 4 E. 4 JG U Z i1 p�01SFW S ZRa��aQ�� Uppl�l,�yzV t"Zi aas WOF m a 00 N N v 10 0 - N N N N O 0000 I 1 I I .-1-Am m OO-. -I- Irrrlrr 01 rn o1 . .-1 enmInNN �40w(n W cKFF g�� M H Q 0 O1m m m 01 Q NNr1 i Letter of Appeal 161 Dat c�ivc Hearing Datc Fee :'� 10 <<� CITY "US APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: OyAl Address: Telephone: Name of Applicant: Project. File No. 9 Q%k Project Address: - — • - Project Description: T Decision Being Appealed: 7�� '�?, ',�f: -d, .i\� �5h1 -• rY� �x� w�v�,�,z� Grounds for the A • ppeal (Letter may be attached): 1,2 U OCG�� A ip llant -7-44—g ,11 ature e *Please do not sign this application until it is presented at th City offices. If you wish specific people e appeal please list them on a separate opletto be notified of this T!iTS APP!.TC,ITION tit( ►rT PI: SI!n �iL D, \I'L' Ut� 'CHE DCCISIO. D TT,fIN TrN (10) CALENDAR DAYS 0 Correspondence C�nd 1 1,51 Y6 9L a-)�Zt _127 Me, Se-)tergber 1", o the '1 ^nning cor1-aiss on City of cFr�toPa He: I -11 -Young - 11 85 ''e�ner Lane ! "e, the tu?dersigned, nr -iFh-' -!ors of the subject - pro ,)ert%r strongl-r o-nnose construction o-' the two -story 0«•el' ink? oronose(7, 'or tiis site, for the foll.ol - --inp re ^sons: 1) It roes not conform to the imege of our neihborhood, thet of nostly sing•1e story, ^000 to )")0 s�uere `'oocC homes. ^) That it --ill infringe on the nrit-acy of severel nearby . - ronerties, one of the grime objectives in living -n this erea. 7) het 1- OulO tr-nd to set e ^recece �.t for further co.-Istr. uc- tion o° this t7n. e as fixture resales ocri.:r, or Qs present home o- ners decide to enlarge oil rermooel. Gam- �, ! 9 e - z < iz . vo y G' 15a 00 R2 ej La ci, 15:2 00 pa ppl-7 t� . / / 6F � - �� 1, = - � `�� (rte � � -� • S �. �,. ,�-� � �J c J ,t ��i�l!!�'� V • 1 lam[/ � � � ' V _ �� / \ � \� ? Pte_ �-�• �JZ�7Q GG�c.. ..c�c.r G�c <n�• ��i�y�t -i 11 L e E ji p p I� C, ,-I -,-- (.:' -.-. - - � .CF --) 4- 0.1, t!"'C' :'U�trlc j t j 7 co--:Ject to C, ` -. f-, J- L e, n p os E--, e n c f F- c Gr it t c :7 e I c, tl E, p r i I , 1... - Of ur o -ar.�.cnS., J r-n,.:. of .In,-- b buij-1- 1, 1 , .- c - shm;-n ()T:- T r a 1, we st r '� ",T C- t!jS �e F-. Is a I (D I C p J- :Or'- prot�ction, bu, i-, j- L )'ic c in the -L-"c, L e V e 1 r7 P i c 'U L ' e Fout-h v 1 TC,,-: 01 17 1-jo, 0 (y7,U(:- Ui r UZC : E- 7 2, a pl ec ',7 C! r cluar ofL.L"J—t- , o r S, i27+_ -7 �7 - U L.- 4-L, -L I.) *(022c . s- c J s r • a t e i�.i , � v ,. �`" a 734 rS 1Ft } `y�4ti [ � r ky �, 1 tti ; t?rxy", r �,, ` >} ; *. x t M r. A k'-atax r �` r _ "4 k `.%, J J , ,:e-%--M, „s _- e 6,A �" l i. .11 f - Ji act-vc Sitt'�` y,' s . jai.- S c. _.tp�T"G �i5•p•� r "c b t . ft i - C: v Membes,x:; 3 i ew r J e ye �to�� z� a 1'S r'i'is .x.., x lst r Fi: ` .; : e +e -..;. .7 3 +t`l .d}• ?c'. `rt �' , -. "` ' ! � _ 5: I'll {:. ? 3 SaraetQga planning Commissian� r}� a} `w 3akkr� x" r.: ', 7 k ! f + s ea: L "� i 4; t f* rye a . � �,�, € t `i. .a'�r a �� ,q* ti y' iz �i. , � ,:"c�?CV _ .,� Yyf. ,, �rS��< k! 6"4,! iri)" Vim, . '��* ` `I°""''t `.a,�` +sxa �'. " ".� +• !` >• N _ .�•; -- Dear <Commiss on.,Membeis '��`9 r.. e► 1K;tr r ' J x�Y '�' r '`� +: �:: h . } f�� fix,'{{� tl A pr 4 r`#y.� q.;r1 ,F rr. s tdyY x� i T s. r xf 'a {y` ..,: � � , 1. �1- j . /'� G i 4 .y. R t :: ` .. d 1,.-t Ili l� C i .:'r2 y -: .� -.+ r raf,?" .. y f ..•'� y :. x q 4rnG t At ?', 7.. . _. s. y x 'X ;; On the hee� Hof a: good deal of reflection and roves ' , tigatzoir, ram ga to concerned ,about , the precedential ,;� - � r � ; � ..� x implications _of allowing the owners a the :property .at <,;°r t i5 t6 Pepper .:La a (tWo houses East ` . aun hh1ome) a variance ` ii�� :: ' r {,,: Fy L 4... dry. 4 if ��` 4} i�� K permitting erection of a two story . cruse , r q _ I-,y r ,; } ^` f ,J,ta r ,j i Tf n+'av ri`.. S i0.`y. ,, .rr' 1..',4vZw L rat � 1""7n� ` d" 1 tX; f *r r f ' yt'f,' J S .*��+Ar' �'7Kc 5'' � }� ,,,, ,iq ` . i st t: r {t. - 5's-iq." s a� nF„' '"r- " y,_, r ., yr j.:•�t': °y; }. t- :: r,•6 :i";� ^y'��nt,_Mi:t ,. ,'r...?tTra yy- %9` i 3 - 4T -�RTMy fax yeti w� �:_,. andin their house (or compretely re building t ,,� , . % .. .1-, r.d the rear of their property rs• Qf - course ``permissible ; } � But my wife and L ,(and:, so many d . our neighbors with�l "whom K ;t r� -XI ��_ A we , ' , talked )" are fearful that such: a variance would .: set �'a � "`� t x precedent- for "simiSar future rpro�ects� a ' _��.N `��' A { $ 4�u :.axi. *} y 1 r' f?L kt►#" 3R N ,f' I �e 3 f i! ! ?i�� C{ r� 2 iFRS� tN �h r r "Ill ` l S ..: �r . ,, rays , '. �`�' - � ^L i7,. , , " af.� !s g 7. t 9 r{ r- , a,...l ;F . n •R 11 �' f M ,t e r.fi ,` ,! -,u :.'. ,4'Zfin � ''"' : � •:r^ r fi'7,vl;.r ...;;giprf cp :. k.,, Irr �.t'. +' :f A * � �'� �.��ri:: t a t" ! ?6� r ,,w t, We ourselves are about to re build"; ,U ?ut early on we _ , � �� . � -, z'�c i t �,, dismissed any, notion of pply�.ng for a second story `" - {qy+� IDIW ` tv.e f ��` ...d�.ai,' h', '% Z I_ 4�i'J :,. v )i .W- t}•J �„-yY .y �.' yu•••r rc�.'#''2r�{ t *' ' µ � �a ac k., 1?. t...:' ry - i .r cR r 1'?•kr -, C M iy�R'7" - ,, , j �, Il 'Jrr$ a 4. y $ v ri � .Jib , �i$ft •tSYS '� �'�.'+ 1 . � ;�f� v , :e4 f y '' a t3[- ;49.1 . N ` '_ Y�r � ` , P Z i ""j"l��`ii {�� `i� 5' ere4ly s t f, M . f. X14 11 �.ti y�� . r „+ r< ? i` KFf E :' ,,.�. c. #: y.._ y.G,t.� �+k a• y _iHa •, ti r .: fi t� �`"� r t �"k�'�y"�_µ.�, �:.... t. ,,Y ^ i 3 t Yhr r .i. .:.-l••r , - b 3 tt +, +.. . Ki" .�`t r - 't+ r±k �i? a s{:c •jr• rlx.. + 4'Ri .. '%'' :o. r e r..: _ yt� 't-a ,�y }•kKi" 4 cro ,5�'�.'.. e: X . ry' , $• - ri >i r +� f,� a t ,�. t." _ .. .' r t: 1' �3�.��'s i :r a- s �'�� z x;r �`r° f f._ arold od s '�, ,�irjt�,�.ryt`,Sr�R`'.i'7 % t .' ty 1 r• Y{ t ,c 4� %., a r' f tyr 1d - r J •S ��r �. } y, r- fy rr f w� r t,.t e r J ! �� . �. 875 Park drive J r was �a % t FLJ y•r q71 �t xri'�f �£ N r�t2X + r1 �{} c title r• fit: yy t3 t .. �f #} �` �i , + Sti Saratoga ` �� i .- �' s t t 11 .t y 7C+ }S'jl' ti � h xr-'" c� r Y r'. _ . r f1 i fi . aN.s'+ ,r•. i• � ,`h t, i yl,- {1~ ° r t 4 S ; , _- �(, L � ?� � " -r -t ' 1 v in yam,. •r P ^.zy, f r `:r r 'Sly �rtu -:x - - fp s^ e ` `' f F t C -a. 1. . 'i t }_h�� w-e' •( k.1}0. { - { Zr•'�'�fr "f` fi.�ti t. ;fig s,.. -f (..: �+ fy4 � }.iW <r I�,f �. a. 5F�L "� ,r''t r'i''r. ..t "' .1 s -- �'3 1 a :Y;'� T K.., t f > .;P tirIC S v f z" •} , c x,,,iyq! r� ft s' T •2' t 1 9 .' F :. �'�! i x : k ,F..c+!j.V �5� ";:' ".Y. fF ", 9r�i.r� :,t" i -' ...trr e r f i i � LT LP.. f( }{.� y:y _ _, :" J1 -, J t r ls., t v, A i x ,1 f, _y3�. J r :r `�'L �'',` >''•+�.� r.t -` - h. :S. K., •Ff` 'v,. •.x5 t: �`� ti •a- IY.y t ) +F',� 1. bf , f 4 r, v a e w cr rH ir,f, • t N: r 4 JJai .• t1 J}.2rr,�.�;,�ir.- wrr`e•,7�r "....,��J,,.:�t; 4.. it ra'3F,,,,� ?.' n.1.�ii`.::t`rr•.cTX..t,d�t };....tTd'Xt,�'�bt `" " ll:.':1.`;.,f4 -t.p,;' lell L J Jr 4 t- 'Ft yl c f r r r K 4rw�a r d t x f ^u WF +f w k j7..1- 'S n" i ' �, �t Y n k � . < ,i °i '! t `4 �. '�; � i•.. {� S ' u!., t{.. , q r�ys k� �t ytirFf t ;Y i ng rr�t7e °K �� x ` 1. r t ty�F� jw �'2 1. t,c 'Vl r,:. 1.; Y ?x,36. ::s x,71, ._ aYl� A<, ff�,� t+ x :fY!S -r �? :. Y> /..Jt r t ni�ti {d r -.c ;- o-'}c .;. .N Y<, r r a -: rg S?1'%Y 'r d, . z�4 ,rda .� r . ;�,� t: x: , r t ` t rf w. '� :1t >, r'..i,�ntAff-r v,�a 1 ! J t T . .r'Yt tti�t• x i1p.: .✓tr �. nt... t. i n :\,. K S r A ,ii� � fa l�1 r :� c 7 '�i F . t. „Sp„ L.6 V N�.4r` i- r x ••'•ret " ` tt f' a1a 4 r _lie' 11 1J.- x r. n i^' .q ; C Y �+3 ". t1�.• !" 'T+ a• ;?a>r+Jtl.'e i?'t`' }.�`.t ''a+. /' F � ,)' v +•w -'-r' 4 } . u ><,ra r+' i p��. 4c. i1• . 1. t -r..�: �^{ i n ate"' -r n - '�. xyK,t. ]Y ! ,, 1.F M _ w r ,'}��'•fry.,c..,+ -r '4 t, a X } is c t >. t G .•'f •• ,4y -. '1 r r �J` r`` 1. a t:..,,''Y� d r � � 1 ' T i. .l ' _ f� tN a.(4`�,- A l r/ t f}, rR .. . fn Y' ,S 'yii .Y .4 fjf .1ii x fi ?- k4J . tr - '-w If fi `•Y' tft 1 t t . S c, r :�'� l tl'it ; - •. c : , C ..c- t > . '„' �- 'f .y " A x.1.7 !c. nIF :... `. - a _'fb y °t ? 1 a('` �' f t f' .�a3ti�s>!'�iY�Y 1 .,f..r•, :� - , ! p"1t>n !+� lea; 4"c �, tJ 1' _ a r tw y. _rl 43� i 5 t r t .r -... t ,rr l� +` L. y Ys t �x r r y °.t s l�� '� �"' ' r i �r,q ruts ° r:' r a J §Y w In ^cis�j r r 7 /yr t �t rP� n h r; u Y _± 1 j* r 1 7 `� 1 1 t . ,. �- YL fhb 1 k N 1 t2 r < c t. f 5 t 3 b �47i i �+ t # t s J j -ter 4 1 4 i+ y" "4" j •;vm '• r .F. f - r r i stet f.. rcr r k:. *� t +a J r L.i r„ a r 1 c •l f. . rr -:� . �. �! t .,.. Y , .., . ,. , . ., - •. ' J., i .. - P ; 1. I J ;. ° J , . . - . . ._ I I - . .. -.. .. • . , - .. _ . . . .. _\ - . , 1. - . . L , ' ' . . . A Charles and Barbara Bocks 15290 Pepper Lane Saratoga, California Planning Commission City of Saratoga Dear Sirs: September 13, 1989 This letter is to formally object to the building of a large, second story home by the Young Family on the corner of Pepper Lane and Park. We do not feel that the proposed building fits with the present style and feeling of the neighborhood. We feel that much of the value of our propoerty is related to the "rural, ungrouded, quiet, "style of the neighborhood. This home will be standing two stories very near Pepper Lane. The lot is not large in comparison to other lots; however, the proposed building will be one of the largest. We feel a home more in keeping with the size of the lot, keeping in mind the nearness to the street should be considered. We further feel consideration should be given to the next door neighbors who will have a two story house looking down into their yard. Thank you for considering our concerns. ?r Barbara and Charles Bocks V q- f3-gg d�rr2 - G 76 L��v tip— ! St $S F,—pp,-7e— )—A. G� )4-o 4Uaxev a,�+l S�f � JZ�IZm P.C. Minutes_.,. J f- 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Page 3 HARRISBURGER MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1, 7, 8, 10 AND 11. Passed 7 -0. 9. UP -89 -012 Abrams/Pan Cal - 12984 Village Dr., request for use permit approval to allow freestanding tenant identification signs and two freestanding site identification signs as part of an overall sign program for an existing medical /professional office complex in the P -A zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Commissioner Tucker requested clarification on the placement of the building signs and infor- mation on the difference between building signs and freestanding identification signs. Planner Walgren provided the information requested and called attention to the Site Plan. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 P.M. There were no speakers. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 EM. Passed 7 -0. TUCKER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE UP -89 -012 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 7 -0. 12. DR -89 -076 Young, 15185 Pepper Lane, request for design review to allow the demoli- tion of an existing single family residence and the construction of a new 4,079 sq.ft., two story residence, in the R -1- 20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Graff presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated September 13, 1989. Commissioner Harris noted that the Site Plan incorrectly showed the front yard setback to be 30 inches; she assumed that 30 ft. was the correct distance. Planner Graff agreed an error had been made in listing the required setback; he added that the actual setback distance was 50 ft. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:42 P.M. Mr. David Young, Applicant, commented as follows: - Stated that he wished to comply with all applicable requirements - The proposed structure was approximately 1000 sq. ft. less than allowed and the height of the structure was less than the 26 ft. limitation; in addition, the highest portion of the structure would be centered over the first floor portion of the house - They moved to this neighborhood for the privacy afforded; when the plans for the remodel were drawn up, he had taken care to ensure that the neighbor's privacy would not be impacted - Photographs were presented to show the mature landscaping on -site which he felt would prevent privacy impacts; these photos were taken from the roof of the existing home - An area map was handed out to show the sites that currently had two -story homes - Cited the significant personal impacts from any project delay; his children's school year was being disrupted and he did not wish to extend this into a second school year; in addition, there were many financial costs involved in demolishing the home, renting a second residence and rebuilding a new structure; furthermore, there were concerns regarding the coming winter rains PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 13, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Page 4 Mr. Hyland, 19852 Park Dr., Saratoga, read into the record his letter of September 11, 1989; he added that a second story addition on the Applicant's home would block the morning sun from his bedroom area. He submitted additional letters and a petition objecting to this Application. Mr. Scott Cunningham, Project Designer, commented as follows: - Stated that he had proposed two designs for a remodel of this home and found that demolishing the existing home was required, with an entirely new structure to be built - A two story house was then considered in order to preserve the site area - Noted the extremely dense foliage on -site which prevented a view of adjacent structures; no major trees would be removed, although some trees required trimming With respect to the comment that there would be a shadow cast on the neighbor's home, this was somewhat superfluous; the existing trees obscured the sunlight far more than any second story element would - With respect to privacy concerns, the photos showed that there was not visible intrusion be- tween adjacent parcels; this was a half acre, relatively flat site - Neighbors also contended that the character of the neighborhood would be altered; four of the seven homes in the area were already two story, one of which was considerably larger that the remodel proposed In response to Chairperson Siegfried's question, Mr. Cunningham stated that it seemed the Plan- ning Commission preferred to eliminate traditional style roofs, which were usually accomplished by a 4:12 pitch; it was his experience that there was resistance to what might be termed a "stark elevation" and /or other traditional Tudor design features. He had nestled some of the living area into the roof, in order to address the Commission's preference; the architectural features of the house were discussed. The Design Review Handbook was cited to show that they had conformed to the City's Guidelines; the Applicant had required that the house comply with all requirements. Ms. Louise Shaeffer stated that the major issue was the preservation of privacy; she observed that her ne$t door neighbor would suffer major impacts from this proposal. Other properties had larger lot sizes to absorb the size of the homes on them; a two - story, 22 ft. high structure would be more in keeping with the site in question. Mr. Young clarified that the 26 ft. high element of the structure would exceed a 15 ft. distance from the property line; furthermore, the property line was not a mess. Ms. Hyland, 19852 Park Dr., Saratoga, stated that she could see the peak of the Applicant's home; if a second story element were built, she would be looking at a blank, 10 ft. high wall. She noted the extreme trimming that would have to done to the Applicant's trees; this would increase the view of both homes. An area resident added that the Applicant had tried to show her where the 26 ft. height would be located; however, it was difficult to conceptualize exactly where the highest element would be. BURGERMARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:10 P.M. Passed 7 -0. • �+V . ��: .«• EXECa':'IVL IAAY NO• I �/' AGMA 1= MEETING OATEs 11 -1 -89 CITY n=. APPRMLA�§p ORIGINATING DTs Enaineerina $QBJEM HANDICAP ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion Racommandid Motions Grant Final Acceptance and file Notice of Completion. Raoort 9tmmsy I The Saratoga City Council, at their regular meeting on June 7, 1989 award the contract for the above project to George Johnson Construction, Inc. Due to additonal work, the construction cost ran over by $6,364.24. The work on the above project has been satisfactorily completed and it is recommended that this work be accepted. Fiscal t=ads s Total cost: $28,915.24. :(from:HCDA funds) Attach=ntas .1. Notice of Completion. Motion and Votes Ate. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. MEETING DATE: 11/1/89 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL I-7 -�( ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA ITEM -6 CITY MGR. APPROVAL/V SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of DR -89 -076 Applicant: David & Nikki Young Appellant: E.M. & Francia Hyland Location: 15185 Pepper Lane -----------------------------------7--------------------------------------- ti Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. Report Summary: The Planning Commission was divided on the issues presented at the public hearing which which were tree preservation, neighborhood compatibility and privacy. A majority of the Planning Commission concluded that the proposal was compatible with its surroundings and the proposed design served to mitigate the privacy concerns of the adjoining neighbor. Further, the Planning Commission approval included conditions requiring additional landscaping to enhance the landscape screen currently between the applicants' and the appellants' properties. Additional landscaping was also proposed to compensate the loss of to trees recommended for removal by the City Horticulturist. The dissenting viewpoint stemmed from the concern that the proposed home created a privacy intrusion by its close orientation to the appellants' property. Further, those dissenting felt that while a variety of one and two story homes was prevalent in the neighborhood, the proposal was deviant from the established character. Fiscal Impacts: Attachments: Motion and Vote None 1. Appeal 2. Correspondence 3. Minutes 4. Previous staff reports 0TXW Qq 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DATE:11 /1/89 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of DR -89 -076 Applicant: David & Nikki Young; Appellant: E.M. & Francia Hyland Location: 15185 Pepper Lane Recommendation Staff recommends that the City council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. nuprviPw The Planning Commission received an application for the remodel of an existing one -story single family residence to a two -story structure so that the remodeled structure will essentially replace the existing structure. The Planning Commission received the input of the adjoining neighbor regarding the impact of the second story on their property. After continuing the item to allow the Commission to personally visit the site, a majority of the Planning Commission found the proposal consistent with the City's required design objectives. Background The applicants propose to demolish the existing home which is approximately 2,580 sq. ft. and reconstruct a home 4,079 sq. ft. in size on a 25,008 sq. ft. parcel in the R -1- 20,000 zone district. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Park Drive and Pepper Lane. The property is relatively level and has numerous mature trees. The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of one and two -story homes with a variety of floor areas. The new residence would be 26 feet in height and in the same general location as the existing residence. The lower floor would contain the living areas while only three bedrooms would be located on the upper floor. Therefore, the upper floor would cover approximately 55% of the footprint of the lower floor. The exterior would be covered in stucco painted light grey. The window and door trim would be wood painted an off - white. Brick accents would be used on columns on the lower floor. The roof would be wood shingles or slate. During Planning Commission consideration, tree preservation, privacy and compatibility issues were discussed with the applicants and affected neighbors. The City Horticulturist visited the site and recommended that two trees not protected by the Tree Preservation Ordinance be removed between the new residence and the adjacent neighbor. The City Horticulturist felt that the removal of the smaller trees would benefit the growth and survival of the remaining larger trees. The applicants indicated that the existing screening provided by the trees and shrubs at the property would obscure the adjoining neighbor's view of the new second story. The appellants stated that the removal of the two trees would significantly reduce the screening and result in their view of large portions of the new second story. The compatibility of the proposed home with its surroundings was a major area of Planning Commission focus. While the neighborhood exhibits a variety of architectural styles of both one and two story design, the appellants indicated that the one story California ranch style is seen in several homes in the immediate neighborhood. The Planning Commission was divided on the issue of compatibility. A majority of the Commission opined that while the proposed structure deviated from the neighborhood style, there were a number of second stories in the immediate vicinity to blend with the proposal. Further, the proposed second story was off -set from the ground floor and was approximately 20 feet further from the neighbor's property line which significantly improved the side elevation. A minority of the Planning Commission felt that a second story may be appropriate for this property, but that the proposed design was too high. The steep roof design and its flat sections were inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Those dissenting also stated that the significant increase to the footprint closer to the appellants' property resulted in compatibility concerns. The privacy impacts of the proposal also divided the Planning Commission with a majority of the Commission concluding that existing and required landscaping, as well as the setbacks to the upper floor, would effectively screen visual concern from the appellants residence and outdoor living areas. Moreover, a majority of the Planning Commission found that there would be one window in bedroom #3 on the upper floor to present privacy concerns. With the installation of fixed translucent glass in this window and increased landscaping, the Planning Commission majority felt that the privacy concerns were resolved. The minority Planning Commission opinion felt that the relocation of the porch, master bedroom and family room areas closer to the neighboring property would result in unavoidable impacts to the neighboring property. Further, those dissenting indicated that the tree removal recommended by the City Horticulturist would significantly change visual appearance to such an extent that new landscaping would not provide an effective screen. The appellants raised concerns relative to shading of their bedrooms and side yard patio areas as a direct result of the proposed second story. While the applicants pointed out that the existing trees and shrubs shade the appellant's side yard, the appellants indicated that the second story would block the filtered sunlight now reaching their property. . Staff's report to the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed residence. Due to the variety of broken roof lines and the setback between the lower and upper floor and the presence of second stories in the neighborhood, staff was able to find the proposal compatible with the requirements of the Residential Design Handbook. The existing and proposed landscape screen between the properties was also a consideration in staff's recommendation. While more of the structure would be exposed to the appellant's view after removal of the lesser oak trees, staff concluded that the limited second story glazing and its distance from the appellant's property would reduce privacy and compatibility concerns. X&,/Z�Mz- ,Steph n E lie Planning (Director SE /dsc SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ' /,-� 7 MEETING DATE: 11/1/89 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA ITEM F's CITY MGR. APPROVA SUBJECT: Appeal of SD -89 -105; Applicant: Sam Espeseth; Appellant: Barbara Kenrich Location: 20271 Merrick Drive Recommended Motion: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold and modify the decision of the Planning Commission by requiring a wood fence with landscaping for the perimeter of the property. Report Summary: The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed residence will be compatible with its surroundings and, therefore, consistent with the City's Residential Design Handbook. The area of controversy before the Planning Commission was the adjoining neighbor's desire for additional landscaping and the concern for the chainlink landscaped fence for the property perimeter. The Planning Commission concluded that additional landscaping was needed but not to the extent requested by the adjoining neighbor. The Planning Commission also allowed the chainlink fence that would be planted with an evergreen vine which over time would be fully obscured. Staff supports the additional landscaping as required by the Planning Commission as it believes this requirement satisfactorily mitigates adjoining neighbor's impact. However, staff does suggest that a wood fence with landscaping be considered in place of the chain link as approved by the Planning Commission. Fiscal Impacts: None Attachments: Motion and Vote 1. Appeal 2. Minutes 3. Correspondence 4. Previous staff reports 0919W o §&MZUQ)0& 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council DATE: 11/1/89 FROM: Stephen Emslie, Planning Director SUBJECT: Appeal DR -89 -105 Applicant: Sam Espeseth Appellant: Barbara Kenrich Location: 20271 Merrick Dr. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council uphold and modify the decision of the Planning Commission by requiring a wood fence with landscaping for the perimeter of the property. Background The Planning Commission received an application for the construction of a new one -story single family residence on a lot recently granted building site and lot line adjustment approvals. At the time the parcel boundaries were relocated, the applicant presented conceptual architectural plans showing the compatibility of the new residence with its surroundings. Essentially, the plans previously presented to the Planning Commission and City Council have been refined and are presented for design review approval. Staff nor the appellants have raised concern regarding the impact of the proposed house design. The finished floor elevation of. the proposal is as low as possible to reduce the impact to adjoining neighbors who are downslope from the Espeseth property. Much of the rear and side elevations will be constructed below grade which minimizes the amount of structure visible to the adjacent neighbors. These components of the proposal have led staff and the Planning Commission to conclude that the proposal is compatible with its surroundings and, therefore, consistent with the City's Residential Design Handbook. The primary concern discussed at the Planning Commission hearing was the landscaping and fencing conditions recommended by staff and modified by the Planning Commission. The specific concern of the adjoining neighbor was the amount and size of landscaping required for the eastern property line adjacent to the relocated driveway. The applicants proposed a landscape hedge extending along a 150+/ - section of the property adjacent to the appellant's side and rear yards. The hedge is composed of 22, 15- gallon evergreen shrubs (pittosporum). The appellants corresponded with staff and the Planning Commission to indicate their desire for additional landscaping in this area. The appellant's requested 12 -36" box Brazilian pepper trees to be located behind the hedge. Staff suggested to the Planning Commission that a compromise measure to reduce the size of the pepper trees requested to 24" box with the same spacing as proposed by the appellants. The Planning Commission received the written request of the appellants along with a proposed planting plan and discussed the additional landscaping. The applicant indicated that further landscaping was unwarranted and, therefore, should not be made a condition of this design review permit. The Planning Commission concluded that additional landscaping was necessary but not as extensive as requested by the appellants. The Planning Commission required that the proposed pittosporum hedge should be extended 50 more feet along the eastern property line and that groupings of several 15 gallon pepper trees be also required behind the hedge. The revised landscape plan would be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. The second issue related to the fencing proposed for the perimeter of the lot slated for new construction. The applicants propose a 6 foot chain link fence to be planted with an evergreen vine to create a desirable landscape effect. The Planning Department indicated its concern with the appearance of the chainlink while the vines established themselves. Because the rear property line of the new residence is at a substantially higher elevation than the house, portions of the rear and side yard fencing will be visible to the street. Staff suggested that a wood fence similarly planted with landscaping would be a better solution given the concern over the interim appearance of the chain link. The Planning Commission concluded that the chain link with vines was an acceptable approach to the visual appearance especially once the landscaping matures. Analysis The City's motivation for exacting a requirement from a private property owner should be to compensate or mitigate an impact directly a result of the project being proposed. Recently, judicial rulings have required cities to prove their "nexus" or connection between the requirement or condition and the effect being mitigated. The evidence of a nexus applies to large scale developments as well as the small scale project currently being considered. In staff opinion, the request of the appellant could not be granted by the Planning Commission because the increased landscaping was superfluous to the direct impact of the new construction. The Commission found that since the new construction involved a new one - story residence and a relocated driveway, the impact of these improvements is the extent to which landscaping should be required. The Planning Commission concluded that the landscaping required was sufficient to prevent impact to the adjacent property owner. Because the proposed home is lower in grade than the driveway, the visual impact of the driveway needed additional landscaping. Additional landscaping required by the Planning Commission will visually screen both the relocated driveway and future vehicles using the driveway. Because the residence was below the driveway, this structure did not require the additional screening measures suggested by the appellants. The lowered pad elevation of the proposed residence as well as the new fencing, will effectively screen the view of the structure and prevent privacy intrusions from adjacent properties. The Planning Commission concluded that additional landscaping will be no more effective in minimizing the visual and noise impacts than what the Planning Commission required. The visual nature of the fence approved by the Planning Commission is a direct result of the proposal to construct a new residence, which staff feels should be appropriately conditioned. While the Planning Commission approval means that chain link will be visible until landscaping matures, the staff's position is that a wood fence would be more compatible for the interim since this fencing type is commonly seen throughout the neighborhood. Staff's concern results only from the short term visual appearance of the chainlink since in the long term both a wood and chain link fence will be fully landscaped. Staff would recommend that Council consider replacing the chainlink with the wood fence as previously recommended. ephe Emslie Planning Director SE /dsc Letter of Appeal / Date Re eived: Hearin Date: ._ • Fee (�r� CITY 'USE APPEAL APPLICATION Name of Appellant: rl Address: 020 2 7d /. /e,� Telephone: _ �i0� 7(-// -4947 Name of Applicant: Project File No.: Project Address: _ _�0 a`] Project Description: )4+ - ?-o DU-? I U Decision Being Appealed: fn eco��t o+s <iz 4F ctrl 6 • Grounds for the Appeal (Letter may be attached): *Please do not sign this City offices. If you w; appeal please list them T-1-ITS APPLTCATION MUST BE Alppollant s Signature application until it is presented at the Lsh specific people to be notified of this on a separate sheet. SUBMITTED IVITFIIN TEN 10) CALENDAR DAYS OF October 6, 1989 Saratoga Planning Dept. City Clerk RE: Design approval for 20271 Merrick Dr. Since the Planning Commission saw fit to change the requirements of the design review for this property I find myself once again forced to file an appeal. I spent two hours at the planning office reviewing the Staff recommendations and was assured by the planners that unless the owner met all the Staff recom- mendations the design approval would not be given. I can't believe that anyone could feel a CHAIN LINK FENCE is suitable for a residential nieghborhood, and the concerns by neighbors as to Mr. Espeseth's judgement and taste have just been confirmed. Also the changes in the landscaping on the Wilson's side are not acceptable. I am enclosing a check for 100.00 in hopes that this is the correct fee, if not please call me as soon as you office opens so I can bring over the correct amount. Sincerely; Barbara Kenrich 20270 Merrick 4V_141� / "00, P.C. Minutes of Sept. 27,1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 SEPTEMBER 27,1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Mr. Rick Rechenmacher, Consulting Civil Engineer, cited his letter and reviewed the Applicati ted that the reason for the open space easement was not indicated in the records oft i e. Mr. Steve Pizon , ney stated he was concerned about the lack of a re egarding this ease- ment; the proposed su lots were virtually unable to be . ed from the highway. It would be inequitable to require s en it was not impos other near -by lots. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE T C HEARING AT 10:23 P.M. Passed 7 -0. The City Attorney stated that a led that there was concern rega - affic access. Commissioner Burger that the concern at the time was related to roa MOVED APPROVAL OF SM -89 -014 PER THE MODEL RESOL 18. DR -89 -105 Espeseth, 20271 Merrick Dr., request for design review to construct a one- story, 2,925 sq. ft. single- family dwelling in the R -1- 10,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission, September 27, 1989. The Public Hearing was opened at 10:29 P.M. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, reviewed the Application and called out the height of the house, the amount of grading required and the landscaping screen for the site; he felt the recommendations of the adjacent property owners, the Wilsons, to use Brazilian Pepper Trees would not be the best choice. In addition, they proposed a wire fence with landscaping on it, rather than a redwood fence as recommended by Staff, which would create a feeling of confinement. Mr. Sam Espeseth, Applicant, stated he would extend the Pittosporium per the Wilson's request. Ms. Janice La Motte, 1317 Calle Tacuba, Saratoga, stated she had concerns about the proposed landscaping, drainage and the hours of construction and wished assurances that these issues would be addressed. Mr. Heid provided additional information on the landscaping and drainage. HARRIS/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:42 P.M. Passed 7 -0. Commissioner Burger stated that rotating the Pepper trees and the Pittosporium would not create a desirable landscape screen; she favored the use of the Pittosporium along the driveway, extending across the back as Mr. Espeseth offered to do. Pepper trees could be placed as appropriate. Consensus reached that 15 gallon trees would be acceptable. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE DR -89 -105 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION AND ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT A PITTOSPORIUM HEDGE BE INSTALLED ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND ACROSS THE BACK, WEST OF THE WILSON'S PROPERTY; THAT PEPPER TREES WERE TO BE PLACED PER STAFF AP- PROVAL, THAT WIRE FENCING WITH LANDSCAPING ON IT AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT WAS ALLOWED AND THAT THE HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 8:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. Passed 7 -0. Correspondence 20251 Merrick Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 September 17, 1989 Mr. Martin Jacobson RECEIVED City of Saratoga $EP 181989 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 PLANNING DEPT Dear Mr. Jacobson: I'm sending this letter to you since you are once again assigned the task of working on the Merrick project for Mr. Espeseth. Because of a great loss of privacy in our yard due to extra traffic going to the back of our home and on our property line, both the City Planners and the City Council called for land- scaping with mature evergreens. The only landscaping Mr. Espeseth offered on his plans that were submitted to you was a row of pittosporium. In our opinion, this did not solve any problems except across the side of our home. In the back, all of the trees drop their leaves.and we have no privacy at all in the winter. Because it is so important to us, we hired a landscape architect, Mr. Ken Schoppet, to draw plans for what he thought would protect us from the cars on the elevated driveway behind us. We have submitted those plans to you and hope that you will use them. Unfortunately, we are unable to change our previous plans for a vacation through Sept. 27 and will be unable to attend the design review meeting. We hope that you and the City Planners will make every effort to ensure that our living conditions will not deteriorate any more than possible. Very truly yo rs, ` Lela S. Wilson 20251 Merrick Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 RECEIVED September 17, 1989 Mr. Martin Jacobson SEP 181989 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 PLANNING DEPT Dear Mr. Jacobson: The Espeseth property at 20271 Merrick Dr. was recently approved as a building site. The City Council approval was based on the assumption that the final building plan would provide for a landscape screen between the paved drive and the property at 20251 Merrick Dr. Members of the local community, the Planning Commission, and the City Council discussed the requirement for privacy and protection from additional auto visiability. This is documented in the many letters and meeting minutes from the public hearings resulting in building site approval. It was pointed out that the driveway is several feet higher than the other neighborhood properties. Also since any parking currently used in front of the Espeseth house will no longer be available, the driveway in back of 20251 Merrick Dr. will get much more use from visitors and the Espeseth's. Clearly, the Planning Commission and the City Council members intended that a landscaping screen be provided as a condition for building plan approval. The plot plan provided by Mr. Espeseth does not adequately provide a screen between the 20251 Merrick Dr. property and the 20271 Merrick Dr. driveway. Many of the existing trees shown on the plot plan are without leaves during the winter months, provide no privacy, and cannot be considered a screen. My bedroom is 10 feet from the back fence which shows no screen beyond the bedroom corner. Since the submitted plot plan is not adequate, I obtained the services of Mr. Ken Schoppet, a landscape design architect, to recommend a landscape screen. Mr. Schoppet has indicated this landscape design on a marked up plot plan which I have provided to you. Construction in what was considered to be permanent open space by a large majority. of residents of Merrick Dr. and adjoining streets is painful at best which is why the landscape design is so important. It is also extremely important that the planting of this landscaping be done as soon as possible in order to lessen the impact to the surround- ing neighborhood. Most residents of Saratoga live here because of the quiet rural atmosphere. I have lived at 20251 Merrick Dr. for over 15 years and many of our neighbors have lived here longer. This is our permanent home and we will be retiring here as two of our neighbors already hare. I am very thankful that we have an understanding Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council. Many of our neighboring cities are not so lucky. Very truly yours, /,V- CWT H. Curtis Wilson 4c w o j. Ln IN i� z . a':0 \\ SIN. � I � \ rn a co LU IL � a no a Q i l`---, '04 .,. I oft � I tit i . �y ` =12 a. j � �, � �. '• � � t .�..,� �.1� }�``,� ri S� w i. a ,�i''.' ' -a Z SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL J-) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY No. AGENDA ITEM ___I- ,_- �' - - - -- MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1989________CiTY MGR. APPROVAL�_�_ ORIGINATING DEPT: FINANCE-PURCHASING ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: RECYCLED PAPER AND PAPER PRODUCTS ------------------------------------------------------------ Recommended Action: Direct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the Purchasing Ordinance based on the Santa Cruz County Model as proposed by Assemblywoman Eastin specifying preference of the use of recycled paper and paper products when quality, cost and fitness are equivalent. Report Summary: The City Council reefer .'ea Delaine Easton's letter of 9/22/89 recommending the procurement of recycled goods to City Staff for evaivation and recommenaation. Waste management neeas can be aggressively addressed at the local level by promoting the use of recycled waste proaucts where feasible. The City of Saratoga spends an estimated 56,000 on paper and paper proaucts annually. We have chosen extremely competitive sources for our paper supplies and currently average purchases at 50%-6U% of retail. Purchases include 600,000 sheets of copier paper. 60,000 sheets of computer paper. 30=0 sheets of letterhead bona with matching envelopes, and modest quantities of scrazch pads, letter tablets, paper towels, and sanitary tissue. Each of these items are available as recycled products. Sources are not the same as our current providers. However, through cooperative purchasing agreements with other agencies recycled products may be acquired at prices within !0% of what we are now paying. Two cities within the County, San jose ana Sunnyvale have policies regarding the use of recyclea paper. 80% of the white paper used by the City of San Jose is a recyciea product. San Jose excludes only the paper used in their Qwak Copy operation taue zu neat generat:on muaifying the copyability of the paper) and their high-quality Letterhead Bona. Sunnyvale utilizes recycled paper for iTs Letterhead bond, computer printouts and cuscouiai paper products. A major barrier to the use of recycied paper seems to be high-speed copier manufacturer cautions. Recyclen gooas have a reputation for dustiness and require aujuszments to and intensive maintenance of nigh -speed copiers. increased maintenance costs ana the possible of increased "downtime'' would indicate precluding the use of recyc,ed copier paper. r ' With the majority of our paper usage excluded from a recycled paper preference the City will not be making a major contribution to this conservation effort. Our contribution can be a clear statement of support for environmental concern at minimal cost and effort. Fiscal Impact: To be minimized by policy. Attachment: Santa Cruz County Ordinance. Motion and Vote: C) C-'— 2 6 t SEP 12 '89 16:00 SANTA CRUZ COUNTY P.2 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CODE BY ADDING SECTION 2.37.105, RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF RECYCLED PAPER AND RECYCLED PAPER PRODUCTS The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz do ordain as follows: SECTION I Chapter 2.37 of the Santa Cruz County Code is hereby amended by adding Section 2.37.105 thereto, said new section to read as follows: 2.37.105 RECYCLED PAPER. A. The Purchasing Agent shall establish and maintain procedures and specifications for the purchase of paper and paper products which give preference, whenever feasible, to the purchase of recycled paper, and paper products containing recycled paper. B. The Purchasing Agent shall purchase recycled paper and paper products, instead of unrecycled paper or paper products, whenever such recycled paper and paper products are available at no more than the total cost of unrecycled paper and paper products, and when fitness and quality are equal. C. The Purchasing Agent shell provide a preference to the suppliers of recycled paper or paper products equal to five percent of the lowest bid or price quoted by suppliers offering unrecycled paper or paper products. D. For the purposes of this Section, "recycled paper" means all paper and wood pulp products as defined in Section 10391 of the Public Contract Code, SECTION II This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after final passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz, State of California, this- day of 1986, by the following vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS NOES: SUPERVISORS ABSENT: SUPERVISORS ATTEST: Clerk of the Board -GARY A. PATTON, Chairp6rson Board of Supervisors rt.N ,'1• yw., '= Award Contract for Street Lights, Tree Lighting, Landscaping and Irrigation for Big Basin Way Recommeodid Ibtioa_ Award contract for street lighting, tree lighting, landscaping , and irrigation for Big Basin Way. Reoort S=M": The City received four (4) bids on October 26, 1989, the lowest bid was Steiny and Company, Inc. of Vallejo with a total bid of $155,231.60. This project is part of Capital Improvement project for 1989 -1990 Fiscal Year. u lisaal♦ %wafs $155,231.60 General Fund. This project was approved in the 1989 -1990 Budget. kt- tachmenta: 1. Bid Summary. "atioo and Vote: �I��ill��n��nnl� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII -� ��e�� :� �illIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ��I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �I��i�11�1�1��1�1��1111 ��ii�iuoiiniii�ioiii e �,��v�W��.�� ee��i �I��f��U�� :II, b�e.mo. 0 r _ SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY N0. -12-3 q ITEM MEETING DATE: Nov=ember 1, 1989 CITY MGR. APPROVAL ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's SUBJECT: Adoption of Policy and Procedures Statement for Human Services Grants for F.Y. 1990/91 Recommended Motion: Adopt Policy and Procedures Statement Report Summary: At the City Council's policy development conference last spring it was decided that procedures would be developed for considera- tion of requests for funding human services agencies prior to the next CDBG funding cycle. All requests for funding will be considered at the same time, and allocations made from either CDBG funds or other sources as necessary. The timetable for CDBG funding requires that solicitation for proposals begin in mid - November. It is therefore appropriate that the Council adopt a policy and procedures statement at this time. Fiscal Impacts: The Council has previously set annual funding from all revenue sources at a maximum of 1.3% of projected general fund revenues, beginning in F.-Y. 90/91. Attachments: Policy and Procedures Statement for Human Services Grants Motion and Vote: .9 ��_ POLICY AND PROCEDURES STATEMENT HUMAN SERVICES GRANTS The City of Saratoga recognizes the need for human service programs providing basic needs for the low income, elderly, and /or handicapped population of Saratoga. It is not within the City's scope of services to provide these programs directly, but to assist private and non - profit agencies to the extent it is fiscally able where direct benefit to City residents can be documented. In order to determine which agencies are to be awarded funding, the City Council will require a standard form and application procedure to be used for all outside groups desiring to act as a service provider and requesting funding from the City to do so. All groups requesting City funding under this policy must submit a complete application by a specified due date. Grants may be made either from the City's Community Development Block Grant funds or from other sources. All human service agency proposals will be considered within the context and the timeframe of the CDBG application process. IMFV q 11 =� =go= No. Y3 MRZTM 0=8 11-1-89 OMs Engineering 8036TZ=s Grant Construction Acceptance and Release Cash Bond SD 87 -006, Sunset Drive, Ralston Rsaosrndid Motion: Grant Construction Acceptance and Release Cash Bond of SD 87 -006. 80DOt Sumasw s The work has been satisfactorily completed. This Construction Acceptance will begin (1) one -year maintenance period. 1 Fiscal Ummu s None. Attaelsmants: Memo describing bond. Motion and Vote: 97 ff g: T 0 & M &Z 0 Of� ,\ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SAR.ATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 MOW RANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Manager City Engineer DATE: 10 -19 -89 Construction Acceptance for SD 87 -006 Name & Location: Douglas Ralston Public Improvements required for SD 87 -006 have been satisfactorily completed. I, therefore, recommend the City Council accept the improvements for construction only. This "construction acceptance" will begin the one (1) year maintenance period. During that year, the improvement contract, insurance and improvement security will remain in full force. The following information is included for your use: 1. Developer: Douglas Ralston Address: 19905 Sunset Drive Saratoga;.Ca. 95070 2. Improvement Security: Type: Cash and Assignment Amount: $1,000.00 and $7,000.00 Issuing Company: Wells Fargo Bank Address: Saratoga Branch Receipt, Bond or Certificate No.: 7974, 1501- 033955 -050 3. Special Remarks: Release Cash Bond of $1,000.00 and one of two Assignment Certificate of $7,000.00. RSS /dsm Robert S. Shook � . - .. . t j • y I# 4=040 1 @1: .r• EFVr'_n,:IVa Stualm No. 1-732— NEE=G DAMS 11 -1 -89 ORIGINATING DEPTs Engineerinq CITY MOO. APPROM SQBJECTs Lot 16, Tract 7761, Mt. Eden Estates Abandonment of Portion of'*Slope Easements Recommended motions Adopt-Resolution No. abandoning a portion of the slope easement on Lot 16, Tract 7761, Mt. Eden Estates. PA;30rt Summary! Upon completion of the improvements and grading of Lot 16 it has been determined that the area of slope easement on Lot 16 is unnecessarily large to accommodate the slope bank. It is therefore appropriate to abandon that portion which is excessive. Adopting Resolution No. will accomplish this. liscal• Zmoacts t. N. A. Attachments: Resolution No. 2 Motion and Vote: &(L .� October 5, 1989 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 As the owner of lot 16, Tract 7761 Mt. Eden Estates I hereby request to be on the October 18th agenda of the city council meeting of Saratoga for approval of abandonment of a portion of the current recorded slope easement on lot 16. Attached please find a description and plot map prepared by Westfall Engineering, Inc. dated October 3, 1989. The above request and drawings has been with Robert Shook city engineer of Saratoga and Mr. Shook is in agreement with the Westfall Engineer drawings and the request to abandon a portion of the slope easement. Mr. Shook has requested from Westfall three (3) cut views showing the slope to be within the slope easement. I have requested this work and it will be available for your review prior to the October 18th meeting. Than you for your consideration. Sincerely, —r, (� , C LL� T.R. Carter A PORTION OF SLOPE EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED WITHIN LOT 16 OF TRACT 7761 MOUNT EDEN ESTATES BEGINNING AT THE COMMON PROPERTY CORNER OF LOT 16 AND 19 LOCATED ON THE RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COCCIARDI COURT AS SHOWN ON THE TRACT MAP "TRACT 7761 MOUNT EDEN ESTATES" RECORDED IN BOOK .567 OF MAPS, PAGES 48 -50 SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 16 AND 19 NORTH 56 001'03" EAST, 62.84 FEET TO THE EXISTING LIMIT OF SLOPE EASEMENT AND TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE ALONG THE EXISTING LIMIT OF SLOPE EASEMENT SOUTH 450 04'50 ". EAST, 104.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 24 030' WEST, 77.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 13 000' EAST, 53.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 66° 00'EAST, 27.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 70 00 00 WEST, 31.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NEW LIMIT OF THE SLOPE.EASEMENT NORTH 100 54'17" WEST, 57.82 FEET; THENCE NORTH 4 05857" WEST, 80.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29 °58'57" WEST, 85.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN LOTS 16 AND 19; THENCE NORTH 560 01'03" EAST, 12.84 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 4658 S.F. MORE OR LESS. CONSULTING �.14593 Big Basin Way 1. CALIFORNIA.. i I ' ENGINEERS Saratoga 85 070 i ell 4 9'0 � / tJ �s o, �' � Prapased• � � / Aol e a, p O 16 Q( O v J176 IV-7 Or h Q � X31•/ _ 04 R }'3•�9 fin. 9•^ �Z n p { � S 010. A ,o 0/ /o are -O ball y dES�rrlJliDr� /or odor�oo�eme�f o/ v,DO /iior� o/ slope eosemer�f, Hof /�', %ci 7XV 8giu( , ppyb a 0` slop -e -pasC��r d0 r 10 -03 -89 PAGE 11 .ot " 16 . mt . eden MA BEARINGS 3 AREA = .4658.7251 ' POINT BEARING DISTANCE NORTH EAST COORDINATE COORDINATE ~-~ 19 ---~--~ ~--~----- 4964.2782 4947.0053 S 45 04 50.508 E 104.7738 18 4890.2963 5021.1958 S 24 30 00.000 W 77.0000 4820.2293 4989.264 17 S 13 00 00.000 E 53.0000 16 4768.5877 5001.1869 S.66 00 00.000 E 27.0000 15 4757.6058 5025.8526 S 70 00 00.000 W 31.0000 24 4747.0032 4996.7221 N 10 54 17.537_ W 57.8194 22 4803.7785 4985.7839 N 04 58 57.000 W 80.0000 21 4883.4762 4978.8358 N 29-58 57.000. W 85.0000 4957.1014 4936.3583 20 N 56 01 03.000 E 12.8400 19 4964.2782 4947.0053 ; W.EAT,FALL ENGINEERS, IN(;. CONS �L�TilNG ENGINEERS -14b Idfaotfn War 8orafopo ALL NjA -) 95 070 iii • v 1101 •oI' °3'' '�� '�"' A 6 � ° \c9N/ �. ts a �, /op �'" /` o�r�or�eo' Q m .•S66 °�' 270D � � Ir .� Os46 °Of'w • • ' • y . 91.88f 41 3 Fig ;00 villa A V/o/ /o areorr 17Y dESCripriD/� ' r odor�dor�erner�/ o/ a14 011oW oI slope eoserr�e/�f, Lof /�', T arc/ 71 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. J / AGENDA ITEM: t MEETING DATE: CITY MANAGER: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: MAINTENANCE \DAN TRINIDAD .I;aift9; hy-�na 3 of Recommended Motion: Allow installation of a lighted steel Christmas tree in Blaney Plaza to celebrate the Christmas season. Report Summary: The Saratoga Rotary has asked the City of Saratoga personnel to install a steel Christmas tree in Blaney Plaza. The tree will be a simple, inverted "T" which will be strung with lights. At the October 2nd meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Commissioners reviewed the plans and request, and support the City's allowing the tree installation. FISCAL IMPACTS: All costs are being born by the Rotary. Attachments: Plans and specifications. Motion and Vote: 6/(- Y a': y w' I• I {