The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-18-1997 CITY COUNCIL staff reportsSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ��0 k -01 MEETING DATE: JUNE 16, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: FY 97 -98 and 98 -99 Budgets AGENDA ITEM: CITY MGR: 4� i DEPT. HEAD: Recommended Motion(s): 1. Move to adopt the Resolution amending the City's Classification Plan. 2. Move to adopt the Resolution implementing a Reorganization Plan and authorizing permanent positions in City service for FY 97 -98. 3. Move to adopt the Resolution authorizing procedures to implement a Reorganization Plan. 4. Move to adopt the Resolution establishing the FY 97 -98 Appropriations Limit. 5. Move to adopt the Resolution establishing a schedule of fees. 6. Move to adopt the Resolution adopting the budget for FY 97 -98 and 98 -99 making appropriations and authorizing carry -overs thereto and expenditures therefrom. Report Summary: At the close of the Public Hearing, it is recommended that the Council adopt the attached six Resolutions to approve the proposed Reorganization Plan and to adopt the two year budget for FY 97 -98 and FY 98 -99. These Resolutions are listed in the order in which they should be adopted and are briefly summarized as follows: 1. Resolution amending the City's Classification Plan - This Resolution initiates the implementation of the Reorganization Plan by amending the City's Employment Classification Plan to include the newly created positions of Community Environment Director, Administrative Services Director, Community Development Manager, Public Works Services Manager, Administrative Services Manager, Senior Building Inspector, and Office Technician.. It also abolishes all of the existing secretarial. and clerical classifications (Secretary to the City Manager, Administrative Secretary, Secretary, Senior Clerk- Typist, Clerk - Typist, and Account Clerk) proposed to be reclassified into the new broadbanded classification of Office Technician. The descriptions for the new classifications will be delivered to you early next week. 2. Resolution implementing a Reorganization Plan and authorizing permanent positions in City service for FY 97 -98 - This Resolution formally adopts the Reorganization Plan (attached chart) by abolishing the Community Development, Finance, and Public Works Departments, and establishing the Community Environment and Administrative Services Departments. It identifies all of the existing employment classifications to be eliminated (Section II), and approves funding for the 48.05 FTE's in the new organization by Department (Section III). Section IV references the new arrangement with the Hakone Foundation for funding the position of the Japanese Garden Specialist. Section V confirms the 'appointments of Mr. Perlin and Mr. Fil as Community Environment Director and Administrative Services Director respectively in accordance with Section 2- 20.050(d) of the Municipal Code (see attached) which requires Council consent for the appointment of Department Heads. Sections VI addresses the compensation for those employees to be classified into the Office Technician class, and Section VII delegates certain authority to the City Manager to effectuate the Reorganization. 3. Resolution authorizing procedures to implement a Reorganization Plan - This Resolution establishes the procedures the City will follow to carry out the Reorganization Plan with respect to recruiting for and filling the positions approved in the Resolution No. 2 above. 4. Resolution establishing the City's Appropriations Limit for FY 97 -98 - This Resolution sets the City's Appropriations (Gann) Limit for FY 97- 98 at $17,396,306 in accordance with Article XIIIB of the State Constitution. A history of the City's Gann Limit since it was first established is attached to the Resolution. 5. Resolution establishing a schedule of fees - This Resolution establishes the new fee schedule for FY 97 -98 for all of the fees authorized by the Municipal Code and State law. The proposed fee schedule is attached to the Resolution. For the first time, all of the fees are contained in one schedule, and the schedule includes both the current and proposed fees for the Council to compare. A significant amount of effort went into revising the fee schedule to arrive at proposed fees for services which best reflect the full cost of providing services. This was particularly the case for all development related fees and a companion memo from the Interim Planning Director which discusses these is attached. Additionally, the proposed fees for Recreation services and facility rentals are established at a level to achieve the revenue goals for the Recreation Department previously set by the City Council. 6. Resolution adopting the budgets for FY 97 -98 and 98 -99 - And last but not least, this Resolution formally adopts the two year budget and approves appropriations for FY 97 -98 and 98 -99 of $13,571,894 and $12,102,033 respectively. Section 3 of the Resolution also establishes an overall policy for the use and carry -over of reserve funds. Fiscal Impacts: All as stated in the Resolutions and the companion budget document. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: A general notice was published in the Saratoga News and a mailing was sent to everyone on the Community Group list. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: Depending on what Resolutions are not adopted, either the Reorganization Plan will not be approved, the proposed fee schedule would not be approved, and /or the two year budget would not be adopted Follow UR Actions: 1. The Reorganization Plan will be implemented by filling the various authorized positions. 2. The final budget document will be published. Attachments: 1. Municipal Code Section 2- 20.050(d). 2. Memo from Interim Planning Director dated June 12. 3. Resolutions (6). 2- 20.020 2- 20.020 Compensation; employment benefits. The City Manager shall receive such compensation, expense reimbursement, vacation, sick leave and fringe benefits as established from time to time by the City Council. 2- 20.030 Manager to serve as City Clerk. The City Manager shall serve as City Clerk and shall be responsible for the performance of the functions of the office of City Clerk. 2- 20.035 Manager to serve as City Treasurer. The City Manager shall serve as City Treasurer and shall be responsible for supervising all of the activities of the Finance Director, implementation of the City's investment policy as adopted from time to time by the City Council, and such other duties and responsibilities as required by law to be performed by the City Treasurer. 2- 20.040 Absence or disability; Acting City Manager. The Assistant City Manager shall serve as Manager pro tempore during any temporary absence or disability of the City Manager. In the event there is no Assistant City Manager, the City Manager shall designate a qualified City .employee to exercise the powers and perform the duties of City Manager during his temporary absence or disability. In the event the City Manager's absence or disability extends over a two -month period, the City County may, after the two-month period, appoint an acting City Manager. 2- 20.050 Powers and duties. The City Manager shall be the administrative bead of the government of the City under the direction and control of the City Council, except as otherwise provided in this Article. He shall be responsible for the efficient administration of all the affairs of the City which are under his control. In addition to his general powers as adminis- trative head, and not as a limitation thereon, he shall have the following powers and duties: (a) Law enforcement. It shall be the duty of the City Manager to enforce all laws, Code provisions and ordi- nances of the City, and he shall have the powers of a peace officer. He shall also see that all franchises, con- tracts, permits and privileges granted by the City Council are faithfully observed and the conditions, if any, thereof performed. (b) City Clerk functions. It shall be the duty of the City Manager to perform the statutory functions of City 16 Clerk. He may delegate the duties of this office to duly designated deputies. (c) Authority over employees. It shall be the duty of the City Manager, and he shall have the authority to con- trol, order and give directions to all beads of departments and to subordinate officers and employees of the City under his jurisdiction through their department heads. (d) Power of appointment and removal. The City Manager shall have the duty to, and he shall appoint, employ, remove, promote and demote any and all officers and employees of the City, subject to all applicable provi- sions of State law and the personnel ordinance as set forth in Article 2-40 of this Chapter, together with such person- nel rules as may be adopted by resolution of the City Council, and subject further to the requirement that no department head shall be either employed or discharged without the consent of the City Council. (e) Administrative reorganization of offices. It shall be the duty and responsibility of the City Manager to conduct studies and effect such administrative reorganiza- tion of offices, positions or units under his direction as may be indicated in the interest of efficient, effective and economical conduct of the City's business. (f) Ordinances. It shall be the duty of the City Manager and he shall recommend to the City Council for adoption such measures and ordinances as he deems necessary. (g) Attendance at Council meetings. It shall be the duty of the City Manager to attend all meetings of the City Council unless he is excused therefrom by the Mayor individually, or the City Council. (h) Financial reports. It shall be the duty of the City Manager to keep the City Council at all times fully advised as to the financial condition and needs of the City. (i) Budget. It shall be the .duty of the City Manager to prepare and submit the proposed annual budget and the proposed annual salary plan to the City Council for its approval. 0) Expenditure control and purchasing. No expenditure shall be submitted to or recommended to the City council except on approval of the City Manager or his duly autho- rized representative, and he shall be responsible for the purchase of all supplies for all the departments and divi- sions of the City. (k) Investigations and complaints. It shall be the duty of the City Manager to make investigations into the affairs of the City and any department or division thereof, and to investigate any contract or the proper performance of any obligations of the City. Further, it shall be the duty of the City Manager to investigate all complaints in relation to matters concerning the administration of the City government and in regard to the service maintained by public utilities in the City, and to see that all franchises s CIA ay �� 9W @9 U0 ai��\ 13777 FRILI'rVALE AVENIII? • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (108) 868 -1200 MEMORANDUM TO: Larry Perlin, Interim City Manager FROM: James Walgr n, nterim Planning Director DATE: June 12, 1997 SUBJECT: FY 97/98 Fee Schedule �■►YYIIhg10A918aib! YLI /1 BogO";i; 31 Cai;lian N1or,3n Ju>> Shri�r (k >n�ild L 6`�ugc� The purpose of this cover memorandum is to summarize the attached revised fee schedule for FY 97/98. 1 have also included supporting documentation so that this information is in one place for quick reference. The fee schedule changes occur in the following three categories: PLANNING DIVISION FEES have reviewed the current Planning Division fee schedule and am proposing comprehensive changes in an attempt to achieve full cost recovery for the processing of these applications. Though for the most part these changes result in fee increases, in many cases they do result in fee decreases. My objective was to both meet the FY 97/98 revenue goal of $351,989 and to adjust the fee schedule to reflect a more equitable relationship between the scope of the project and the fee charged. For example, the current $2,325 Variance request fee applies the same to a homeowner who wants to raise their fence height as it does to a multiple -lot subdivision or mixed use commercial application. Based on the number of applications processed over the past two years, and a conservative extrapolation of these numbers for FY 97/98, the revised fee schedule should generate approximately $400,000 in application fee revenue over the next fiscal year. This provides a $50,000 projected- revenue buffer in the event that the current pace of development and construction drops off. BUILDING DIVISION FEES If the Building Division raised the current construction valuation numbers from $97 to $125 per sq. ft. of new habitable construction, and from $37 to $50 for garages, the City could raise an additional $46,000 in building permit fees. This represents an %11 fee increase for new construction permits, but it would only affect --one -third of the total permits issued by the Building Division. FY 97198 Fees Page Two This should generate approximately $626,000 in Building Permit fee revenue over the next fiscal year - meeting the $625,000 revenue objective. Minor permit fees for reroofing, hot water heaters, interior improvements, pools and miscellaneous minor structures, etc., would not be affected. PARK IN -LIEU FEES My cursory survey of real estate professionals confirmed our expectations that real estate values in Saratoga have appreciated since the City's park in -lieu fee for new construction was last adjusted in 1991. At that time, one acre of developable residential land was valued at $600,000. Today, one acre in Saratoga could cost anywhere from $600,000 to 750,000 +, depending on its location and topography. Using a conservative estimate of $650,000 per acre valuation, our park in -lieu fee would increase from $8,160 to $8,970 per newly created parcel of land. As you know, this fee is determined by taking the most recently available census figure (1990) for average persons - per- household (2.76), multiplying it by the derivative of five acres of park land per every 1,000 residents and then multiplying this by $650,000 - i.e.: 2.76 persons 5 acres $650,000 $8,970 X x = household (lot) 1,000 persons acre household (lot) enc. james \memo \ctymangr.fees PLANNING DIVISION ANTICIPATED APPLICATION REVENUE FOR FY 97/98 1 (where 95/96 numbers are less than 96/97 numbers, I used an average for 97/98 projections - where 95/96 numbers are greater than 96/97 numbers, I used the 96/97 numbers) 2 (97/98 will be the first year that fees are tiered based on scope of project - applications are broken down for 95/96 and 96/97 only for reference) 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 Design Review 64 42new 86 60new 75 48new 22add 26add 27add $148,800 $200,000 $235,500 Admin. DR 19 28 20 $12,825 $18,900 $30,500 Use Permit 15 llnew 12 4new 12 4new 4use 5use 5use lace 3acc 3acc $ 34,875 $ 27,900 $ 37,000 Variance 20 11SFRnew 15 6SFRnew 15 6SFRnew 1SFRadd 6SFRadd 6SFRadd 2nonSFR 2nonSFR 2nonSFR 6acc lacc lacc $ 46,500 $ 34,875 $ 47,500 Tentative Map 13 5 5 $ 43,017 $ 16,545 $ 25,000 BSE 24 23 23 $ 5,760 $ 5,520 $ 11,500 EIRs /GPAs &AZOs 3 3 3 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Arborist Fees $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 12,250 LLs /CCs /Signs na na na SMs /TUPs, etc. estimate -- - - - - - - - - - $309,777 - - - - - - - - - - - $321,740 ------ - - - - -- $408,750 .actual $423,816 ( ?) $337,200 1 (where 95/96 numbers are less than 96/97 numbers, I used an average for 97/98 projections - where 95/96 numbers are greater than 96/97 numbers, I used the 96/97 numbers) 2 (97/98 will be the first year that fees are tiered based on scope of project - applications are broken down for 95/96 and 96/97 only for reference) COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION FEE SCHEDULE Pursuant to Sections 14- 05.050 and 15- 05.070 of the City Code, the following fees and deposits are established for the applications, permits, extensions, renewals, services and other matters enumerated below. The fees are based on estimated costs to the City to process the application. In addition to the payment of the fees established herein the applicant shall hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses including the attorney's fees, incurred by City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal court challenging the City's actions with respect to the applicant's project. Environmental review: Environmental assessment fee $225 $1,500 Department of Fish and Game Negative Declaration Fee $4:,; G5 $1,25-0 DFG� $25 City Environmental impact report administrative fee Actual cost charged by consultants plus a 24�4 10* surcharge for staff analysis and a 22.8!� 250-. surcharge for City's indirect costs. Monitoring of mitigation measures As specified. per project approval or agreement with developer. Traffic studies, economic studies, and other special reports or study fees: Administrative fee Actual cost charged by consultants plus a -2-� 10o surcharge for staff analysis and a 25% surcharge. for City's indirect costs. Horticultural review: Administrative fee Actual cost charged by the City Horti- cultural Consultant Deposit for horticultural review Application for tentative building site approval: plus a 101 surcharge for staff analysis and a 251 sur- charge for City's indirect costs. $1,949 $1,000 or as determined by the Commun i ty Development Manager. $2,500 Determination of exemption from building site approval: 249 $500 Application for tentative subdivision approval: Less than 10 lots $5,000 10 or more lots plus $4:;q $150 for each lot over 10 Park development fee: f-aiia fflai-] , et= valiie ef detei-fRined by the Dilceet-e1c. $8, 970 Application for merger of parcels: $6t= $250 Application for reversion to acreage: $1,2 9G $250 Application for lot line adjustment X96 $250 Application for design review approval: Single family main structures $2,500 (addition to - including demo. and new construction) new Single family main structure $3,500 (new construction - vacant lot). Multiple family or non - residential main structure (addition to - including demo. and new construction) new Multiple- family or non - residential main structure (new construction - vacant lot) Accessory structure Administrative design review Application for use permit: � i�i��e— €-a,;, _ � l• m � i n=,-t i�t�t -��= Ems?" mid- ltd -f afR i y fR i n s t i, to tai " - - new Conditionally permitted use (no new construction) new Conditionally permitted use (addition to - including demo. and new construction) new Conditionally permitted use (new construction - vacant lot) Accessory structure or use Second unit - planning commission approval Second unit - administrative approval $2,77S $3,500 S $5,000 S $1,500 $6:7S $1,500 $2,500 $3,500 $5,000 $1- ,-12 -S $1,500 $2, $2,500 9 $500 Nee i -es ides' a s rFxeti=e Temporary use - planning commission $i,3SG $1,500 approval Temporary use - administrative approval $27S $500 Applieation €ems- multiple use p anne develepment permit: Geneept-dal plan $4,6G2 Final plan $4,6G2 Legal 9 ------- previded by Eity (defiesi-t) : $ 78G Application for variance: s new Accessory structure or use $1,500 Single family main structure $2� 5 (addition to - including demo. and new construction) new Single family main structure $3,500 (new construction - vacant lot) new Multiple - family or $3,500 non - residential main use (addition to - including demo. and new construction) new Multiple - family or $5,000 non - residential main use (new construction - vacant lot) new Tentative subdivision map $5,000 $2,500 Application for sign permit: Permits issued by staff $Ile $100 Permits issued by planning commission $7s0 new single tenant $500 new multiple tenant $1,500 Application for approval satellite dish antenna: $270 $100 Application for storage permit: $120 $100 Application for soundwall permit: $S2 S $500 new Application for fencing $1,500 enclosure exception: Application for construction trailer permit: t $100 General Plan Amendment: 5 $3,500 Zoning Ordinance Amendment: 5 $3,500 Annexation: 9 Waiver request SS $500 Exempt from LAFCO review $2,500 Subject to LAFCO review $5,000 and LAFCO fee Modification of approved application: $1,42S $1,500 Extension of approved application: $6:�S $1,500 Administrative Appeals: $500 Request for continuance: $344 $250 for second and each additional request new Document Storage Fee: Administrative file $50 Public Hearing File $150 Additional fees: In the event additional application processing services by the City are required by reason of changes, modifications, additions, errors, omissions, or discrepancies occasioned by the applicant or his agents or representatives, the applicant shall pay an additional fee equal to the actual cost to the City of performing the additional services, as determined by the Community Development Manager. June 3, 1997 James: Per our conversation yesterday, I've put together some numbers to indicate how permit fees would increase by raising valuation figures. Clearly all new houses submitted to the Building Department for plan review and any project which includes an increase in the size of the structure are reviewed by the Planning Department. By increasing the dollar amounts we use to determine a "valuation ", permits and plan checking fees increase by about 10 %. This increase could be used to offset the time and effort of the zone clearance process. What I have done is taken an average size new house and calculated total fees using both our current valuation based on $93 per square foot for habitable space and $37 per square foot for garages; and an increased valuation using $120 for habitable space and $50 for garages. It is important to realize this valuation is only used to determine building permit and plan checking fees. Also important to realize is the cost of construction in Saratoga varies between $100 and $200, so a slight increase can be easily justified. Example #1: New Single Family Dwelling (3500 sq. ft. house with 500 sq. ft. garage) Current valuation figures: 3500 x $93 = $325,500 500 x $37 = $18,500 Valuation = $344,000 Total building permit and plan checking fees = $8,136.28 Proposed valuation figures: 3500 x $120 = $420,000 500 x $50 = $25,000 Valuation = $445,000 Total building permit and plan checking fees = $8,946.30 This would represent an $810.02 increase in total fees collected or approximately 10 %. Printed on recycled paper. Example #2: Addition to existing Single Family Dwelling (500 sq. ft. addition) Current Valuation figures: 500 x $93 = $46,500 Total permits and plan checking fees = $1,781.30 Proposed valuation figures: 500 x $120 = $60,000 Total permits and plan checking fees = $1,938.70 This would represent an $157.40 increase in total fees collected or approximately 10 %. James, I do not have access to the reports for the number of new home permits and the number of permits issued for additions, but the above examples clearly show a significant increase in permit fees. I hope this information is what you are looking at and is somewhat helpful. See me with any questions or comments..: --- Printed on recycled paper. EXQmfI,c 0.7 d, 6"0 0 k S'o ¢621 So 0 t yo F'6.4S C�kr�"Yu i`'it� ib oc % fees �� ski fl 1996/97 Building Permit Fee Survey c: \fy97 \951 1 Sample_Months Jul -96 Oct -96 Jan -97 Apr -97 Building Permits Requiring Zoning Administration Services 3,225.80 3,085.65 3,428.48 9,797.28 2,497.00 2,786.85 3,329.76 3,062.48 2352.36 2,671.49 3,088.93 2,730.53 2,287.61 2,534.57 2,167.26 2,662.99 2,287.61 1,977.34 2,037.13 2,355.83 2,211.72 1,947.90 1,770.02 2,302.42 2,158.92 1,876.98 1,715.92 2,272.24 2,158.92 1,533.15 1,682.18 1,637.27 2,1 58.92 1,476.50 1,601.27 1,310.00 1,876.15 1 ,428.74 1,133.37 1,309.76 1,876.15 1 ,421 .40 1,079.68 1,286.00 1,842.01 1,400.99 1,049.00 1,253.56 1,823.98 973.20 963.39 1,239.32 1,823.98 947.22 929.86 1,027.70 1823.98 939.26 881.99 1,000.87 1,818.86 919.85 867.91 947.00 1,804.85 862.35 840.88 927.07 1,803.87 828.88 836.26 906.51 1,797.61 827.67 820.62 878.31 1,504.29 746.12 774.70 851.80 1,456.32 725.80 674.77 691.00 1,307.50 697.40 661.65 673.66 1,299.62 617.47 635.00 671.00 1,254.00 584.84 619.36 638.50 1,252.67 567.96 614.50 635.72 1,221 .39 558.90 587.98 630.40 1,169.86 541.50 584.60 581.93 1,161.91 495.48 564.40 554.44 1,033.06 489.15 556.17 541.50 1,029.73 486.95 544.01 530.09 1,004.84 486.00 521.97 524.59 971.79 397.88 485.00 518.81 919.13 395.75 471.29 502.92 897.88 392.75 428.73 500.00 874.88 391.61 .396.08 494.10 859.30 390.58 369.75 481.00 813.93 371.92 350.04 478.05 790.41 355.60 345.02 469.88 774.09 346.88 305.55 469.50 681.81 346.80 456.88 660.29 320.66 439.30 650.00 308.15 429.00 622.84 300.20 421.32 610.00 414.93 604.00 401.53 597.20 395.79 587.08 385.77 569.70 374.00 541.66 350.00 528.77 334.08 527.25 321.98 510.83 305.40 429.00 420.50 363.50 341.00 325.21 $70,797.54 $41,756.34 $40,714.48 $55,376.01 $208,644.37 73.78% 66.11% 77.24% 72.21% 72.31% 1996/97 Building Permit Fee Survey c: \fy97 \951 1 Sample Months Jul -96 Oct -96 Jan -97 Apr -97 Building Permits Requiring No Zoning Administration Services 964.27 1,262.04 997.93 1,376.27 963.59 501.60 547.34 784.77 936.95 463.03 520.01 703.98 933.33 410.50 401.50 588.00 922.41 339.25 283.63 484.40 920.66 281.56 283.00 342.45 788.34 276.65 260.48 324.40 632.78 276.00 250.00 321.98 542.05 273.35 219.50 288.99 375.14 260.10 215.50 287.20 276.50 252.09 214.50 283.00 268.68 247.03 188.52 280.95 260.00 244.50 183.50 279.00 253.76 244.50 182.50 258.00 244.50 244.14 182.50 244.50 244.50 226.39 182.50 243.81 244.50 224.60 182.50 241.20 244.50 215.50 182.50 240.40 243.34 208.10 182.50 231.75 240.91 205.82 179.20 227.36 239.70 203.40 174.60 221.55 232.44 193.00 174.36 216.90 230.15 191.30 167.10 216.50 227.60 189.00 156.50 215.94 227.60 187.00 156.21 215.50 225.96 186.46 146.25 214.90 225.45 185.25 145.32 209.65 211.06 183.50 143.60 209.65 202.05 182.83 141.69 204.86 193.21 182.50 128.38 203.40 187.00 182.50 125.00 196.14 187.00 182.50 125.00 194.93 187.00 182.50 125.00 193.42 186.75 182.50 125.00 187.00 186.46 182.50 125.00 182.50 186.00 182.50 125.00 182.50 183.20 179.20 125.00 176.78 182.50 179.20 124.00 175.57 182.50 165.00 120.50 168.92 182.50 165.00 106.60 166.70 182.50 165.00 106.60 165.30 182.50 159.84 94.50 165.00 181.00 155.00 65.00 165.00 179.20 155.00 63.00 158.63 179.20 155.00 63.00 157.42 179.20 152.58 63.00 146.00 177.02 150.16 63.00 144.91 175.57 147.53 63.00 143.60 175.57 146.53 63.00 143.60 171.94 145.32 63.00 143.50 165.10 143.38 63.00 142.90 165.00 142.05 63.00 142.90 161.05 139.27 63.00 139.27 158.87 133.22 63.00 138.35 157.42 131.53 63.00 130.80 157.24 1.30.80 63.00 126.00 156.00 1.2,9.38 63.00 125.91 155.00 128.38 .63.00 .125.00 153.79 125.00 63.00 125.00 146.00 125.00 63.00 125.00 145.50 125.00 63.00 125.00 142.90 125.00 63.00 125.00 1996/97 Building Permit Fee Survey c: \fy97 \951 1 Sample Months Jul -96 Oct -96 Jan -97 _Apr -97 142.66 125.00 63.00 125.00 134.50 125.00 63.00 125.00 134.43 125.00 63.00 125.00 130.80 125.00 63.00 125.00 129.00 125.00 63.00 122.94 125.96 125.00 63.00 120.81 125.00 125.00 63.00 120.50 125.00 125.00 63.00 120.50 125.00 125.00 63.00 120.50 125.00 121.50 63.00 120.50 125.00 120.50 63.00 117.30 125.00 120.50 63.00 116.28 125.00 120.50 63.00 110.90 125.00 118.70 63.00 107.93 125.00 117.49 6400 1_06.60 125.00 113.58 60.50 101.50 125.00 101.76 59 42 101.00 125.00 94.50 58.50 94.50 124.75 94.50 58.50 91.50 121.85 94.50 58.50 83.50 120.50 94.50 58.50 72.30 118.70 93.65 58.50 72.30 118.70 90.90 58.50 72.30 118.70 89.70 58.50 72.30 115.31 89.16 58.50 72.30 106.60 86.50 58.50 72.30 104.80 82.50 58.50 70.50 84.90 82.50 58.50 69.35 74.10 77.70 58.50 68.05 71.72 72.90 58.50 67.05 70.55 65.70 58.50 67.05 70.50 63.00 49.00 67.05 70.50 63.00 1.50 67.05 65.00 63.00 1.00 67.05 63.00 63.00 1.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 _ ..: 63.00 AM.00 _ 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00. 63.00 .63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 .63.00 6.3.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63,00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63:00 63.00 63.00 63.00 - 63.00 63.00 63.00 - 63:00 63.00 - f3.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 `63,.00 63.00 63.00 63.00. • 63.00 - 3.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 2$3.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 ,•63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 63.00 1996/97 Building Permit Fee Survey c: \fy97 \951 1 _ Sample Months-----,-- Jul -96 Oct -96 J_ an_ -97 Apr -97 63.00 63.00 58.50 63.00 63.00 58.50 63.00 63.00 58.50 63.00 63.00 58.50 63.00 63.00 58.50 62.50 63.00 58.50 62.50 63.00 58.50 62.00 63.00 58.50 62.00 63.00 58.50 60.50 63.00 58.50 59.50 63.00 58.50 58.50 63.00 58.50 58.50 63.00 58.50 58.50 63.00 58.50 58.50 63.00 58.50 58.50 63.00 58.50 58.50 60.50 58.50 58.50 59.10 58.00 57.50 58.50 45.00 45.00 58.50 2.00 10.00 58.50 1.00 58.50 1.00 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.50 58.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 15.00 10.00 10.00 0.50 $25,164.94 $21,408.70 $11,998.24 $21,315.02 $79,886.90 26.22 %'" 33.89% 22.76% 27.79% 27.69% $95,962.48 $63,165.04 $52,712.72 $76,691.03 $288,531.27 100.00% 100.00% 100.0b'% 100.00% 100.00% 14 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. r f?�� AGENDA ITE MEETING DATE: JUNE 16, 1997 CITY MGR: ORIGINATING DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. HEA SUBJECT: Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA -1 - Protest Hearing and Tabulation of Ballots Recommended Motion(s): 1. Open the Public Hearing to receive written protests and any other testimony on the proposed assessments for FY 97 -98. 2. Close the Public Hearing. 3. Request the City Clerk to declare the results of the balloting required by Proposition 218. 4. Consider and rule on any written protests received during the hearing. 5. Adopt the Resolution declaring the results of the balloting, overruling protests and confirming the assessments for FY 97 -98. Report Summary: The Public (Protest) Hearing on the proposed FY 97 -98 LLA assessments was continued from June 4. At your meeting, you will conclude the hearing for all Zones except 3 and 6 (the hearing for these two zones is set for August 6), after which the results of the Prop. 218 balloting will be declared and you will consider and rule on any written protests received prior to the close of the hearing. Lastly, you will adopt the Resolution officially declaring the results of the balloting, overruling any written protests received and confirming the assessments (Note: The Resolution will be distributed to you at the meeting). The staff memo from June 4 is attached to this memo. Although I have still yet to prepare the final assessment schedule, this will be available and presented to you at your meeting. As stated previously, I still expect for most zones in the District that the final assessments will be lower than the preliminary assessments. `r Fiscal Impacts: Upon confirmation of the assessments, the revenues and expenditures for all of the zones except 3 and 6 will be fixed for the coming fiscal year. Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact: Same as described in June 4 memo. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: See June 4 memo. Follow Up Actions: The final assessment roll will be transmitted to the County Auditor for placement of the assessments onto the 97 -98 property tax roll. Attachments: 1. June 4 staff report with all attachments. e SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ZIG2S MEETING DATE: June 18, 1997 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Finance SUBJECT: 1996/97 BUDGET AMENDMENTS AGENDA CITY MGR. Recommended Motion(s): Approve resolution amending the Fiscal Year 1996/97 Appropriations Budget. Report Summary: Attached is a resolution amending the 1996/97 Appropriations Budget for the following items: 1) contingency transfer for recruitment of the City Manager and 2) supplemental appropriation for initial design and construction work for Capital Project 9501 - Arterial Street Sidewalks Improvements. Also included with the resolution are a Budget Resolution Supporting Worksheet and Resolutions Approved schedule. On June 4, 1997, City Council approved an agreement with Hughes, Perry and Associates to perform professional services in connection with the recruitment of the City Manager position. The agreement calls for a not to exceed sum of $18,000, including incidentals in compensation to the consultant. Authorization of this resolution would transfer a total of $18,000 from Program 7070 - Contingency to Program 7077 - Personnel Management for purposes of paying invoices relative to these services. Since contingency funds have been previously appropriated, this action does not result in any additional reduction to budgeted General Fund balance. The second item, supplemental appropriation for initial design and construction work for Capital Project 9501 - Arterial Street Sidewalks Improvements, will authorize the expenditure of $23,565 for engineering services, general contracts and other related expenditures to begin the initial phase of installing sidewalks and pathways along the City's arterial street system where no such paths presently exist. Approval of this action will further amend the current budget consistent with this project's estimated costs as shown in the Proposed FY 1997/98 Budget. Finally, funding for this project has already been accounted for in the current budget and comes to the City through the State's Transit Development Act (TDA) - 80% Match Article 3 Program. 20% match comes from local resources, i.e. General Funds. For further information on this project, please refer to the FY 1997/98 & 1998/97 Proposed Budget. Fiscal Impacts: Overall expenditures increase by $23,565. Specific changes by Fund are as follows: Fund Revenues Expenditures Transfers 01- General $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 10- Transit Development Acte $0.00 $23,565 $0.00 The unaudited fund balances as of 5/31/97 were: 1 ,t 01- General Fund $3,743,975 10- Transit Development Act $0* *With the receipt of State and matching funds, fund balance estimated to be zero at fiscal year end. Follow Up Actions: Post entries to system. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: with the City Manager recruitment and Capital Project Improvements can not begin. Attachments cAexecsumm \exsm0613.97 2 No funding to pay costs associated 9501 - Arterial Streets Sidewalks 2 Y 5T 6A c 13 7,77 �� r��i �� „ �p�G�� t6u��ZU/f, �.Ur` mr�zG- % — ��c�n�j�� _ ,�� a� Saratoga City Council, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga CA 95070 June 27, 1997 RC: second story additions on a single story street Dear Sir /Madam: It has brought to our attention that there's a possibility of approving second story additions in Saratoga streets. We are unable to attend the voting on Wednesday July 2, 1997, but we are writing up to voice our opposition of building uneven structures to an otherwise uniformly ranch style one -story street. Sincerely, Andrew Chan & Car 1 Chang, 12380 Palmtag Dr., Saratoga CA 95070 6a Saratoga City Council, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga CA 95070 .tune 27, 1997 RE: second story additions on a single story street Dear Sir /Madam: It has brought to our attention that there's a possibility of approving second story additions in Saratoga streets. We are unable to attend the voting on Wednesday July 2, 1997, but we are writing up to voice our opposition of building uneven structures to an otherwise uniformly ranch style one -story street. Sincerely, Andrew Chan & Car I Chang, 12380 Palmtag Dr., Saratoga CA 95070 �� cC� J J �C� ,� �.. rJ� V ,a�� ~ �C � - � V, �� . � ',`�/ �� ;:, �` �'' �,' �b `-'' �^" l.: 1 � 7/ (7 7 Dr. ON � a 70 1377 7 `� ru)f� le Ue . 3 7 � f� S� r a To ja 7 0 D e-6 V- C C4. 41 ol COLAV)LJWOiA4CA_c J p 1 E- 5 CID 6 a vA 4 o eA I) f' k � f Loh 5' VuL� s�c:0kt -� ST4 r add( kts or u o 4A LD T n r e do ;�J- N al i e. /V 5 0 r- a - , � 14 S 1M q i A , 'r, '67Te, ., a t 3t: ChrWlnla 12 2 7 0 Susan 12280 WIN 12 2 90 122\12260 Da1lhoYd Wun -Chin Srini Camille Jane Kao Srinlvasan Craig Jose Jessen 12151 Pletrow Nunez — �'— Shirley & Jim 12211 12240 Carol & Franz ROosen 12230 Carolyn & Ross Castagnolo 12291 F 71 12281 Brnnh y Gerda Helrrn ert James Hnuct ang Story 12221 ,2220 Anne 8 Hans Sherry & Tom Segerstrum Jean & 011ver Gallatin Jessen 12151 12150 �'— Shirley & Jim 12211 Queen 12210 Karen Hann 12141 Graul Mikl Kendra & Mike Gottsman Staskus 12201` 12200 1213— Cara & Jeffrey Sandy & Jerry ManaGuerra Ching Fields Johnson 12121 i_ Kathy & George 12191 1219p Leonard Pat & Howard o, Slemek Cohen ' o_ 12180 ; °O Ilen & John Koji & Chkako 1:0 etzler Shima r.j '--- — 12170 I J 12171 Sane Brown != '� Jessy & Richard Donald �_ - Chang LArpenrer 12181 12160 Winnie Anne 8 Hans Segerstrum Mueller —"—"—^ 12151 12150 Janis & Stan Shirley & Jim Queen Hermstad 12141 12140 Jeanette Kendra & Mike Gottsman Staskus 1 1213— 12130 Chelly & Burl ManaGuerra Fields Reed Parker 12121 Kathy & George 12120 Denise Marvin Becker 12110 —� Anne -Marie Hans 12090 12100 Dick Eggers Shannon Menwaring Bob Filch 07- ''-j F 4 U 6,t3 o lT S4 C, /V 0 -Ut�, APPI 7/- oA� �O G / o a,)& k /�/6 / lG'64/li� ,��rZG Ate,w I ' i "Life Begins at Saratoga" Saratoga's City Slogan at it's Birth in the 1950's To the residents of the City of Saratoga, To the resident's of the city of Saratoga in general and to the resident's of the home's in Brookview in particular in year's past the resident's of Brookview were solicited by home addition contractor's to have second story addition's to our ranch style home! Lately, this type of solicitation has increased. These contractors have woven a great story of high profits when the home is sold. As it is known when it's too good to be true, it usually is. The object of these contractor's is to develop second story addition on a one -story street. This type of action open's the door. What goes through that door in the furture is open to question on that street. The future type of construction on that street is left undefined and open for second story additions. The value placed on light is never thought of until stolen by darkness. The value of warm rays of sun through your window until stolen by the construction of second story home by one of your neighbors. The privacy in your home or even in your backyard is never questioned until you are forced to have your blinds close to prevent a neighborly eye upon you at anytime. These values are now under attack by the commission by approving a permit to construct a second story additions on Mellowood Drive, a street of one story ranch style homes. There are a total of 35 homes on Mellowood Drive. Out of those 35 homes, 11 home's have major addition's without losing the beauty of the skyline in this area. I urge you to walk out your door and admire the beauty this street has. We must fight for our street's future or we will soon lose the beauty Mellowood Drive has. It is your choice as a homeowner to take a stand. The fate of Campbell was sealed years ago when homeowners like us lost the fight. Have you driven through Campbell recently. What once was a beautiful street, has become a jumble of single double and triple story residences. We are the residences of Saratoga and we are the city, we have rights, and we can not allow the city to take control of development in our own backyards. WE must speak out and tell the city what OUR vision is for OUR neighborhood. Our neighborhood is where our lives are and I strongly urge you to speak out to the Saratoga City council against the acceptance of second story addition's in our neighborhood. Let's stand together against second story additions on a single story street. This move protects our neighborhood as well as the beauty of our city. DO NOT CAMPBELLIZE SARATOGA !!!! .2i ' r We need your help. On Wednesday July 2,1997 at 8 p.m. on Fruitvale Avenue the city council of Saratoga will vote to save or lose our single story street, your presence is requested at 7:30. If you cannot attend and would still like to help you can call Leonard at 257 -5525 or write a letter to the Saratoga City Council objecting to the future Campbellization of Saratoga. All letters mailed must be received by June *, 1997 at City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070. W CA 7 darn C. C; II "Life Begins at Saratoga" Saratoga's City Slogan at it's Birth in the 1950)s- To the residents of the City of Saratoga, To the resident's of the city of Saratoga in general and to the resident's of the home's in Brookview in particular in year's pasi she resident's of Brookview were solicited by home addition contractor's to have second story addition's to our ranch style home! Lately, this type of solicitation has increased. These contractors have woven a great story of high profits when the home is sold. As it is known when it's too good to be true, it usually is. The object of these contractor's is to develop second story addition on a one -story street. This type of action open's the door. What goes through that door in the furture is open to question on that street. The future type of construction on that street is left undefined and open for second story additions. The value placed on light is never thought of until stolen by darkness. The value of warm rays of sun through your window until stolen k t construction of second story home by one of your neighbors I privacy in your home or even in your backyard is never questioned unto. i are forced to have your blinds close to prevent a neighborly eye upon yo. + anytime. These values are now under attack by the commission by appro ling a permit to construct a second story additions on Mellowood Drive, a street of one story ranch style homes. There are a total of 35 homes on Mellowood Drive. Out of those 35 homes, 11 home's have major addition's without losing the beauty of the skyline in this area. I urge you to walk out your door and admire the beauty this street has. We must fight for our street's future or we will soon lose the beauty Mellowood Drive has. It is your choice as a homeowner to take a stand. The fate of Campbell was sealed years ago when homeowners like us lost the fight. Have you driven through Campbell recently. What once was a beautiful street, has become a jumble of single double and triple story residences. We are the residences of Saratoga and we are the city, we have rights, and we can not allow the city to take control of development in our own backyards. WE must speak out and tell the city what OUR vision is for OUR neighborhood. Our neighborhood is where our lives are and I strongly urge you to speak out to the Saratoga City council against the acceptance of second story addition's in our neighborhood. Let's stand together against second story additions on a single story street. This move protects our neighborhood as well as the beauty of our city. DO NOT CAMPBELLIZE SARATOGA !!!! .:...� ....................... We need your help. On Wednesday July 2,1997 at 8 p.m. on Fruitvale Avenue the city council of Saratoga will vote to save or lose our single story street, your presence is requested at 7:30. If you cannot attend and would still like to help you can call Leonard at 257 -5525 or write a letter to the Saratoga City Council objecting to the future Campbellization of Saratoga. All letters mailed must be received by June:*, 1997 at City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070. "Lie Begins at Saratoga" Saratoga's City Slogan at it's Birth in the 1950's' To the residents of the City of Saratoga, To the resident's of the city of Saratoga in general and to the resident's of the home's in Brookview in particular in year's past the resident's of Brookview were solicited by home addition contractor's to have second story addition's to our ranch style home! Lately, this type of solicitation has increased. These contractors have woven a great story of high profits when the home is sold. As it is known when it's too good to be true, it usually is. The object of these contractor's is to develop second story addition on a one -story street. This type of action open's the door. What goes through that door in the furture is open to question on that street. The future type of construction on that street is left undefined and open for second story additions. The value placed on light is never thought of until stolen by darkness. The value of warm rays of sun through your window until stolen by the construction of second story home by one of your neighbors. The privacy in your home or even in your backyard is never questioned until you are forced to have your blinds close to prevent a neighborly eye upon you at anytime. These values are now under attack by the commission by approving a permit to construct a second story additions on Mellowood Drive, a street of one story ranch style homes. There are a total of 35 homes on Mellowood Drive. Out of those 35 homes, 11 home's have major addition's without losing the beauty of the skyline in this area. I urge you to walk out your door and admire the beauty this street has. We must fight for our street's future or we will soon lose the beauty Mellowood Drive has. It is your choice as a homeowner to take a stand. The fate of Campbell was sealed years ago when homeowners like us lost the fight. Have you driven through Campbell recently. What once was a beautiful street, has become a jumble of single double and triple story residences. We are the residences of Saratoga and we are the city, we have rights, and we can not allow the city to take control of development in our own backyards. WE must speak out and tell the city what OUR vision is for OUR neighborhood. Our neighborhood is where our lives are and I strongly urge you to speak out to the Saratoga City council against the acceptance of second story addition's in our neighborhood. Let's stand together against second story additions on a single story street. This move protects our neighborhood as well as the beauty of our city. DO NOT CAMPBELLIZE SARATOGA !It! . . . . . . . . . . . We need your help. On Wednesday July 2,1997 at 8 p.m. on Fruitvale Avenue the city council of Saratoga.will vote to save or lose our single story street, your presence is requested at 7:30. If you cannot attend and would still like to help you can call Leonard at 257 -5525 or write a letter to the Saratoga City Council objecting to the future Campbellization of Saratoga. All letters mailed must be received by June *, 1997 at City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070. a <e& 66" i /,� I! e p how 6/2 x/ 77 4%k e- S e? n�h &e //d 4/ 12-2-10 Ale/%uua0,1 n1- "Life Begins at Saratoga" 3 Saratoga's City Slogan at it's Birth in the - 1950's.. ' To the residents of the City of Saratoga, To the resident's of the city of Saratoga in general and to the resident's of the home's in Brookview in particular in year's past the resident's of Brookview were solicited by home addition contractor's to have second story addition's to our ranch style home! Lately, this type of solicitation has increased. These contractors have woven a great story of high profits when the home is sold. As it is known when it's too good to be true, it usually is. The object of these contractor's is to develop second story addition on a one -story street. This type of action open's the door. What goes through that door in the furture is open to question on that street. The future type of construction on that street is left undefined and open for second story additions. The value placed on light is never thought of until stolen by darkness. The value of warm rays of sun through your window until stolen by the construction of second story home by one of your neighbors. The privacy in your home or even in your backyard is never questioned until you are forced to have your blinds close to prevent a neighborly eye upon you at anytime. These values are now under attack by the commission by approving a permit to construct a second story additions on Mellowood Drive, a street of one story ranch style homes. There are a total of 35 homes on Mellowood Drive. Out of those 35 homes, 11 home's have major addition's without losing the beauty of the skyline in this area. I urge you to walk out your door and admire the beauty this street has. We must fight for our street's future or we will soon lose the beauty Mellowood Drive has. It is your choice as a homeowner to take a stand. The fate of Campbell was sealed years ago when homeowners like us lost the fight. Have you driven through Campbell recently. What once was a beautiful street, has become a jumble of single double and triple story residences. We are the residences of Saratoga and we are the city, we have rights, and we can not allow the city to take control of development in our own backyards. WE must speak out and tell the city what OUR vision is for OUR neighborhood. Our neighborhood is where our lives are and I strongly urge you to speak out to the Saratoga City council against the acceptance of second story addition's in our neighborhood. Let's stand together against second story additions on a single story street. This move protects our neighborhood as well as the beauty of our city. DO NOT CAMPBELLIZE SARATOGA !!!! • �: : `..•, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We need your help. On Wednesday July 2,1997 at 8 p.m. on Fruitvale Avenue the city council of Saratoga will vote to save or lose our single story street, your presence is requested at 7:30. If you cannot attend and would still like to help you can call Leonard at 257 -5525 or write a letter to the Saratoga City Council objecting to the future Campbellization of Saratoga. All letters mailed must be received by June A, 1997 at City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale e. Saratoga, Ca. ?,567?- Ho,tl /- t3 !J Goff r /v -. /34 "Life Begins at Saratoga" Saratoga's City Slogan at it's Birth in the 1950's To the residents of the City of Saratoga, To the resident's of the city of Saratoga in general and to the resident's of the home's in Brookview in particular in year's past the resident's of Brookview were solicited by home addition contractor's to have second story addition's to our ranch style home! Lately, this type of solicitation has increased. These contractors have woven a great story of high profits when the home is sold. As it is known when it's too good to be true, it usually is. The object of these contractor's is to develop second story addition on a one -story street. This type of action open's the door. What goes through that door in the furture is open to question on that street. The future type of construction on that street is left undefined and open for second story additions. The value placed on light is never thought of until stolen by darkness. The value of warm rays of sun through your window until stolen by the construction of second story home by one of your neighbors. The privacy in your home or even in your backyard is never questioned until you are forced to have your blinds close to prevent a neighborly eye upon you at anytime. These values are now under attack by the commission by approving a permit to construct a second story additions on Mellowood Drive, a street of one story ranch style homes. There are a total of 35 homes on Mellowood Drive. Out of those 35 homes, 11 home's have major addition's without losing the beauty of the skyline in this area. I urge you to walk out your door and admire the beauty this street has. We must fight for our street's future or we will soon lose the beauty Mellowood Drive has. It is your choice as a homeowner to take a stand. The fate of Campbell was sealed years ago when homeowners like us lost the fight. Have you driven through Campbell recently. What once was a beautiful street, has become a jumble of single double and triple story residences. We are the residences of Saratoga and we are the city, we have rights, and we can not allow the city to take control of development in our own backyards. WE must speak out and tell the city what OUR vision is for OUR neighborhood. Our neighborhood is where our lives are and I strongly urge you to speak out to the Saratoga City council against the acceptance of second story addition's in our neighborhood. Let's stand together against second story additions on a single story street. This move protects our neighborhood as well as the beauty of our city. DO NOT CAMPBELLIZE SARATOGA M! We need your help. On Wednesday July 2,1997 at 8 p.m. on Fruitvale Avenue the city council of Saratoga will vote to save or lose our single story street, your presence is requested at 7:30. If you cannot attend and would still like to help you can call Leonard at 257 -5525 or write a letter to the Saratoga City Council objecting to the future Campbellization of Saratoga. All letters mailed must be received by June , 1997 at City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070. 13x /(? 9s--- ', Oeo--r "Life Begins at Saratoga" Saratoga's City Slogan at it's Birt1v in the 19501s.. . To the residents of the City of Saratoga, To the resident's of the city of Saratoga in general and to the resident's of the home's in Brookview in particular in year's pasi the resident's of Brookview were solicited by home addition contractor's to have second story addition's to our ranch style home! Lately, this type of solicitation has increased. These contractors have woven a great story of high profits when the home is sold. As it is known when it's too good to be true, it usually is. The object of these contractor's is to develop second story addition on a one -story street. This type of action open's the door. What goes through that door in the furture is open to question on that street. The future type of construction on that street is left undefined and open for second story additions. The value placed on light is never thought of until stolen by darkness. The value of warm rays of sun through your window until stolen by the construction of second story home by one of your neighbors. The privacy in your home or even in your backyard is never questioned until you are forced to have your blinds close to prevent a neighborly eye upon you at anytime. These values are now under attack by the commission by approving a permit to construct a second story additions on Mellowood Drive, a street of one story ranch style homes. There are a total of 35 homes on Mellowood Drive. Out of those 35 homes, 11 home's have major addition's without losing the beauty of the skyline in this area. I urge you to walk out your door and admire the beauty this street has. We must fight for our street's future or we will soon lose the beauty Mellowood Drive has. It is your choice as a homeowner to take a stand. The fate of Campbell was sealed years ago when homeowners like us lost the fight. Have you driven through Campbell recently. What once was a beautiful street, has become a jumble of single double and triple story residences. We are the residences of Saratoga and we are the city, we have rights, and we can not allow the city to take control of development in our own backyards. WE must speak out and tell the city what OUR vision is for OUR neighborhood. Our neighborhood is where our lives are and I strongly urge you to speak out to the Saratoga City council against the acceptance of second story addition's in our neighborhood. Let's stand together against second story additions on a single story street. This move protects our neighborhood as well as the beauty of our city. DO NOT CAMPBELLIZE SARATOGA !!!! We need your help. On Wednesday July 2,1997 at 8 p.m. on Fruitvale Avenue the city council of Saratoga will vote to save or lose our single story street, your presence is requested at 7:30. If you cannot attend and would still like to help you can call Leonard at 257 -5525 or write a letter to the Saratoga City Council objecting to the future Campbellization of Saratoga. All letters mailed must be received by June , 1997 at City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Ca. 95070. Cf