[1:27] But before ladies and gentlemen, I

[1:55] know it's a couple of minutes after seven,

[1:58] I just want to let you know that we've got a document that we're

[2:02] trying to get into the public record before the meeting.

[2:06] And so it'll just be a couple of minutes.

[2:08] So please go ahead.

[2:09] Covers Yeah.

[2:24] Yeah I'm one of the I know.

[3:02] I, I don't know about i don't know

[3:18] if they were lawyers I think it, I do.

[3:26] We don't get to know either One of Yeah, they they you know

[4:16] and they say.

[4:19] And so how many copies.

[4:21] Probably start with about the probably

[4:32] go from about more coming up clearing up you Yeah Yeah

[5:41] And I think to put a memo together.

[5:49] Yeah i'm gonna talk about the background yeah

[6:09] How I know what we're talking about our

[6:35] And it was in the past, you know.

[6:38] You know Richard I guess you could start with that.

[6:47] I go to whatever Oh, yeah.

[7:01] We printed out all the wildfire stuff,

[7:04] right through 47 or whatever.

[7:09] The first year i can very long for You and I Of that

[7:55] provides for financing for customers.

[8:01] Yeah I also like to I, I get that.

[8:09] I mean, that's what I have like, and that's One, you know.

[8:14] That's right.

[8:15] Yeah.

[8:16] Yeah, yeah Yeah, yeah.

[8:18] We have a software, right?

[8:25] Yeah I, I Yeah right, right, right.

[8:36] Every you in you got to ten years in a way

[8:39] to have got a ten days in the waiting

[8:43] like you know or you are working now.

[8:52] OK 90 one I don't know Oh listen.

[9:42] So, so this is my favorite time So I always All right.

[9:58] Good evening, ladies and gentlemen Hi.

[10:07] Thank you very much for your attention.

[10:09] Hello, and welcome to our regular city council meeting

[10:12] today, August 19, 2026.

[10:14] I'd like to call the meeting to order.

[10:16] And advise everyone that this meeting is being recorded

[10:19] and the recording will be made available on the city website.

[10:23] Would you please rise and join me

[10:25] in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance

[10:32] to the flag of the United States of America

[10:35] and to the Republic for which it stands.

[10:38] One nation under God, indivisible,

[10:41] with liberty and justice for all Thank you for for it.

[10:54] Can you please proceed with the roll call

[10:56] and the required administrative members of the public

[11:02] may participate in this meeting in person

[11:04] at the location listed on the agenda or via remote attendance.

[11:08] Using the information listed on the agenda.

[11:13] Public attendees participating remotely

[11:15] are automatically muted and are not viewable on camera.

[11:18] I will now call the Roll Council member Aftab Present.

[11:21] Fitzsimons Present.

[11:22] Zell Present.

[11:24] Vice Mayor.

[11:24] While you present Mayor Page Present.

[11:28] We have a quorum and the agenda was posted on August 13.

[11:33] Thank you.

[11:34] Earlier this evening the city council

[11:36] held a closed session on conference with legal counsel,

[11:39] with regarding anticipated litigation.

[11:41] There is no reportable action from this meeting We also

[11:45] held a joint session with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's

[11:48] Office, and Captain Valenzuela will

[11:50] you please share a brief summary of your updates?

[11:54] Good evening, Mayor.

[11:55] Vice.

[11:55] Mayor.

[11:55] Council members.

[11:56] Captain.

[11:57] So with the sheriff's office.

[11:58] Thank you again for hosting us for a closed session.

[12:01] As you know, the sheriff was not able to attend,

[12:03] but we had Undersheriff Mike Doty, Lieutenant John Flowers,

[12:06] Sergeant Karlheinz and Sergeant Stephen Perotti

[12:09] and myself in attendance Sergeant Karlheinz

[12:11] and Sergeant Stephen Brody are part of our sheriff's emergency

[12:14] response team or a search team, which

[12:16] is our version of a Swat team.

[12:17] They provide the small short presentation

[12:19] that makes up our team, make up some of the selection process

[12:22] that they go to, the types of incidents they respond to,

[12:25] and then some of their equipment that they utilize.

[12:28] Additionally, I presented to the Council

[12:31] some of the types of calls that occur in Saratoga

[12:33] provided some information.

[12:34] Our response times and gave you a brief overview

[12:37] of crime statistics and the city.

[12:41] Thank you.

[12:42] Any comments from the council?

[12:45] Thank you very much, Captain.

[12:48] Thank you.

[12:49] Your and your team service to us.

[12:52] Up, we have oral communications on non agenda items.

[12:55] This is an opportune city.

[12:56] And we invite any member of the public

[12:58] to speak on any item that is not on tonight's agenda

[13:01] The council is typically prohibited from addressing

[13:05] or answering any questions raised during that time

[13:08] but we may give some direction to staff regarding that.

[13:10] So if there's any speakers, please call them up,

[13:13] and then we go from there.

[13:15] If you would like to address the city council on an item

[13:18] and not on the agenda, and you have not submitted a speaker's

[13:21] slip, now is the time to do so.

[13:23] Our first speaker is Bill Dalton Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor

[13:38] and council members.

[13:40] My comments tonight relate to the vacant assistant city

[13:44] manager position.

[13:46] And the city budget.

[13:48] It's my contention the vacant position should not

[13:52] be filled for certain for sure.

[13:56] Certainly not until we resolved the city's budget budget issue.

[14:01] And maybe never the city's operated several times

[14:06] in the past without an assistant city manager.

[14:09] Most recently since Matt Morley left

[14:13] and Leslie was promoted to acting city manager.

[14:17] Before that, when Crystal left, until Leslie

[14:21] was hired to take her place So I ask that the position not

[14:29] be filled.

[14:30] Maybe never.

[14:31] I thank you for your time and service.

[14:36] Thanks, Bill Next is Jackie Holmes

[14:56] To do you need to How about now?

[15:01] Great.

[15:01] Yes.

[15:02] So I know it's a busy night.

[15:04] I wanted to share for something that is an immediate action

[15:08] item.

[15:09] We're requesting that staff be directed on.

[15:12] We have a major enforcement issue

[15:14] with our zoning code It's harming the vibrant village

[15:18] that we want.

[15:19] We're asking for this action.

[15:21] Members of the Saratoga Vitality Neighbors

[15:23] have brought up before the need for critical mass

[15:26] in the village, critical mass of varied businesses

[15:29] and of pedestrians, shopping and dining.

[15:31] I know you all know that I'm mentioning it

[15:32] for all the people watching as well.

[15:35] Foot traffic makes the village attractive to new businesses

[15:37] and keeps existing businesses alive and able

[15:39] to invest in the community That is

[15:41] why it is common best practice for zoning

[15:44] to require that ground floor storefronts are active foot

[15:48] traffic oriented retail and dining businesses.

[15:52] The good news is our general plan, our village design

[15:55] standards and our municipal code all specify that.

[15:59] We're very happy about that.

[16:00] However, the enforcement issue is

[16:02] that that is not being enforced, that many building owners who

[16:06] are very good people.

[16:08] I'm sure, and in some cases, I know

[16:11] have rented ground floor storefronts

[16:13] without a conditional use permit allowing

[16:16] them to do so to offices, which do not fit that criteria.

[16:20] I would like us to address that enforcement

[16:23] It becomes more complicated when a tenant is in place.

[16:26] It's still not impossible, but it's more complicated right now.

[16:30] There's one specific storefront with a beautiful patio,

[16:33] a prime aspect of our village.

[16:35] It is next to pop house.

[16:38] And I would request that council direct staff

[16:41] to take proactive conversations with the landlord

[16:44] to discuss what our municipal code is so that someone doesn't

[16:48] come in non-conforming.

[16:50] And then we all shrug her shoulders

[16:51] and say, What can we do there?

[16:53] Already settled in.

[16:53] What we can do is speak in advance.

[16:55] That's my request.

[16:58] There is a business private office

[17:02] non conforming right next door with a beautiful patio that

[17:05] sits empty Again, I have nothing personal about that business,

[17:09] but it does not conform.

[17:10] It does not support good urban planning

[17:13] of active use, pedestrian traffic and businesses.

[17:17] So we would ask again, that council speak with staff

[17:21] about taking action.

[17:23] Saratoga vitality Neighbors.

[17:24] If anyone has any questions as can

[17:26] be reached at Saratoga Vitality at gmail.com.

[17:29] We have 467 people who are on that list

[17:33] and engaging in different levels,

[17:35] and we're trying to support our businesses.

[17:37] Is the energy and the community that we all talk about wanting.

[17:41] Thank you so much.

[17:43] Thank you, Jackie.

[17:46] Next is Gloria Keough Hello Hi, everyone.

[17:57] Good evening.

[17:59] I echo Jackie's concerns, especially

[18:01] for those two beautiful spots down at the end.

[18:04] Next to Pop house.

[18:06] Those are allowing that office to take that spot was a crime.

[18:12] I don't know who allowed that.

[18:14] How that if it has a conditional use permit or if not,

[18:18] I don't know how that happened.

[18:20] But we live in California Beautiful weather.

[18:22] We should be sitting outside and enjoying the weather,

[18:26] enjoying a drink.

[18:27] Food.

[18:28] And we have an office.

[18:29] Why is that?

[18:30] We have rules don't we?

[18:32] Let's follow them.

[18:34] That's all.

[18:35] Thank you.

[18:36] Thank you.

[18:36] All.

[18:37] You This is self.

[18:47] It's for someone who lives on Ronnie.

[18:54] So My name is a fraction.

[19:04] I'm a resident And the taxpayers.

[19:08] I'm here to because our community has

[19:10] reached a point here where we need

[19:12] help from a city of Saratoga.

[19:15] What's really coming to college district

[19:17] is moving forward with a wellness center,

[19:21] which is a large the footprint structure.

[19:24] One of the largest corporate structure in our entire city,

[19:28] using funds from the Major W about $125 million.

[19:32] This is a large fund and build on the track field, which

[19:36] is in the western valley where Major W was

[19:39] a presented to all of us.

[19:42] The major purpose was a presented.

[19:46] I ran to prepare students for 21st century careers,

[19:50] including stamps, nursing, health care,

[19:53] and veterinary retreat, which we can all go to Look

[19:57] at the replacing of the SLA track was mentioned,

[20:02] but only as a support item.

[20:06] Amanda So item in the funding resident

[20:10] has therefore asking for basically accountability

[20:14] questions.

[20:15] How does this a major awareness center project at this location,

[20:20] at this scale, 50 was in the party

[20:22] that a voter was asked to support, approve.

[20:27] We have not been silent So many of our residents

[20:31] have attended the last the three board meeting

[20:33] to the trust the meetings ask the district to answer.

[20:37] And that dialogue instead the project was to move the rapidly.

[20:42] The track is proximity 50 years old.

[20:45] The demolishing that case order, etc.

[20:49] facility necessary means disturbing existing service

[20:56] and the underlying the lying the soil

[20:59] drainage and the potentially and aging infrastructure

[21:04] We are here ask a simple question.

[21:09] What environmental testing and the construction control

[21:13] was performed.

[21:14] Therefore, this site was disturbed

[21:17] and the world that information be made public residents

[21:21] should have what assessment.

[21:24] There has been done regarding dust runoff construction

[21:27] impact and the material being removed We are asking the city

[21:33] and council.

[21:34] And the city attorney to help to ensure

[21:37] that a major public project affecting many of the Saratoga

[21:42] resident proceeded was a transparent state Accountability

[21:47] and a proper environmental diligence.

[21:50] Thank you for your help.

[21:53] Thank you, Frank.

[21:56] Is Matt Borden Hello again.

[22:06] I'm also going to talk about the track.

[22:08] This is if you're not aware, the West Valley track

[22:11] was closed on Thursday and they ceremonially

[22:14] ripped up 40 yards of it to justify putting up the fence

[22:17] without any public notice.

[22:19] And within and in.

[22:20] Keep keeping it as quiet as possible.

[22:22] West Valley Mission Board of Trustees.

[22:24] They managed to pull this off.

[22:25] And this whole issue, in my opinion,

[22:27] comes down to two words and six pages of bonds

[22:30] W literature the two words bracketed by commas

[22:32] are track replacement.

[22:34] And a problem is that the West Valley Mission Board of Trustees

[22:37] is asking these two words to do too much.

[22:39] And even reasonable person would take track replacement

[22:41] to mean resurfacing the track, which is what

[22:43] happened from time to time.

[22:45] But they asked me to believe the track replacement really

[22:47] means replacing the track and destroying it.

[22:51] What they and all the voters for some reason

[22:54] approve that the destruction of this track,

[22:56] the measure bond, the measure W bond language

[22:59] does not support this.

[23:00] This line of thinking.

[23:01] This violates the plain meaning rule,

[23:03] the baseline rule that words in a statute

[23:04] should be read according to their ordinary everyday meaning

[23:08] rather than stretch to accommodate outside goals.

[23:10] Furthermore, as Frank mentioned this

[23:12] is the largest structure on their campus

[23:14] and will be the largest building in the city.

[23:16] Potentially directly on top of this, this athletic site

[23:20] this track, the college recently pivoted to this location

[23:24] in late 2025.

[23:25] And because of this late pivot and Rush timeline,

[23:29] they completely bypassed the project

[23:30] specific environmental impact report

[23:32] that is required under call under the California

[23:35] Environmental Quality Act.

[23:36] So I'm asking the city Council to do two things.

[23:39] First, as representative of the taxpayers who voted to approve,

[23:43] measure W, can you reach out to the Michigan College

[23:45] Board of Trustees and demand accountability

[23:47] for why they chose to misread the measure?

[23:50] W language.

[23:51] And so misuse the $698 million of bond funds appropriated.

[23:57] They have blown off similar requests from the public,

[23:59] from and from many of the citizens,

[24:01] and they feel they only have to answer to the bond oversight

[24:04] committee, which they themselves appointed.

[24:05] I believe that you might have a little bit more luck.

[24:08] And you can do a good job of representing us in this regard.

[24:11] Second, I would like to direct the city attorney

[24:14] to review the college's sikua, the college fornia Environmental

[24:18] Quality Act avoidance and pass an emergency

[24:21] resolution demanding an immediate halt to all site

[24:23] disturbances until a comprehensive environmental and

[24:26] toxicological studies are conducted and made public

[24:30] as an interested party representing the community.

[24:33] The City of Saratoga has the legal standing

[24:35] to challenge the college's secure exemptions Thank you.

[24:41] Thank you, Matt.

[24:45] Next is Stan Boghosian Can you hear me?

[24:59] Yep.

[25:00] Yes, I got a question that probably

[25:04] would like to ask if you would refer to your IT person

[25:07] on staff.

[25:11] I have been getting blocked from the city website.

[25:14] I have a VPN service and I've tested

[25:19] it to see if it's, in fact, not running or whatever.

[25:24] I've gone through all of the tests and sometimes I'm blocked,

[25:28] sometimes I'm not.

[25:29] And when I was blocked, I decided

[25:33] to go to one of the commercial sites that I know blocks me.

[25:36] If I don't have My own address down.

[25:38] It's a commercial that a lot of commercial sites track.

[25:41] I just want to make sure that the city isn't tracking people.

[25:44] That's all it's got to be easy access.

[25:47] Thank you.

[25:48] Thank you, Stan.

[25:51] I have no more speakers, so it's okay.

[25:54] Is there anyone else here that would like to come forward?

[25:56] See?

[25:57] None.

[25:58] Thank you very much.

[26:00] Is there any direction, the staff.

[26:03] OK Then we'll move on to.

[26:07] So a couple of announcements that we've got.

[26:10] First, I'd like to invite folks to join me at the pop House

[26:14] Coffee, which was talked about a little bit ago at 14 six,

[26:17] 12 Big Basin Way this Friday August 21st, from 9 to 10.

[26:22] This is coffee with the mayor.

[26:24] It's an opportunity to share your thoughts and questions

[26:27] with the mayor.

[26:28] We have a usually a kind of a nice group of people.

[26:31] And we try not to overdo the conversation with any one topic,

[26:34] but get a lot of ideas in there.

[26:36] And then i can do some follow up later.

[26:38] So come enjoy some coffee conversation.

[26:41] A great new location in the village and that's

[26:44] help another business person succeed.

[26:48] Next up, I'd like to invite everyone to our 70th birthday

[26:51] celebration.

[26:52] Gather your friends, your family It's

[26:54] going to be a great party at Wildwood Park on Saturday,

[26:59] starting around noon with the musical.

[27:00] Actually start a little bit before that.

[27:02] Well, people are walking in We'll

[27:04] have live music from Marc Keyboard and his brother

[27:09] and then the headliner is Days on the Green.

[27:11] If anybody knows them, they're a wonderful band.

[27:14] They play some great music.

[27:15] And I think you'll have to make sure you got your dancing

[27:18] shoes on.

[27:19] There'll be some family friendly,

[27:21] friendly activities hosted by the Los Gatos Saratoga

[27:23] Recreation Group, a petting zoo.

[27:24] I was at the park today.

[27:26] And this little guy comes up because what kind of animals

[27:29] are going to get?

[27:30] What what do you bring in?

[27:31] He said, I'm not bringing my cat because I

[27:33] don't have one anymore.

[27:35] But there's going to be lots of cool things

[27:37] to do There'll be some food trucks and are beer

[27:40] and wine will also be available for purchase sponsored

[27:42] by the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce.

[27:45] So this community event is a chance

[27:48] to create lasting memories to really enjoy our city

[27:51] and celebrate the seven years that we've been in existence

[27:54] and did not become partisan Jose Although based on some

[27:57] of the things on our agenda, you know, you know, we don't

[27:59] know what's going to happen.

[28:01] So I welcome you all to join us.

[28:02] It's going to be a good time And then

[28:05] last of all, commission openings,

[28:07] we do have some openings in our commissions, the parks and Rec

[28:11] Commission, library and Public Arts Commission, the Heritage

[28:14] Preservation Commission and the Traffic Safety Commission.

[28:18] Applications are due for the Parks and Recreation

[28:21] and the Library and Public Arts Commission this Friday,

[28:24] August 21.

[28:25] And the HPC, The Heritage Preservation

[28:27] and the Traffic Safety commissions

[28:29] are due in on January 22, 2027.

[28:32] So if you're interested in getting involved with the city

[28:35] and helping to shape Saratoga future

[28:38] this is an opportunity we welcome

[28:39] you to apply and spend some time and contribute to the city.

[28:44] The applications and whatnot are on the search to the website

[28:47] Saratoga Dot C8 US.

[28:50] Any council members have any announcements you'd like to make

[28:55] ?

[28:55] Seeing none, we'll move forward.

[28:59] Our first item tonight is a ceremonial item.

[29:02] We're going to recognize the recipients of the 2026

[29:07] Annual Community Awards.

[29:09] These are awards given every year

[29:11] for outstanding service, dedication, and contributions

[29:14] to the Saratoga community.

[29:16] Well, will Captain Matthew Freeman,

[29:18] Deputy Alexander package cody Link is more must look

[29:22] and Tyler Taylor in the sassy team.

[29:24] Please join me on stage and we're going to do

[29:27] is going to have you all come up big claus uh i never

[30:52] could do that.

[30:53] So I'm jealous already each year the Santa Clara County Fire

[30:57] Department nominates a member of its department

[30:59] to be recognized for outstanding service

[31:01] to the Saratoga community this year,

[31:03] we are honored to recognize fire Captain Matthew Freeman, who's

[31:07] dedicated more than two decades to serving our community.

[31:11] Most of you don't know this, but Captain Freeman's connection

[31:14] to Saratoga began in 2001 as a paid call firefighter

[31:19] fighter with the Saratoga Fire District.

[31:21] I barely remember that, Don't you?

[31:23] Yeah.

[31:24] There you go.

[31:25] He became a career firefighter.

[31:26] The following year.

[31:27] He went on to earn his paramedic credentials

[31:30] and was promoted to fire captain in 2019.

[31:33] And today leads his crew from the downtown Saratoga Fire

[31:36] station Beyond his daily service,

[31:38] Captain Freeman has shared his expertise

[31:40] in areas including rope, rescue, vehicle stabilization

[31:44] and extra caution, while also helping

[31:46] to train the next generation of firefighters.

[31:49] Captain Freeman's dedication, leadership, and commitment

[31:53] to the Saratoga community truly exemplify

[31:55] the spirit of this award.

[31:57] Please join me in recognizing fire Captain Matthew

[32:00] Freeman as our 2026 firefighter of the year.

[32:06] Thank you.

[32:12] Yeah, You want to you want to say a couple of words first?

[32:14] All right.

[32:15] I'll hold on a second.

[32:17] Never give up an opportunity.

[32:18] Hold the Mike.

[32:19] I think my crew knows this very well.

[32:22] First, I just wanted to thank the city council for this award.

[32:26] It's been an honor to serve the Saratoga community for a better

[32:29] part of 24 years.

[32:30] I've had the opportunity to meet some amazing people

[32:32] in our community throughout my career,

[32:34] including our own mayor and vice mayor,

[32:36] as they've come through the station I want to say thank you

[32:40] to County Fire for the nomination

[32:42] and our fire chiefs for their leadership

[32:44] in providing opportunities for growth.

[32:46] I have to recognize my crew sitting.

[32:48] All right, here in the front, two rows here

[32:51] that has been so rewarding for me to come to work each tour.

[32:54] And thank you for the friendship and the support

[32:56] that you've given me.

[32:58] I actually want to say thank you to the Santa Clara County

[33:00] Sheriff's Office.

[33:02] It's been an honor and a privilege

[33:03] to work alongside you Thank you.

[33:07] Your professionalism and customer service

[33:09] to provide the community is immeasurable.

[33:11] It's been an honor.

[33:13] Lastly I want to thank my wife for supporting

[33:16] me every step of the way.

[33:17] We spent more than half of our lives support apart,

[33:20] and when I come home, you let me ramble on about forcible entry,

[33:24] rope, rescue, firefighting strategies and surfing, no less.

[33:29] Again, you're the amazing city council.

[33:34] Thank you for the recognition and thank you.

[33:39] And now we'll we'll get a couple of photos

[33:42] and also stay up here for a second OK?

[33:58] All right.

[33:59] We got the Q. Thank you so much, Governor.

[34:02] Thank you for taking.

[34:04] Thank you.

[34:04] Yeah All right.

[34:16] Next up, we're going to recognize

[34:18] the deputy of the year.

[34:19] So will Deputy Alexander Rockets please join us up here

[34:23] in front of Center?

[34:28] But I say, I always have to check if I got the name spelled.

[34:34] Sounded correctly each year, the Santa Clara County Sheriff's

[34:37] Office nominates a member of its department

[34:39] to be recognized for outstanding service

[34:41] again to the Saratoga community this year,

[34:44] we're pleased to recognize Deputy Alexander Rockets, who

[34:47] has served as a patrol deputy with the West Valley Patrol

[34:50] Division for the past five years.

[34:53] Deputy Rocket has consistently demonstrated an exceptional work

[34:57] ethic professionalism and a team first approach

[35:01] during a particularly demanding year.

[35:02] When the sheriff's office provided significant staffing

[35:05] support for both the NFL's Super Bowl and the FIFA World Cup.

[35:10] And apparently on Saturday for the Saratoga 70th birthday party

[35:14] here remain committed to providing high quality law

[35:16] enforcement services to Saratoga.

[35:19] Deputy Rockets also serves as an operator with the sheriff's

[35:22] office Sheriff's office, unmanned Aerial System,

[35:26] a program using drone technology to provide

[35:29] critical aerial support during incidents

[35:32] and responding to everything from a medical emergency

[35:35] and critical incidents to the fraud investigations and welfare

[35:38] checks.

[35:38] He is known for his calm demeanor, empathy,

[35:41] and his respect for those he serves.

[35:44] He's also achieved perfect attendance for the last two

[35:47] years, demonstrating an exceptional commitment

[35:49] to his duties.

[35:50] Please join me in recognizing Deputy Alex Rockets as our 2020

[35:54] sixth Deputy of the Year And so you

[36:03] want to say a couple of words a thank you

[36:06] to the city council of Saratoga.

[36:09] I'd like to accept this award on behalf of the men and women

[36:14] with whom I have the privilege of serving

[36:16] every day as a deputy sheriff.

[36:21] The work we do is never accomplished alone

[36:24] Every call, every challenge, every success is a team effort.

[36:32] And i'm honored to share this award

[36:36] with my family, my colleagues and everyone

[36:42] who supports us along the way.

[36:44] Thank you very much.

[36:46] You're welcome.

[36:47] Well-deserved And now it's photo time Congratulations.

[37:12] Second from the city, Saratoga City Hall right now

[37:16] is the safest place to be in this county.

[37:22] With Cody Sterling.

[37:23] Please come forward So the Chamber of Commerce

[37:31] every year recognizes an outstanding member

[37:33] of our business community whose work

[37:35] goes beyond their profession to help strengthen and promote

[37:38] Saratoga.

[37:39] This year's honoree, Cody Turley is an accomplished realtor

[37:43] with Compass Silicon Valley.

[37:45] But its connection to Saratoga goes far beyond his career.

[37:49] Born and raised in Saratoga I understand

[37:51] in a little room in your house, Cody takes great pride

[37:55] in helping people discover our community

[37:58] and helping long time residents achieve their real estate goals.

[38:01] His professional success is also impressive,

[38:04] with Cody and his team ranking among the top 1.5% of realtors

[38:08] in Saratoga, according to Real trends.

[38:11] Cody has a deep commitment to giving back.

[38:13] In 2019, when he was recognized by the mayor,

[38:16] then as Volunteer of the Year and he's

[38:19] continued to be an enthusiastic supporter of Saratoga

[38:22] events and organized sessions.

[38:24] He co-founded the Saratoga Classic and Cool Car Show

[38:27] and has supported the stroke.

[38:30] Andy Kane, Village Music in the Park

[38:32] and the Village Scarecrow event He's also

[38:35] helped raise thousands of dollars for the cancer care

[38:38] point for several years by lending

[38:40] his talents as an auctioneer at their events.

[38:44] Cody's energy enthusiasm and dedication

[38:46] to promoting Saratoga make him a wonderful example of what

[38:49] it means to be a community minded businessperson.

[38:52] We congratulate you, Cody, and thank you very much

[39:01] One of the most where you want to

[39:08] So I don't want to give a realtor the mic.

[39:12] I just want to say I'm honored to receive this.

[39:14] Thank you so much, Chuck.

[39:17] And to all the city council members as well.

[39:20] I love Saratoga.

[39:22] Saratoga at heart.

[39:23] Uh, go.

[39:24] Saratoga High.

[39:26] Say yes And it's just a pleasure to be in this community

[39:31] and to meet the people here and to help people move in

[39:33] and introduce them to what Saratoga really

[39:36] is, what it means.

[39:38] And the beautiful community that we have here.

[39:41] And so thank you so much again And yes, that's

[39:46] Joe Toga Next up is our Citizen of the Year.

[40:22] Well, it's marmots.

[40:24] Please come on up each year.

[40:31] Again, the Chamber of Commerce recognizes

[40:33] our Citizen of the year.

[40:35] There's a whole nomination process.

[40:36] And by the grace of God, he won.

[40:40] We're this year's honoree is More Music

[40:42] has been an active part of the Saratoga community

[40:45] for many, many years.

[40:46] He's lived in Saratoga, this sober neighborhood,

[40:49] and has worked in Saratoga Village for the past 19 years.

[40:52] He currently serves on the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce

[40:55] Board of Directors and regularly volunteers

[40:58] at both chamber events and community events.

[41:00] His community involvement also includes five years

[41:03] on the Saratoga Country Club Board of Directors

[41:06] supporting Saratoga High High School

[41:08] Athletics and the Falcons Football and baseball program,

[41:12] and helping local organize local sports and recreation

[41:15] activities.

[41:16] He also provides complimentary notary services, a monthly.

[41:19] But there's got to be an ad in here somewhere.

[41:23] But it's true.

[41:24] If you live in Saratoga, go visit him

[41:27] He's a free notary right here.

[41:29] So he helps keep our community connected through the Monday

[41:32] missives, which many of you may receive and provides

[41:35] announcements and information with hundreds

[41:36] of Saratoga residents.

[41:38] And through the restoration of his family's

[41:40] historic Victorian home in Saratoga Village.

[41:43] He has shown a deep appreciation for Saratoga, his history

[41:46] and character, his ma's willingness to give his time,

[41:50] support local organizations and help others

[41:52] is a wonderful example of community spirit.

[41:55] Please join me in recognizing Is marmots

[41:57] like as our 2026 citizen of the Year Appreciate it, buddy.

[42:05] And the like decision.

[42:07] Oh, sure.

[42:09] Thank you.

[42:10] You.

[42:11] Uh, thanks Chuck.

[42:13] Mayor and Vice Mayor and council members.

[42:17] It's truly humbling standing here

[42:20] I. I appreciate it very much.

[42:24] Saratoga is my home, and any time I can help, I am.

[42:32] I'm honored.

[42:33] And.

[42:34] And.

[42:35] And this award goes to everybody all the citizens here, not

[42:39] only me.

[42:40] Um, and I'm sure there are some that deserve it more,

[42:44] but this year, I guess it to me the.

[42:51] Thank you.

[42:51] Thank you, everyone Thanks.

[42:53] Hang on.

[42:54] We're going to get a photo and finally, we'll

[43:21] recognize the community organization of the year.

[43:24] Well, Tyler Taylor in the Sassy team.

[43:26] Please join the city council at the center of the stage.

[43:31] Thanks.

[43:32] All your friends and know i got the whole team heroes bounce out

[43:42] here.

[43:42] This.

[43:43] I just want you guys.

[43:45] Come on over here Yeah, I'll count it out.

[43:49] Yeah, Yeah.

[43:54] So each year, the mayor of Saratoga

[43:56] recognizes an individual or an organization that

[43:58] has made a notable contribution to the Saratoga

[44:01] community this year, I'm pleased to recognize

[44:04] the successful aging solutions and community consulting,

[44:08] otherwise known as Sassy two A as our 2026

[44:11] Organization of the Year, Sassy has

[44:14] continued to expand its programs and services

[44:16] to meet the evolving needs of older adults.

[44:18] Caregivers and families this year,

[44:22] Sassy launched several innovative programs,

[44:24] including the state's first Community Caregiver Certificate

[44:27] program through senior guided pathways at West Valley College,

[44:31] the sassy certified Farmer's Market and the sassy Grocery

[44:35] rescue Program.

[44:37] The organization also completed renovation plans

[44:40] for its adult care center in partnership

[44:42] with the West Valley College Zilker School of Design.

[44:45] Sozzi is also provided valuable educational opportunities

[44:49] for the community, including property assessment

[44:52] presentations, senior fraud prevention seminars its health

[44:56] and nutrition seminars series and through the expansion

[44:59] of the West Valley Outlook to New communities.

[45:02] Sozzi is helping even more residents across our county

[45:07] through these programs, partnerships

[45:08] and the continued commitment to older adults and families.

[45:11] Sassy has made a tremendous commitment to all of us,

[45:14] especially here in Saratoga, where they started.

[45:17] My favorite is the adult care center.

[45:19] It is one of my all time favorites.

[45:20] I'm so glad we're still able to fund it a little bit.

[45:23] And congratulations, Tyler, and thank you so much.

[45:26] Thank you very much for.

[45:34] Thank you.

[45:35] I'll keep my remarks brief because the folks who really

[45:38] make sassy what it is are the folks that you see up here

[45:40] with me.

[45:41] I do want to say, though, that it's an honor of a lifetime

[45:44] to be able to serve older adults, to serve this community,

[45:47] to partner with the fire department in the sheriff's

[45:49] department, all the other community

[45:50] members that we work with to help us all get older

[45:54] successfully.

[45:55] And even though we did change our name to successful aging

[45:57] solutions and community consulting

[45:59] to do business outside of Saratoga,

[46:02] our legal entity name is and Forever

[46:04] will be the Saratoga area senior Coordinating Council.

[46:07] So those are our roots.

[46:09] This is a great organization.

[46:10] And if it's okay with the mayor, I'd

[46:13] like a couple of my people to say some words.

[46:16] They'll keep it brief.

[46:17] Sure.

[46:17] Sam Samuel Wheeler, Operations Manager

[46:23] Thank you, Mayor and council members for your support

[46:27] and providing this awards for organization.

[46:29] It's an incredible honor for us, me and my team

[46:32] to be able to serve the growing older adult

[46:34] population in our community.

[46:36] They made our towns.

[46:37] What they are.

[46:39] And now we are able to give back to them.

[46:41] So it's just really a joy and honor as a third generation

[46:44] resident of Santa Clara County, I'm

[46:46] lucky to be able to serve the place that I grew up in

[46:49] and stay tuned.

[46:50] We've got a lot more coming the rest of this year and next,

[46:53] so keep your eyes on Sassy Oh, that person, Ludmila, this

[47:02] is our dog care center.

[47:03] Assistant manager Luke Miller Not.

[47:07] Thank you, everyone, for coming on.

[47:10] My name is Luke Miller.

[47:12] I have something written down here

[47:16] so if you come and visit the Saratoga Dog Care Center,

[47:19] your older loved ones will immediately feel seen and cared

[47:22] for by our team You will meet Mary, who teaches us

[47:26] what true hospitality looks like.

[47:29] She she is exact the kind of person

[47:36] I personally would hope to meet when

[47:38] moving into a new neighborhood.

[47:40] You will also meet Denise is Denise,

[47:47] who is excellent with participant

[47:49] engagement and Tyler, you set the tone

[47:52] that allows this team to do its best work.

[47:55] Thank you for your leadership It's changed.

[47:59] I've learned more about myself working at Sassy

[48:02] and it's changed me for the best.

[48:04] Thank you Thank you.

[48:10] And so first, we're get a photo here,

[48:13] and then we'll bring up, everybody and come and let

[48:15] us know if you need us to merge Thank you.

[48:39] Now, I'd like to bring up the other winners.

[48:41] The other recipients.

[48:43] If you all could come up, we'll get a big old group picture.

[48:48] You know Thanks a lot, Alex.

[49:42] What makes you so you know I have them.

[49:46] All right.

[49:47] I think I could get into you office.

[49:50] I think if I even know that If there's

[50:46] any member of the public who would like

[50:48] to speak on that last item.

[50:49] Now would be the time to come forward Yeah.

[50:59] And we hope to see you all on Saturday

[51:32] All right, ladies and gentlemen, if we could please clear

[51:36] the chambers Okay.

[51:58] Thank you very much.

[52:00] And congratulate agents to our 2026 recipients.

[52:04] The next item is our consent calendar,

[52:07] which contains items typically a routine and typically

[52:10] non-controversial business items.

[52:13] In this section can be acted in one motion

[52:15] unless removed by a mayor or a council member.

[52:18] And I would at this point like to remind the folks here

[52:21] in the audience and the folks online

[52:23] that we will take a break every couple of hours

[52:26] just so that we can refresh a little bit

[52:28] And I just want to get that out now

[52:30] because I'll forget to say it until later.

[52:33] So any member of the public may speak

[52:35] on an item on the consent calendar at this time or request

[52:39] that the mayor remove an item from the consent

[52:41] calendar for discussion.

[52:43] If you're requesting an item to be removed from the consent

[52:45] calendar please give your comments on the item

[52:48] and inform the City Council what you would like that,

[52:50] you would like.

[52:51] Why you would like the item removed.

[52:53] Public speakers are limited to three minutes.

[52:55] Brett, can you please explain the public comment process

[52:58] and announce the first speaker If you would like

[53:00] to address the City Council on the consent calendar

[53:03] and you have not already submitted a speaker slip,

[53:05] now is the time to do so.

[53:07] If you are attending the zoom and you

[53:09] would like to address the City Council on the consent calendar,

[53:12] now is the time to raise your hand.

[53:14] First speaker is standing motion I'd like.

[53:32] Yes, I'd like to.

[53:33] Um, request that 1.14, which is a sheriff contract,

[53:42] be removed and discussed.

[53:45] Um I have a little difficulty understanding.

[53:52] I looked over the sheriff's contract

[53:53] and there's a question about overhead costs and state law,

[53:59] and so on.

[54:01] I spent a year at Gonzaga law School and contracts

[54:06] was not one of my strong subjects.

[54:09] So if maybe the city attorney can help us out

[54:12] on the explaining what that is and whether we are

[54:16] in compliance here, thank you.

[54:21] Well, and that was his comment.

[54:23] He want to better understand the contract portion of it.

[54:27] Anybody else for it?

[54:28] I have no other speaker slips and there are no hands raised.

[54:32] OK.

[54:33] Thank you.

[54:34] Is there any member of the council

[54:36] would like to pull an item or two?

[54:39] Tina Marie I'd like to pull item numbers 1.4 and 1.5.

[54:44] Okay.

[54:45] Anybody else?

[54:46] Oh, sorry.

[54:47] I meant 1.14 and one five.

[54:51] My apologies.

[54:52] Typo.

[54:53] So it's 1.14 and 1.15 not four and five.

[54:59] 14 and 15.

[55:01] OK.

[55:02] All right.

[55:03] All right.

[55:05] If there's no discussion on any of the other items.

[55:10] And I think, Stan, I think you meant item 1.14, right.

[55:14] Thank you.

[55:14] You.

[55:15] Yeah.

[55:15] He said correct.

[55:16] Yeah, I wasn't sure if I made a mistake.

[55:19] So we'll look for motion on the other items.

[55:21] Yeah.

[55:23] All right I'd like to move to adoption.

[55:26] Susan, Calendar item one.

[55:27] Point one through 1.13.

[55:30] I second.

[55:31] I have a motion and a second On favor.

[55:34] Please say I. I i any opposed.

[55:38] Any abstentions.

[55:39] Motion carries unanimously Okay.

[55:41] Item 1.1 for the Santa Clara County law enforcement

[55:45] contract for peanut I have a couple of questions for staff.

[55:54] I know there has been an ad hoc committee

[55:57] of the mayors of the three cities City of Saratoga,

[56:01] city of Cupertino as well as the town of Los Altos

[56:03] Hills, along with the city managers

[56:05] and some other senior executive level members of each

[56:09] of the three cities that have been working with the county

[56:11] sheriff's office since the beginning of this year.

[56:14] On this contract just a couple of quick questions here.

[56:19] Firstly, I really appreciate all the work

[56:21] that has been done by the Ad hoc committee members.

[56:24] I know it's been lot more meetings than what we also

[56:26] attended, so that's deeply appreciated.

[56:30] From what I understand that the other Two cities, Cupertino

[56:35] and Los Altos Hills, have not reached a point yet

[56:41] They are running couple of weeks behind us

[56:43] where they will be ready to move forward with their contract.

[56:47] So when all the Three cities got an extension of the timeline

[56:53] from end of June through end of September 20, 26,

[56:57] I know I have discussed this with you

[57:00] city manager Leslie Arroyo, but it

[57:02] would be good for members of the public

[57:04] to know why we are moving forward.

[57:07] Now while the other two cities are waiting

[57:09] and the second question would be,

[57:11] I understand that all three city attorneys have reviewed

[57:15] the contract language until a week ago

[57:18] and any substantial changes, if they have been made since then,

[57:21] it would be nice for us to share with our residents.

[57:24] And the last question slash comment

[57:27] is that there is an audit report that is in the works.

[57:33] The draft report has been reviewed by the Ad hoc committee

[57:37] that is to the audit report is addressing the overheads that

[57:42] was also alluded to by one of the members, former Mayor Stan

[57:45] Boghosian, just now.

[57:46] And my question there would be if they find reductions

[57:52] in that report that would be applicable to the other cities

[57:56] because they are a couple of weeks behind us

[57:59] in terms of signing the contract.

[58:02] And if we approve the contract tonight, would we, the City

[58:05] of Saratoga, be able to avail of those reductions and adjustments

[58:11] in spite of the fact that we may have approved the contract

[58:14] tonight?

[58:14] Those are my 3 or 4 questions right there.

[58:17] Appreciate your answers Thank you.

[58:18] Thank you.

[58:19] Very similar for you.

[58:20] So the first question is to why now you're correct.

[58:25] We did our contract ended at the end of June, June 30th.

[58:28] We did get an extension till September 30th.

[58:31] And in the beginning of July, we did receive a note

[58:35] from the county office.

[58:38] And in fact, I have the exact July 7

[58:42] kind of outlining that we needed to push this

[58:46] up a little bit more.

[58:47] And then it was reiterated to us on July 17.

[58:50] And basically in this note, they were outlining the fact that

[58:54] because they needed to do to readings at the border

[58:57] supervisor level, they've got some upcoming border supervisor

[59:00] meetings in September in order to have that contract executed

[59:04] by September 30th.

[59:06] So number one, in order to get a contract executed

[59:09] through the county we have to first sign it.

[59:12] And then we then it gets taken to the board of supervisors.

[59:16] So in this timeline, we I will say

[59:19] we were surprised that it did push things up for us.

[59:22] But we were told that they needed to have an agreement

[59:26] received essentially by August 11th to be considered

[59:30] for the August 25th board meeting or an agreement received

[59:34] by August 31st to be considered for the September 1540 Board

[59:38] of Supervisors meeting.

[59:39] So those were the two meetings that they're

[59:41] having is August 25 and September 15.

[59:43] We needed to have this meeting because we are not meeting today

[59:47] is the 90 and then we won't meet again until September 2.

[59:50] So that last kind of timeline was that August 31st,

[59:53] 31st agreement that they needed received by us.

[59:57] This is going to go on the August 25th board meeting.

[1:00:00] They are going to amend their agenda

[1:00:02] and add our signed contracts.

[1:00:03] Should the Council approve this tonight?

[1:00:05] We will sign it tomorrow, and they will put it on the 25th

[1:00:09] agenda.

[1:00:09] But that is the reason why the timing again, it was surprising.

[1:00:13] And it did push all three cities up

[1:00:16] and we have chosen to follow through with that request

[1:00:20] of timing in terms of contract changes,

[1:00:23] I do want to introduce we do have Katherine

[1:00:25] Enberg on the line and she is an attorney

[1:00:27] and she has also been working closely She's part of our team.

[1:00:31] And has been negotiating with the other attorneys,

[1:00:34] with the other two cities.

[1:00:35] So you're question in terms of, you know, we did last week,

[1:00:39] Thursday, we kind of get through all of our red line changes

[1:00:42] that we wanted to accomplish.

[1:00:44] And we were happy with that.

[1:00:46] But I will let Katherine just kind of state

[1:00:48] where things left off and how we decided to pursue

[1:00:51] this contract in the end.

[1:00:53] OK, great.

[1:00:55] Thank you for that introduction Leslie,

[1:00:57] and for the question from Council,

[1:01:01] I did want to just highlight I've

[1:01:02] been working with the other city attorneys

[1:01:06] and our office worked primarily.

[1:01:08] And I want to highlight three aspects of the contract, which

[1:01:12] were resolved last week and which allowed us to recommend,

[1:01:16] you know, bringing this agreement forward

[1:01:18] to council this evening.

[1:01:21] One is the issue regarding early termination and who

[1:01:26] pays for pro-rata basically how the pro rata shares of the West

[1:01:32] Valley substation lease are worked out.

[1:01:36] The county has a lease for the West Valley substation A that

[1:01:41] runs through November of 2029.

[1:01:44] And so one one issue that we needed

[1:01:47] to resolve was, well, in the event

[1:01:49] that a One of the three cities leaves terminates

[1:01:53] prior to that date, how are those costs shared?

[1:01:59] And then also, well, what if the county wants

[1:02:01] to enter into a new lease and extend the date of that lease

[1:02:06] beyond the period of this contract?

[1:02:08] So that was, you know, needed to be worked out ultimately,

[1:02:12] the parties all agreed on the language in the contract

[1:02:16] right now.

[1:02:17] And basically does require a city

[1:02:21] that leaves that terminates early to pay

[1:02:24] his pro rata share through that November 20, 29 date.

[1:02:28] However, it does not allow the county to extend that lease

[1:02:34] without mutual agreement of the city's.

[1:02:38] So that was, I think, a key negotiating point

[1:02:41] And I to just like that for you, the other one would

[1:02:46] have will just mention is the indemnification section.

[1:02:49] The city's basically thought that the current indemnification

[1:02:51] language in our in our current contract is good.

[1:02:55] And it's protective of the city's

[1:02:57] particularly in the event of an excessive force case situation.

[1:03:01] And in the county actually had proposed

[1:03:03] to change that language.

[1:03:05] But then they ultimately agreed to revert back to the language

[1:03:09] that we've had in place in our contract for many years.

[1:03:12] So that was the second thing I wanted to mention.

[1:03:15] And then finally, I'll just mention another change

[1:03:18] in the contract that we were satisfied with is a note on.

[1:03:21] I think is page two of the contract

[1:03:23] that it is subject to government code section 51350.

[1:03:27] And actually one of the public commenters asked about that.

[1:03:32] And that's a section that's really

[1:03:34] protected by both the county and the cities.

[1:03:38] It does require the county to pass on cost to the contract

[1:03:44] cities.

[1:03:46] However, it also says that the county may not

[1:03:49] charge overhead head to the cities

[1:03:52] that it would incur anyway.

[1:03:54] I'm sort of paraphrasing, but that's the idea.

[1:03:58] And so the contract.

[1:04:00] I mean, basically would be subject to that

[1:04:03] regardless because the state law.

[1:04:04] But we've made it expressly in the contract

[1:04:06] that that is subject to that those provisions

[1:04:09] of the government code.

[1:04:10] And I would just note that there is

[1:04:13] an audit happening and are you know,

[1:04:17] it's still underway If that audit reveals

[1:04:20] that the county has been charging the contract

[1:04:23] cities, any overhead that is not allowed under government code

[1:04:27] section 51350.

[1:04:29] Well, the contract would basically require a rebalancing

[1:04:32] or refund.

[1:04:33] Didn't have to would need to be it

[1:04:36] would need to be refunded or rolled into, you know,

[1:04:40] the next year's payment.

[1:04:42] Would that, you know, without express language.

[1:04:46] So I guess those are the three primary point negotiating

[1:04:49] points.

[1:04:50] And with those resolved, we did recommend bringing this forward

[1:04:53] to council.

[1:04:54] Assuming.

[1:04:55] OK.

[1:04:55] Thank you so Katherine, I really appreciate that.

[1:04:58] Essentially, even if the other two cities

[1:05:01] when they sign or approve likely if they approve the contract

[1:05:06] language in a couple of weeks, if they find anything else

[1:05:09] coming out.

[1:05:10] I'm repeating this here in the audit report that would still

[1:05:14] be applicable to us.

[1:05:17] Part of the language in the contract that is in front of us

[1:05:19] tonight Correct.

[1:05:21] And per state law as well.

[1:05:23] We did.

[1:05:23] We did not moralize it in the contract.

[1:05:25] Wonderful.

[1:05:26] Appreciate that.

[1:05:27] Thanks.

[1:05:27] And I would just add, Vice Mayor Wiley,

[1:05:29] that we do have a draft version of that report.

[1:05:34] We are waiting to get it finalized.

[1:05:36] It was shared with the county to have them get their perspective.

[1:05:39] And just for the sake for the public,

[1:05:41] why did we do this audit report?

[1:05:42] We did this because of the calculations

[1:05:45] that were provided to us initially

[1:05:46] we were trying to get a better understanding

[1:05:48] as to what we were being charged with the contract.

[1:05:51] And so we hired this independent auditor.

[1:05:53] This isn't a draft version I did.

[1:05:55] One thing I did want to say, though,

[1:05:58] is that I did reach out to the county executive yesterday

[1:06:01] evening.

[1:06:02] And one of the things they did have a chance

[1:06:04] to look at that on a report again in draft version.

[1:06:07] And he said the county won't be changing,

[1:06:09] costing methodology as a result of the audit.

[1:06:12] The draft audit did not identify any calculation errors

[1:06:15] or technical adjustments, but it did

[1:06:17] appear to potentially disagree with categorization

[1:06:20] or methodology.

[1:06:21] It also continues to say we don't

[1:06:23] agree with those observations as a legal or factual matter.

[1:06:26] But even assuming they remain in the final audit,

[1:06:28] we will not be proposing any changes in our costing

[1:06:32] So that was the latest that I did receive last night

[1:06:35] from the county executive.

[1:06:38] Appreciate sharing that with the public here tonight.

[1:06:41] City manager Leslie, deeply appreciate that.

[1:06:44] Thank you so much.

[1:06:47] I don't have any other questions.

[1:06:49] Do you want me to make a remark or do

[1:06:50] you want to anybody else have any questions?

[1:06:52] There may be others.

[1:06:53] Any questions?

[1:06:54] Yes, if I may just add, I do want to just clarify, too,

[1:06:58] that, you know, we are signing this contract

[1:07:01] and we are continuing to have law enforcement discussions.

[1:07:03] We've talked about this.

[1:07:04] We are looking at those goals, but we

[1:07:07] are continuing with the sheriff's office

[1:07:08] and to what Katherine pointed out,

[1:07:10] we do need to sign this because we need to continue our law

[1:07:13] enforcement.

[1:07:13] And as of October First, they continue to be a great partner.

[1:07:18] And we will decide ultimately what we end up going with.

[1:07:21] But tonight is not that decision for the long term law

[1:07:25] enforcement agreement.

[1:07:25] So tonight is to keep us going and keep us moving.

[1:07:28] And then we do have that termination provision.

[1:07:31] Should the council want to make a change that is forthcoming?

[1:07:35] And to add to that, lastly, this contra act

[1:07:37] is for five years with the possibility of extension

[1:07:40] for another five and adding to that date, as you said,

[1:07:43] effective October one, 2026, and it does have an exit clause

[1:07:47] if you give them a year's notice,

[1:07:49] we could move to another law enforcement agency.

[1:07:52] And I just from the standpoint of the ad hoc,

[1:07:55] I just want to say that, yeah, we reviewed the audit report

[1:08:00] as I kind of anticipated what the accounting executive's

[1:08:04] response would be.

[1:08:06] Yeah, it may be a little different

[1:08:07] than other counties do, but there's

[1:08:09] nothing in that audit report that

[1:08:10] says this is what you're doing, illegal.

[1:08:12] This violates government code.

[1:08:14] And 51, 350 is the government code that relates to this.

[1:08:18] So to me, it makes more sense to move on and make sure

[1:08:22] that we're locked in than to try to fight an imaginary fight.

[1:08:26] And so that's why I recommend that we bring it forward.

[1:08:29] Thank you.

[1:08:30] I appreciate your sharing that with us

[1:08:32] and for the work you have done on this

[1:08:33] on the with the ad hoc committee, I agree with you.

[1:08:37] A public safety comes first for all of us here.

[1:08:41] And i agree, Leslie, as you said,

[1:08:44] we have to move forward with the good, consistent law enforcement

[1:08:49] service that we have had for 70 years.

[1:08:51] And and I'm ready to make a motion to time to move forward

[1:08:56] essentially, and make a motion to approve item number one,

[1:09:00] point one 4, which is the Santa Clara County law enforcement

[1:09:05] contract to authorize the city manager to execute this five

[1:09:08] year agreement with the Santa Clara county

[1:09:10] Sheriff's Office as detailed in the staff report.

[1:09:13] And I'd like to second.

[1:09:15] Thank you.

[1:09:16] All in favor any comments?

[1:09:18] I'll just have some comments.

[1:09:20] Just want to thank staff as well as the county sheriff's

[1:09:23] office, the ad hoc committee, our fellow cities.

[1:09:25] There's been a ton of work that's

[1:09:27] gone into those last few years.

[1:09:28] I do think it is the right decision for us to move forward

[1:09:31] with this.

[1:09:32] I think the other cities are taking it, making a deliberate

[1:09:35] choice to try and hold out, to try

[1:09:38] and I think solicit some more cost savings

[1:09:40] or negotiate for that on top of the fact

[1:09:44] we've already gotten an extension

[1:09:46] And I just think, we I think the county is operating

[1:09:49] with us in good faith here.

[1:09:51] I don't think we should take that risk for our residents

[1:09:53] to even question whether or not law enforcement will

[1:09:56] be available.

[1:09:56] And like you said, from the start,

[1:09:58] this is not a quality of service issue.

[1:10:00] It's a finances issue in this contract gives us

[1:10:02] that flexibility.

[1:10:03] If we do need to make that decision

[1:10:05] to go with with a different partner here.

[1:10:07] But I want to say thank you to everyone for the work,

[1:10:10] especially to Mayor Page for being on the Ad Hoc committee.

[1:10:13] It's been a tremendous amount of additional effort.

[1:10:15] Also, there was the question around,

[1:10:19] let's say this our report does find something.

[1:10:22] The good news is that the state law applies regardless,

[1:10:25] because if there ends up being an adjustment,

[1:10:27] we will see the benefit of that.

[1:10:28] In addition to the other cities.

[1:10:31] Thank you.

[1:10:32] And so I'll be voting in favor of this.

[1:10:34] Okay.

[1:10:34] And the other comments and we'll go to the vote.

[1:10:37] All those in favor, please say I I any opposed.

[1:10:41] Any abstentions.

[1:10:42] The motion carries unanimously.

[1:10:44] OK.

[1:10:45] Item 1.15.

[1:10:46] The League of California's cities

[1:10:48] Action Alert on Wildfire liability.

[1:10:52] I'll keep my remarks very safe.

[1:10:54] Very safe.

[1:10:55] Safe and contained Sorry, I'm just

[1:10:58] trying to read my notes here and trying

[1:11:00] to rush in the interest of time.

[1:11:02] Do you have a packed agenda tonight?

[1:11:04] Essentially I don't have any questions.

[1:11:06] What I wanted to share with the residents

[1:11:09] was this information came to all elected officials

[1:11:13] about a week to ten days ago from the League

[1:11:16] of California Cities, which is the league of all

[1:11:18] the cities in the state.

[1:11:20] And I do recall sharing this with city manager Leslie

[1:11:24] And I want to thank Mayor Page for agenda

[1:11:26] raising this for tonight.

[1:11:28] I tried at the Cities Association of Santa Clara

[1:11:31] County, which is all the 15 cities in the county last week,

[1:11:35] and the current board president there.

[1:11:37] I tried to agendas, but I was unable to do it

[1:11:41] because of the timing and the lack of detail information

[1:11:45] or the insufficient information at that given point in time

[1:11:49] I did highlighted to all the cities.

[1:11:51] It is very important for the city of Saratoga

[1:11:55] as the residents here will likely understand and agree to.

[1:12:00] So this is really me thanking you, Mayor,

[1:12:03] to put this on the agenda in even with the information

[1:12:07] that we have because we don't want the governor

[1:12:10] to be signing these bills and putting

[1:12:12] the responsibility on the cities and the residents or impact

[1:12:16] by wildfires.

[1:12:17] I'm trying not to say anything more to save time, essentially.

[1:12:20] Well, I think that we since we brought it up with this action

[1:12:25] alert, it really does.

[1:12:26] It says that the city opposed Is the governor signing a bill that

[1:12:30] essentially would limit an electric utility that

[1:12:34] caused the wildfire from being sued

[1:12:36] for the did of a maximum amount they could sue for?

[1:12:39] This is a two edged sword.

[1:12:41] If they get sued.

[1:12:42] And they lose the ratepayers pay.

[1:12:45] So if it's limited, we pay less.

[1:12:47] So it's so you're darned if you do and you're darned if you

[1:12:51] don't.

[1:12:51] But I think that the bill itself needs to be better thought out,

[1:12:56] and that's why we're opposing it.

[1:12:58] So any other comments or questions?

[1:13:00] OK All in favor.

[1:13:01] Please say I, I, we don't have a motion.

[1:13:04] Oh, sorry.

[1:13:05] Thank you.

[1:13:06] It's going to happen right along.

[1:13:07] Before Brett caught us.

[1:13:09] I would like to.

[1:13:10] I'd like to move a stop recommendation.

[1:13:13] OK.

[1:13:13] Do we have a second?

[1:13:15] I'll second.

[1:13:16] Thank you again All in favor.

[1:13:20] Now, please say I. I opposed.

[1:13:22] Any abstentions.

[1:13:23] Motion carries unanimously.

[1:13:24] We're now done with the consent calendar.

[1:13:26] Thank you very much.

[1:13:30] All right, next up is public hearing item 2.1.

[1:13:39] This is an appeal hearing on a planning commission decision

[1:13:42] not to certify the an environmental impact report

[1:13:45] and deny applications for design review

[1:13:48] and a tentative map for a 25 lot residential subdivision located

[1:13:52] on a 72.45 acre parcel on Pearce Road will begin with a report

[1:13:58] from staff followed by council questions of staff.

[1:14:01] After that, the appellant and their representative

[1:14:03] will have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements

[1:14:07] after opening remarks will proceed to prior to public

[1:14:10] comment Members of the public will be

[1:14:13] able to comment at that point.

[1:14:15] And we'll talk about that later.

[1:14:17] So Chris, nice to see you.

[1:14:20] And thanks very much Thank you.

[1:14:23] Good evening.

[1:14:24] Mayor Page, Vice Mayor Wailea, council members

[1:14:29] for 72.45 acre of vacant property site

[1:14:32] is located on Pearce Road Intersection of Saratoga Heights

[1:14:37] Drive and HRA Zoning District.

[1:14:41] The average slope of the site is 47%.

[1:14:44] The site is bounded to the north by single family homes

[1:14:48] to the east by Pearce Road and single family

[1:14:51] homes to the south by Highway nine

[1:14:55] and to the west by the mountain winery This project was

[1:15:06] submitted pursuant to the builders

[1:15:08] remaining provision of the housing county Building Act,

[1:15:11] or the HRA, a stated purpose of the HRA

[1:15:16] is to significantly increase the approval and construction

[1:15:20] of new housing for all economic segments of California

[1:15:24] communities by meaningfully in effectively limiting

[1:15:28] the capability of local governments

[1:15:31] to deny we use the density for or rendering feasible

[1:15:36] proposed housing development projects.

[1:15:40] Those remedy is a provision of a as applicable to qualifying

[1:15:46] housing development projects.

[1:15:48] When a preliminary application was submitted before Saratoga

[1:15:53] adopted a substantial, fully compliant housing element,

[1:15:57] the applicant submitted a preliminary application

[1:16:00] for housing development on July 20, 2023,

[1:16:05] after the State deadline for housing adoption

[1:16:10] and before Saratoga adopted a compliant housing element.

[1:16:14] Additionally, the project is subject to the City Code.

[1:16:18] As I stood at the time of the preliminary application

[1:16:21] submittal the HRA Limits Saratoga ability

[1:16:34] to deny or conditionally approve a qualifying housing

[1:16:38] development.

[1:16:39] In addition, the builder's remedy provision of the HRA

[1:16:43] prohibits Saratoga from applying subject active standards

[1:16:48] to the project or relying on inconsistency

[1:16:52] with zoning General plan standards

[1:16:55] as a basis for disapproval.

[1:16:58] The HRA maintains certain authority

[1:17:01] to enforce some objective development standard conditions

[1:17:06] and policies by imposing addition of approval,

[1:17:09] or if the conditions are based on objective standards.

[1:17:13] In effect, at the time, the planning application was filed

[1:17:17] and you're not render the project infeasible or require

[1:17:21] a reduction of proposed density.

[1:17:24] Saratoga does not have authority to impose conditions

[1:17:28] based on subjective standards This is the project site plan.

[1:17:38] The project will include subdividing the site

[1:17:42] to develop 25 single family homes and related improvements,

[1:17:47] including new internal streets, landscaping, utilities,

[1:17:52] and attention and drainage areas Project development

[1:17:56] will be primary, highly concentrated in northern 18.38

[1:18:01] acre portion of the site for the southern 54.06 acre portion

[1:18:07] is not proposed for development except for the construction

[1:18:11] of an emergency access road Lot one through eight

[1:18:16] or located near the entrance to the project

[1:18:19] and adjacent to Pierce Road.

[1:18:21] The dwelling units proposed for East Lot will be two stories

[1:18:25] and 2475ft² and floor area dwelling units and lots one, 2,

[1:18:32] four and eight will be afforded both units and available

[1:18:35] to lower income households.

[1:18:37] Dwelling units on March nine, 425 and report two and three

[1:18:42] stories and range from 5284 to 7891ft² in size for any 6 or 7

[1:18:52] trees proposed for removal.

[1:18:54] The site is zoned residential single family

[1:18:58] dwellings are permitted use in this zoning district.

[1:19:01] The project is not consist with many of the development

[1:19:05] standards, including minimum lot size setbacks, allowable flaw

[1:19:09] area and maximum building height The 25 single family homes

[1:19:20] will be combination both two and three story

[1:19:24] structures featuring a contemporary architectural

[1:19:26] design.

[1:19:27] My presentation will not include details

[1:19:30] of all the structures on the site,

[1:19:32] but instead will include the elevation of just 3,

[1:19:35] 2 provide a general idea of your architectural style

[1:19:38] of the project.

[1:19:40] These are the elevations for the home proposed for lot one.

[1:19:44] The homes on lot one through eight,

[1:19:46] which are adjacent to Pierce Road,

[1:19:48] while the same architectural style we have two stories

[1:19:52] and approximately 24ft tall homes and lots one, 2,

[1:19:56] four and eight will be affordable to below market rate

[1:20:00] households Exterior materials will include four neutral

[1:20:04] exterior colors, including off-white and gray color stucco,

[1:20:09] gray board and bat siding brown doors and accent, colors,

[1:20:14] tan color, the stone veneer and brown asphalt shingle roofing.

[1:20:23] These are elevations for lots.

[1:20:25] 13.

[1:20:26] The three stories structure will feature

[1:20:28] a contemporary architectural style.

[1:20:30] A height of 29ft, ten inches and a floor area of 6396ft².

[1:20:37] Exterior materials will include stone veneer

[1:20:40] polish siding, cement, plaster and metal trim with elevations.

[1:20:50] Provide 20 for the three story building will include a four car

[1:20:54] garage a height of 42ft, nine inches and floor area

[1:20:59] of 6469ft².

[1:21:02] Exterior material will include a stone veneer, stucco,

[1:21:06] metal trim.

[1:21:08] This is the tallest of 25 homes with the next tallest home

[1:21:11] located on about 12, which would be 35ft eight inches This is

[1:21:20] the streetscape as viewed from Pierce Road at Intersection,

[1:21:24] Emerson State way as illustrated for Homes and lots one through

[1:21:30] three, seven and eight will be visible from Pierce Road with

[1:21:35] remaining home screen from offsite views by topography

[1:21:39] and existing and proposed trees These are the landscape plans

[1:21:48] for the project landscaping will include new trees,

[1:21:52] including Western redbud and coast live oak trees and drought

[1:21:57] tolerant shrubs.

[1:21:59] Additional landscaping will also be

[1:22:01] located adjacent to all access driveways and interior

[1:22:04] roads The perimeters of retention areas

[1:22:10] will be landscape with shrubs and ground covers

[1:22:13] to soften their appearance.

[1:22:15] Each of the homes will be similarly landscaped,

[1:22:18] which offer a consistent appearance, which

[1:22:21] is complementary to the streetscape of the development

[1:22:25] We have this safety in air was prepared for the project.

[1:22:35] And here is an information document

[1:22:38] that discloses to the public and decision makers

[1:22:42] or projects potentially significant

[1:22:45] environmental effects.

[1:22:47] The air also identifies ways to minimize potential effects,

[1:22:51] including identifying a reasonable range of alternatives

[1:22:56] that would reduce or avoid them and your can also conclude that

[1:23:01] a project would have one or more impacts that cannot be reduced

[1:23:06] to below a level of significance EHRs contain information

[1:23:10] on a variety of topics, including potential effects

[1:23:13] on noise statics, revenue data in plants,

[1:23:17] animals habitats such as wetlands fix and residents from

[1:23:22] noise, air pollution and wildfire risk that could be

[1:23:26] exacerbated by a proposed project year provide information

[1:23:32] that conforms decision makers educate the public draft.

[1:23:37] The Air was published for a 45 day review on December 29th

[1:23:42] of 2025 during the review period,

[1:23:46] the city received written comments from public agencies

[1:23:50] and members of the public.

[1:23:52] The city in the sequence of in prepared written responses

[1:23:55] to comments received, which included minor edits

[1:23:59] to the draft.

[1:23:59] Your response is two comments.

[1:24:03] The minor edits to the draft year and mitigation

[1:24:07] monitoring and reporting program make up the final year.

[1:24:11] The final year was posted online on June 20,

[1:24:16] 2026 As previously mentioned, Air

[1:24:23] is an informational document that discloses for the public

[1:24:26] and decision makers.

[1:24:28] A project's potential significant environmental

[1:24:30] effects in the air also identifies

[1:24:34] ways to minimize those potential effects, including identify

[1:24:39] within a range of mitigation measures

[1:24:41] that would reduce or avoid them.

[1:24:45] Air can also conclude that our project would have one or more

[1:24:48] impacts that cannot be reduced to below level significance.

[1:24:53] These are referred to as significant and unavoidable

[1:24:56] impacts Proposed project was determined

[1:24:59] to have significant and unavoidable impacts related

[1:25:02] to emergency response and evacuate Burden Sea access

[1:25:07] Wildlands fires conflict with applicable land use plans

[1:25:12] and transportation or vMT so determined

[1:25:22] that the adverse environmental effects of the project

[1:25:25] be maintained, efficient, and unavoidable following adoption

[1:25:29] and implementation and mitigation measures Staff

[1:25:33] is recommending the City Council adopt the statement.

[1:25:36] I'm overriding consideration regarding

[1:25:38] the significant unavoidable impacts

[1:25:41] and the anticipated benefits of the project.

[1:25:45] The city found that each of these benefits included

[1:25:47] in this statement constitute a separate independent ground

[1:25:52] for finding that the benefits of the project

[1:25:54] outweigh the risk of the potential significant adverse

[1:25:58] environmental impacts The benefits of the project that

[1:26:01] justify approval are as follows.

[1:26:05] The proposed project will provide residential uses

[1:26:09] including 20% on site affordable units

[1:26:13] on a site that does not currently

[1:26:15] contain any housing, which will provide housing and help

[1:26:20] to meet the city's Rina obligations Project

[1:26:24] Applicant will dedicate a public trail that provides a community

[1:26:28] benefit.

[1:26:29] The proposed project would provide.

[1:26:31] Well designed ownership residential single family

[1:26:33] housing as diverse as Saratoga has ownership housing supply

[1:26:39] and meet a variety of residents needs

[1:26:48] This project is a cohesive development consisting

[1:26:51] of high quality contemporary urban design features

[1:26:55] that respect and relate as well to its surroundings

[1:26:59] and preserves sensitive features of the project site.

[1:27:03] The proposed project would preserve

[1:27:05] the city's natural beauty and small town residential character

[1:27:11] And lastly, forward project will align with the California goals

[1:27:14] for housing production The draft air concluded

[1:27:22] that the project could result in potentially significant effects

[1:27:26] on the environment and that through the implementation

[1:27:29] of mitigation measures that were incorporated into the project,

[1:27:34] these potential impacts will be reduced to a less

[1:27:37] than significant level.

[1:27:38] These measures include dust control

[1:27:41] during construction protection of certain plants and animals

[1:27:46] loss of a Parian compensation, protection

[1:27:49] of cultural resources, geotechnical investigation

[1:27:54] and paleontological monitoring, greenhouse gas offsets,

[1:28:00] noise mitigation, traffic circulation, energy use

[1:28:04] and wildlife should be wildfire protection.

[1:28:12] This is the list of Project objectives

[1:28:15] these objectives include what designed

[1:28:18] or residential single family housing adds the city's housing

[1:28:22] supply, the addition of housing to help address the city's

[1:28:26] green obligations, the extraction of a water design

[1:28:30] development.

[1:28:30] The sense of the site and surroundings.

[1:28:33] Like I said, development of the service,

[1:28:35] the city's natural beauty and small town character Chivas.

[1:28:43] Streamlined and efficient processing and approval

[1:28:45] of the proposed project.

[1:28:47] Develop the project in an environmentally sensitive manner

[1:28:51] and to create a fire safe community on July 13,

[1:29:06] the applicant submitted an appeal to the City Council

[1:29:09] of the Planning Commission decision July 8th decision

[1:29:13] to deny the project the appeal included a letter from

[1:29:16] the applicants attorney, which included just applications

[1:29:20] of why the Planning Commission erred in their decision.

[1:29:24] The applicant stated basis for the appeal

[1:29:27] that the projects are protected by the housing Accountability

[1:29:30] Act and the builders.

[1:29:32] Many provisions of the HOA.

[1:29:34] It cannot be lawfully disapproved are also mentions

[1:29:39] the potential legal remedies available to the applicant

[1:29:42] and the city does not approve the project.

[1:29:50] These are some of your findings.

[1:29:51] The Council is to make to approve the project.

[1:29:54] These findings serve as the basis for the Council decision.

[1:29:58] The Council is determined that the project

[1:30:00] meets these findings.

[1:30:02] Details not related to these findings

[1:30:04] or effectively beyond the scope of the Council's review,

[1:30:08] where there would be an issue with making a particular finding

[1:30:11] without altering the design element of the project

[1:30:14] to meet this finding which could have resulted affecting

[1:30:17] the project's feasibility VHA limits the city from using such

[1:30:21] a finding to deny the project or impact conditions The project

[1:30:29] is not consistent with findings.

[1:30:31] One, 4, 6 and 7.

[1:30:34] However, and the builders remedy provisions of the Housing

[1:30:36] Accountability Act.

[1:30:38] Such inconsistencies may not be the basis for denying

[1:30:41] design review for the project.

[1:30:43] Therefore, the proposed resolution recommends approval.

[1:30:48] More details on each of the findings

[1:30:49] included in the staff report.

[1:30:54] The city Code provides that any tentative map should not

[1:30:58] be approved unless these nine tentative map

[1:31:00] findings can be made.

[1:31:03] The project is not consistent with findings one, two and 4.

[1:31:07] However, under the DOJ Remedy provision of the HRA,

[1:31:11] such inconsistency may not be the basis

[1:31:13] for disapproval in the tentative map proposed resolution.

[1:31:17] Therefore, does not make this negative.

[1:31:19] Finding The staff report includes evidence concerning

[1:31:26] each of these findings, and that evidence

[1:31:28] supports approval of the map traffic

[1:31:35] commends the City Council uphold the repeal, thereby approving

[1:31:39] the project and take the following actions.

[1:31:43] Adopt the attached resolution making the appropriate

[1:31:46] seek of findings.

[1:31:47] Adopting the statement of overriding considerations

[1:31:51] certifying the final Environmental Impact Report

[1:31:54] and adopting a mitigation monitoring

[1:31:56] and reporting program for the project

[1:32:00] and adopt the attached resolution

[1:32:02] and traditionally approve an application for design, review

[1:32:05] and tentative map.

[1:32:06] Subdivide a 72.45 acre parcel into 25 lots

[1:32:12] and construct 25 single family dwellings

[1:32:15] for the proposed assign estates development.

[1:32:18] Besides city staff, the following personnel

[1:32:21] are available this evening to address any questions city

[1:32:24] Council might have regarding the project.

[1:32:28] This could Church from Fear and Pierce Fear and fears.

[1:32:31] The city's traffic consultant, Matt mcKenna

[1:32:34] and Brad Fox from County Fire.

[1:32:36] Jason Brandman and Jana for the Debogorski and First Carbon

[1:32:40] Solutions.

[1:32:41] They both work with city staff and prep

[1:32:44] the R and Trish to learn from ex-con consultants and Grace

[1:32:49] Caskey from Kerrison associates.

[1:32:51] These are the traffic assortments

[1:32:52] that provided information to first Carbon Solutions

[1:32:54] for the year.

[1:32:56] There are both attending the meeting remotely.

[1:32:58] This concludes my report.

[1:33:00] Thank you.

[1:33:01] You.

[1:33:03] Thank you, Chris.

[1:33:05] Questions of staff.

[1:33:07] Tina.

[1:33:10] Chris thank you so much for your report.

[1:33:13] And I have I'm going to keep my questions contained here.

[1:33:17] I'm to make come back with more in the interest of time,

[1:33:20] I'm sure.

[1:33:20] Keep in contact.

[1:33:21] Thank you.

[1:33:22] So, Chris, my first question is for this project site According

[1:33:27] to the general plan, how many units would be allowed

[1:33:32] or what's the density allowed per our general plan for this

[1:33:36] whole project ?

[1:33:38] Four acres.

[1:33:38] I don't have a number off my head.

[1:33:41] I don't know.

[1:33:42] I think this.

[1:33:43] I think staff Nine I want to say they're confident.

[1:33:46] We believe it's nine.

[1:33:48] Okay.

[1:33:49] Could someone meanwhile check?

[1:33:50] That'd be great.

[1:33:51] And if we just name or double check.

[1:33:54] OK, so let's say general plan allows

[1:33:57] nine units and the proposal is 25.

[1:34:01] Okay.

[1:34:02] And this project application has been approved or gone

[1:34:12] through County Fire Review.

[1:34:13] Can you help us a little bit more about that?

[1:34:16] And if you need, just ask the County Fire folks to be here.

[1:34:20] It has received fire department clearance to proceed.

[1:34:22] So we have Fire Council fire approval.

[1:34:25] Yes, we have County Fire approval.

[1:34:28] Yes.

[1:34:29] OK.

[1:34:30] Did they put any conditions of approval

[1:34:32] or did they just review it?

[1:34:34] They have they have some conditions, maybe best,

[1:34:37] the ones to address the question on fire OK.

[1:34:42] That will be great.

[1:34:44] If they could help us.

[1:34:46] Thanks, Chris for the.

[1:34:55] Good evening.

[1:34:56] Mayor.

[1:34:56] Vice Mayor council Brad Fox, acting fire marshal

[1:35:00] for County Fire.

[1:35:02] We did review the project for compliance with the California

[1:35:07] fire Code and the minimums State minimum fire safe regulations.

[1:35:13] And to be clear, our scope of review

[1:35:15] for the project at this point is the acts

[1:35:19] as to the project and the water supply.

[1:35:22] So that's our scope of the review

[1:35:25] The project did meet all of the requirements,

[1:35:30] but I want to be transparent that in meeting

[1:35:33] those requirements they needed to get a exception

[1:35:39] request to the state minimum fire safe regs

[1:35:42] because they were not able to meet

[1:35:46] some of the prescriptive requirements.

[1:35:48] That exception request is part of the process of the state

[1:35:52] minimum fire safe regs.

[1:35:53] So it is included in the process.

[1:35:55] But that's where our conditions come in.

[1:35:57] So it's similar to maybe you're familiar with an alternate means

[1:36:01] or methods that we typically see in the building department.

[1:36:08] So the project has offered mitigation for the areas

[1:36:17] where they are not meeting that prescriptive code

[1:36:20] in that exception request that provides same practical effect.

[1:36:26] I can go into more detail on that if you'd like,

[1:36:29] or I can pause a little bit more at a higher level.

[1:36:33] At a conceptual level, would be very helpful, but not so detail

[1:36:37] in the interest of time.

[1:36:38] Sure.

[1:36:39] Understood.

[1:36:41] So that to the areas that were deficient are there.

[1:36:47] There's a section of Toll Gate Road

[1:36:49] which is used as the access.

[1:36:52] That's the primary access for the fire department

[1:36:54] that exceeds 15%.

[1:36:57] That is the requirement that's set by the state.

[1:37:02] However, the requirement allows them

[1:37:06] to go up to 20% with mitigate.

[1:37:09] And so, I believe there's a 300 or less foot section that

[1:37:14] has a slope of 16 to 18%.

[1:37:17] So it's a it's a little over the 15%.

[1:37:21] So that was one factor.

[1:37:24] The other factor is that the state minimum fire safety

[1:37:28] regs also require a 30 foot setback for from property lines

[1:37:34] or roads for parcels that are located in the very high fire

[1:37:39] hazard severity zone.

[1:37:41] This project, some of the parcels

[1:37:43] are located in that very high fire hazard severity zone

[1:37:46] and are subject to that requirement

[1:37:48] And some of the parcels are not there and a high fire hazard

[1:37:52] severity zone, they are not subject to it.

[1:37:54] So some of the parcels do not have the 30 foot

[1:37:58] setback to the property line.

[1:38:00] However, they all have the parcels have 30ft between

[1:38:07] structure layers and really, that is the intent of that code

[1:38:12] because we're trying to prevent structure destruction

[1:38:15] or ignition and thereby normally when you're thinking of a single

[1:38:22] lot development, you can't control what's on the other side

[1:38:24] of the property line.

[1:38:25] Hence 30ft to the property line and this development there

[1:38:29] develop in a larger multi lot development.

[1:38:33] So they can control the distance from structure to structure,

[1:38:37] which is maintaining that 30ft.

[1:38:40] Additionally, the project is putting in no

[1:38:43] build easements for those spaces between the structures

[1:38:46] that are deficient to make sure that in the future.

[1:38:50] There's not additions or any use put there that

[1:38:53] would decrease the distance.

[1:38:55] There's other mitigating features

[1:38:57] that they're offering as well, but that

[1:38:58] would be diving into the weeds, which i won't do at this time.

[1:39:02] Thank you.

[1:39:03] We'll keep the weeds out.

[1:39:05] Better for fire prevention.

[1:39:07] So let me get this straight.

[1:39:09] The 30 foot requirement of the setback is for very high fire

[1:39:15] hazard severity zones and some of those parcels that are

[1:39:19] in those zones meet the 30ft because I heard some parcels

[1:39:25] meet the 30, some don't.

[1:39:26] But I also heard some parcels are in very high fire hazard

[1:39:31] severity zones and some are in high fire hazard severity zones.

[1:39:35] So maybe somebody can check this I

[1:39:38] would like to know this sometime in the course of this evening.

[1:39:42] If you don't have the answer right now.

[1:39:44] Sure, I'm sure the project can specify which lots meet it

[1:39:49] and which don't.

[1:39:50] But to be clear, if a parcel is only in the high, not

[1:39:55] the very high, they don't have to meet the 30 foot setback

[1:40:00] requirement and that's my question there.

[1:40:01] The requirement is 30ft, which is very high fire hazard

[1:40:06] severity zones.

[1:40:07] Does it meet in all those parcels?

[1:40:10] And if it is high, the requirement is not 30.

[1:40:12] So then it is not that technicalities deficient.

[1:40:15] I hear you that the structures all three feet.

[1:40:17] So from a safety perspective, it seems okay,

[1:40:21] but the requirement perspective very high.

[1:40:24] Do all the very high ones have the 30ft setback as required not

[1:40:29] to the property line?

[1:40:30] And that's why I bring them up as something

[1:40:32] that they had to mitigate through the exception request.

[1:40:35] OK.

[1:40:36] That's that sort of.

[1:40:37] So they have 30ft structure to structure,

[1:40:39] but not to the property line in some cases for some

[1:40:42] of the parcels even we are required.

[1:40:44] Correct.

[1:40:45] Thank you.

[1:40:46] That is very helpful.

[1:40:48] And the other part, the very high level

[1:40:50] question, I just want to be clear.

[1:40:53] I heard from you that the scope of review

[1:40:57] was limited to access to the project and the water supply.

[1:41:03] So if the project were to be approved then

[1:41:07] it goes back to County Fire at some stage for building.

[1:41:12] And yeah, during building permitting,

[1:41:14] we will also review the project building department has

[1:41:19] the primary responsibility for reviewing

[1:41:22] the specific structures of the building code

[1:41:25] will review additional things like sprinkler

[1:41:28] systems or e-waste systems.

[1:41:31] And we also look to make sure that the project is complied

[1:41:35] with all of the mitigate rating features

[1:41:37] that they are putting into the project.

[1:41:40] Now at this time, for the tentative map.

[1:41:43] Okay.

[1:41:44] So that is a really related to the structures themselves,

[1:41:47] correct?

[1:41:48] At that stage?

[1:41:49] OK.

[1:41:49] Thank you.

[1:41:50] Thank you very much, Mayor.

[1:41:52] I have One question for your parent peers.

[1:41:56] Actually, maybe two.

[1:41:58] I just want to understand, there's

[1:42:00] been a lot of communication from residents about the evacuation

[1:42:06] times and the reports.

[1:42:08] So I have a couple of questions.

[1:42:09] I would like to address the question about the general plan

[1:42:12] before we move forward to be nine units for the general plan

[1:42:15] designation.

[1:42:16] Thank you.

[1:42:17] You're welcome.

[1:42:18] Thanks.

[1:42:24] Good evening, Mayor Vice Mayor Francisco Church

[1:42:27] with Faron Pierce.

[1:42:27] Good to see everybody.

[1:42:29] Thank you.

[1:42:30] And thank you for your work on this.

[1:42:33] Francisco So I'm trying to understand,

[1:42:41] we have gone through the report as the overall for the city,

[1:42:45] the Fair Peers Evaluation study that came to us, I think,

[1:42:49] a couple of months ago.

[1:42:51] And from my level of understanding,

[1:42:53] it talks of the existing conditions in the city

[1:42:56] the development with the Builders Remedy Project.

[1:43:04] And then Third is development with as remedy

[1:43:06] in all other future possible development as in the planning.

[1:43:10] I'm just putting paraphrasing very roughly.

[1:43:13] So what the key question for me is those numbers are huge.

[1:43:20] Molotov for development.

[1:43:23] How can we separate out the impact fact

[1:43:28] of this project on evacuation from Pierce Road,

[1:43:31] I saw something in the staff report,

[1:43:34] which talks of smaller numbers.

[1:43:35] Can you help us understand that?

[1:43:37] And then I will ask you one more question.

[1:43:40] Yeah happy to try to decipher the different parts.

[1:43:43] So the report that you're referring

[1:43:45] to that we presented, I believe, and June

[1:43:47] or July of this year as the evacuation time assessment

[1:43:50] That does to your point, look cumulatively at the entire city

[1:43:54] at what it would take to evacuate residents

[1:43:58] and employees within the evacuee shouldn't

[1:44:01] like the high fire zones and what

[1:44:02] it would take to evacuate them.

[1:44:05] We looked at that cumulatively because it

[1:44:08] looks at the total development, as you mentioned,

[1:44:11] under various scenarios.

[1:44:13] And so that analysis study would not be able to discern,

[1:44:16] especially visually what this project's contribution would

[1:44:19] be to that study, because there's

[1:44:21] a cumulative number, the applicant and air itself

[1:44:25] has prepared evacuation analysis that looks specifically just

[1:44:29] at the site itself.

[1:44:30] I will just note that the methodology and the methodology

[1:44:35] for the to evacuate in time analysis

[1:44:37] are a little bit different.

[1:44:38] So they're not apples to apples comparisons.

[1:44:42] Would you be comfortable to answer more or you would rather

[1:44:46] leave it for either staff or for the applicant

[1:44:48] to talk about that?

[1:44:50] I can try to answer as much as I can here.

[1:44:53] I'm happy to.

[1:44:54] Sure So what numbers are we talking

[1:44:57] in terms of the impact of that specific

[1:44:59] of this specific project?

[1:45:01] So maybe then I'll have some I don't

[1:45:03] know all the specific numbers I think

[1:45:05] we have somebody here can speak to the specific numbers

[1:45:07] from that study.

[1:45:08] Okay.

[1:45:09] Maybe the applicant can respond to that.

[1:45:14] I have a different question for your report.

[1:45:19] What it your methodology for the evacuation times for the city,

[1:45:25] as you said, various developmental scenarios

[1:45:32] there were various assumptions made

[1:45:34] as for any study at a high level, what kind of assumptions

[1:45:41] were factored into failures on a Pierce Road?

[1:45:47] General in the hillsides or specifically

[1:45:51] for Pierce Road around this project site

[1:45:56] there, we understand in the geologic conditions,

[1:46:00] the landslide conditions.

[1:46:01] And so on and so forth was some kind

[1:46:05] of a failure included in your methods ology?

[1:46:09] Well, yeah, the short answer is the evacuation time analysis

[1:46:16] does not include any roadway failures or closures.

[1:46:18] And the analysis, the previous analysis

[1:46:21] that we did in 2025, which was more of a planning level

[1:46:25] assessment that looked at capacity

[1:46:27] ratios of the volume of the evacuation vehicle volume

[1:46:30] versus the capacity of the roadway

[1:46:32] did qualitatively you talk about the closure of some roadways,

[1:46:36] particularly on Pierce Road and how that

[1:46:39] would affect the evacuation.

[1:46:41] But it was a qualitative assessment.

[1:46:42] But the most recent evacuation time did not.

[1:46:51] How could we factor or I'm hearing two things from you.

[1:46:56] Very helpful.

[1:46:56] Thank you.

[1:46:58] And I'm struggling to ask you the question, how do we

[1:47:00] factor that into assessing the situation that this project is

[1:47:08] or the impact this project is going to have?

[1:47:10] If you're looking for specifically

[1:47:12] if what the impact of this project

[1:47:13] that I'll defer to the applicant and their travel time analysis.

[1:47:17] But I think the way to maybe think about the city study,

[1:47:20] it really does helps to understand

[1:47:21] cumulative tively over time.

[1:47:23] If these developments are all approved and once they're today,

[1:47:26] what would that mean to the city?

[1:47:28] Where are the constraints operationally

[1:47:30] that the city should consider and that then helps the city,

[1:47:33] then think about what are the possible solutions

[1:47:35] to help might to help improve evacuation

[1:47:37] times throughout the city.

[1:47:40] OK.

[1:47:41] I will stop asking that specific question for now Last question,

[1:47:49] Mary, if I may.

[1:47:51] OK.

[1:47:52] This is a question for Richard and his team.

[1:47:56] So Richard, I heard Chris refer multiple times, even

[1:48:01] in his presentation today, in addition to the staff

[1:48:03] report that we have, the whole agenda packet

[1:48:05] talks multiple times of refers to the housing accountability

[1:48:10] Act and that builder's remedy is a provision of the HRA and HRA

[1:48:18] limits.

[1:48:18] The housing Accountability Act limits the city's ability

[1:48:22] to deny or conditionally approve a qualifying housing development

[1:48:27] project.

[1:48:28] And objectives standards in place at the time,

[1:48:35] the preliminary application was received by the city,

[1:48:40] which I know you saw Chris, give a date of June 20th, 2023.

[1:48:47] So can you help us understand what

[1:48:50] would be the possible not the objective standards,

[1:48:55] but what are the things we need to what would give the Council

[1:49:03] authority?

[1:49:04] What criteria do we needed to meet

[1:49:07] to be able to say if the council were to field

[1:49:10] this doesn't meet standards.

[1:49:12] These are the impacts.

[1:49:14] What would give?

[1:49:15] What all do we need to satisfy the criteria to be able to deny

[1:49:19] abilities from any project?

[1:49:23] I'm going to introduce my colleague, Gabe Ross who

[1:49:27] is our officers expert on this project

[1:49:30] and has been working with staff.

[1:49:31] And I'll have him give a short answer to that question.

[1:49:36] And you can see if you have followed.

[1:49:39] Thank you, Richard.

[1:49:41] So under the builder's remedy provisions of the Housing

[1:49:45] Accountability Act, as you said, Vice mayor,

[1:49:47] we have very narrow reasons why we, the city council,

[1:49:53] could deny a project.

[1:49:55] And I think the one that you're asking about

[1:49:57] is if the project is inconsistent

[1:50:00] with a specific objective written health and safety

[1:50:06] standard that was in place at the time

[1:50:09] of the preliminary application.

[1:50:10] If if the project were inconsistent with such

[1:50:13] a standard, that could be a reason for the City Council

[1:50:17] to deny the project consistent with the Housing Accountability

[1:50:21] Act and the builders remedy Do we have any?

[1:50:27] And so that date would be at the time,

[1:50:29] would that be the date that chris mentioned,

[1:50:32] June of 2023, Correct.

[1:50:34] What standards.

[1:50:36] If any, did we have at that time ?

[1:50:41] We did not have at that time, any standard that

[1:50:45] meets the qualifications that I just

[1:50:48] stated that relates to evacuation time

[1:50:51] or to the wildfire question that that you've been discussing.

[1:50:56] Okay.

[1:50:57] Okay Thank you.

[1:51:00] Thank you so much.

[1:51:02] I'll hold the rest of my questions to later.

[1:51:05] Thank you.

[1:51:06] OK Who else got questions?

[1:51:10] I know Tina asked them all.

[1:51:11] Go ahead.

[1:51:12] Yes.

[1:51:14] Just a few quick questions and the first one, the year.

[1:51:20] I didn't find the projects, VMT is approximately 25 and compared

[1:51:26] with the county wide, a threshold of 11 kind of staff

[1:51:31] or maybe Franciscan.

[1:51:33] Explain to us what is the value data for existing residence

[1:51:38] is in the same hillside area.

[1:51:40] And what does.

[1:51:42] I mean?

[1:51:43] The 25 represents to, you know, a practical term?

[1:51:48] Yeah, happy to answer that question.

[1:51:50] So when we're looking at VMT or vehicle Miles traveled

[1:51:53] for residential development, we're

[1:51:55] looking at all the travel that occurs from the home.

[1:51:59] So that's going to work, going shopping, doing other errands

[1:52:02] throughout the day.

[1:52:02] And there's models that kind of try

[1:52:04] to emulate and calculate that number.

[1:52:08] And so the 25 miles means that on average,

[1:52:11] the person living off the project

[1:52:13] will travel around 25 miles per day.

[1:52:16] So that includes going to work, etc., etc..

[1:52:19] I for existing conditions, even without the project,

[1:52:22] the number is about the same because if you think about it,

[1:52:24] it's really like how far you have to travel.

[1:52:27] So if you're up in Saratoga on Peirce road,

[1:52:30] whether you live on, you know, depending

[1:52:32] on where you live a little bit.

[1:52:33] But the distance overall is not going

[1:52:35] to be that substantially different because you have

[1:52:37] to travel down past, get onto one of the main arterial

[1:52:40] Saratoga, Sunnyvale or Saratoga, and then you spread out kind of

[1:52:43] into the other areas.

[1:52:44] Normally two for jobs is like the biggest contributor

[1:52:47] to your length of trips The county average,

[1:52:51] the threshold is 11 miles, but the actual average itself

[1:52:55] because is around 13 for the county saratoga.

[1:52:59] This has a much higher VMT number

[1:53:00] because there's more residents, not a lot of jobs.

[1:53:03] So a lot of trips up to go out external to the city

[1:53:06] to travel Thank you.

[1:53:09] So if I'm hearing that right, basically, you're

[1:53:13] saying this project doesn't increase the VMD number service

[1:53:16] population.

[1:53:17] OK.

[1:53:18] All right.

[1:53:19] Thank you.

[1:53:20] And I have another quick, quick question.

[1:53:23] This is either staff or a city attorney to help us answer this.

[1:53:29] So Chris mentioned that of the seven design review findings,

[1:53:33] staff indicates that Four of them

[1:53:36] could be could not be made on the merits.

[1:53:40] And my question is are the city's and normal design review

[1:53:45] findings applicable to Builders Remedies Project at all ?

[1:53:55] It's a good question the way we look at it

[1:53:58] is that the city's code requires the design review findings

[1:54:02] to approve the project.

[1:54:04] And so they remain applicable.

[1:54:07] But the builder's remedy.

[1:54:09] And Housing Accountability Act limits, as we've said,

[1:54:12] limits the reasons that we could have to say no.

[1:54:15] So in this case, it sort of limits

[1:54:18] the the use or what we can say through the design review

[1:54:23] findings.

[1:54:23] But we still need to make them so I

[1:54:30] guess I'm a little confused.

[1:54:31] So.

[1:54:32] So even when we cannot the four of them cannot be made

[1:54:38] on the merits.

[1:54:40] That is not a reason under the Housing Accountability Act

[1:54:43] to deny the project.

[1:54:44] So basically it's a limit on our rights

[1:54:48] to deny the project based on the design findings.

[1:54:51] Correct?

[1:54:52] Okay.

[1:54:53] I guess I assume that goes to the same thing

[1:54:55] for the tentative Map findings.

[1:54:58] Correct?

[1:54:58] Got it.

[1:54:59] OK.

[1:55:00] All right.

[1:55:01] I'll stop for now.

[1:55:03] Thank you both I have a couple good questions as well.

[1:55:06] Probably for staff or maybe for Gabe.

[1:55:09] There was a mention of other existing

[1:55:10] zoning implying non units when it comes to Builders remedy.

[1:55:15] If that's sort of like, you know,

[1:55:16] let's say nine units is maybe the low end,

[1:55:18] right for what it zoned for when it comes to Builders Remedy

[1:55:21] Project, is there a upper limit in terms

[1:55:23] of what can be built there?

[1:55:31] I'm not sure if there's an upper limit

[1:55:33] but I think we can say that this project is not

[1:55:36] at any limit that might exist.

[1:55:38] OK.

[1:55:39] Yeah.

[1:55:39] This project's in consisting city with the zoning

[1:55:42] is not one of the reasons that we have to deny the project.

[1:55:45] Okay.

[1:55:45] Thank you.

[1:55:46] And the other question is probably

[1:55:48] more for staff preferred peers.

[1:55:49] Could you give us a sense of when

[1:55:51] it comes there's some mitigation measures around Pierce Road.

[1:55:55] Can you give us some context for the current condition

[1:55:58] of First Road in that area, specifically

[1:56:01] the current condition?

[1:56:03] Pierce Road in that area is two lane in each direction.

[1:56:07] The hillside road generally has narrow shoulders

[1:56:09] and is also relatively narrow.

[1:56:11] So I think it's around 2020, 22 to 24ft,

[1:56:15] depending on where you are There's been mention

[1:56:18] of landslides or moving soil around there.

[1:56:21] Can you give some context for that as well?

[1:56:23] I am not the best person to answer that question.

[1:56:25] So might defer to staff on that.

[1:56:27] All right I think the applicant may know something

[1:56:40] about the land size.

[1:56:41] If we're waiting for that.

[1:56:43] All right.

[1:56:43] Yeah, maybe we can wait till the right.

[1:56:46] That's the last question.

[1:56:49] And this is more for staff is when

[1:56:51] we take a look at our arena numbers,

[1:56:53] how many units would this contribute to.

[1:56:58] And what categories?

[1:57:01] So the project is 25 units, 20 of those are market rate units

[1:57:07] and five are affordable.

[1:57:09] OK.

[1:57:09] And what areas of affordable because there's

[1:57:12] sort of below market there.

[1:57:14] There are multiple categories, low income, low income,

[1:57:19] very, very low income.

[1:57:22] Okay Yeah.

[1:57:23] Thank you.

[1:57:24] Sure.

[1:57:25] I'm just for the audience, You might

[1:57:28] find it interesting to hear what low income and very low income

[1:57:33] is in Santa Clara County.

[1:57:35] So every year, the state and the federal government

[1:57:39] put out the area median income for each county.

[1:57:42] So for 2026, the area, median income for a four person

[1:57:46] household is $205,500.

[1:57:50] So a four person household that makes,

[1:57:57] um $112,750 qualifies as very low income In Santa Clara County

[1:58:10] A lot of my questions have been asked, so.

[1:58:12] Okay, thanks.

[1:58:13] And the other questions Okay.

[1:58:18] I see that it's 9:00, so this is about two hours in.

[1:58:23] We're about to do public comment.

[1:58:24] Actually, we're about to do the Yeah,

[1:58:28] the appellant Would you all like to take a break now

[1:58:31] or do break now before we start with the Appellant Okay.

[1:58:34] So we're going to take a five minutes, Okay.

[1:58:36] Or do you want five minutes?

[1:58:38] OK.

[1:58:39] We'll be back at 9:05.

[1:58:40] Thank you For That All All right,

[2:09:53] ladies and gentlemen, if we can please get started again,

[2:09:58] you need to Ladies and gentlemen,

[2:10:06] if we could please take our seats I know you All right?

[2:10:21] I'm going to call this meeting back to order.

[2:10:26] I. And now.

[2:10:35] And now.

[2:10:36] We'll have ten minutes from the appellant.

[2:10:39] Thank you and your team.

[2:10:41] Good evening, Mayor Page.

[2:10:44] Councilman.

[2:10:44] Thank you for inviting us to be here tonight.

[2:10:48] Um, I'm Bill Hershman.

[2:10:50] I'm the managing partner.

[2:10:52] Thomas.

[2:10:53] I'm the owner of the property and a lot of the comments

[2:10:57] and questions, as you've already asked,

[2:10:59] who are part of my presentation?

[2:11:00] So you've taken a little bit air out of my present ation,

[2:11:03] but we're going to run through it very quickly.

[2:11:05] And I'm going to go quickly because I

[2:11:07] want to leave some time at the end,

[2:11:09] if we have to address a couple of the questions that came up.

[2:11:11] And we do have answers to a couple

[2:11:13] that we're almost answered, shall I say.

[2:11:16] And so we can respond to that, I'd

[2:11:19] like to thank the city staff.

[2:11:21] They did a very good job of explaining our project to you.

[2:11:24] I don't think I could have done it much better.

[2:11:27] We're going to put some pictures up and go through and out

[2:11:29] a few other comments.

[2:11:30] But they've done a very good job to take care of that

[2:11:34] or to present it to you and give you a pretty good description

[2:11:37] of what's going on.

[2:11:38] Um Lexar company is my development company

[2:11:43] has been building in Saratoga and surrounding communities

[2:11:46] for 40 years.

[2:11:48] We're, we're well versed in this kind of home building.

[2:11:53] And we've owned the property since 1999.

[2:11:56] So the property has been in our ownership for a very long time.

[2:12:01] As you know, we are also the owners of the Mountain Winery.

[2:12:04] And so we have a very vested interest

[2:12:09] in having this project be developed

[2:12:12] appropriately Second slide, Domenic, you got it.

[2:12:20] OK.

[2:12:20] Thank you.

[2:12:21] Thank.

[2:12:21] She didn't want to leave that up to me.

[2:12:24] They don't trust me as has been indicated, 25 homes, 20 market

[2:12:30] rate units in important, I think,

[2:12:33] to point out these are affordable.

[2:12:35] The affordable are for sale units

[2:12:37] sometimes not the same thing in other parts of the county that

[2:12:39] are rental units.

[2:12:40] These are these are proposed to be for sale units.

[2:12:43] There are 5, 4 of those units.

[2:12:45] There are three units.

[2:12:47] I apologize.

[2:12:47] Their homes.

[2:12:48] People don't live in units.

[2:12:49] They live in homes.

[2:12:52] They're five homes, three of which

[2:12:54] will also be market rate units and Cindy pointed out to you

[2:13:00] kind of where one person qualify for that.

[2:13:04] But that's a whole calculation that this

[2:13:07] is the city of the county makes at the time of sale.

[2:13:11] The project is designed as you can see,

[2:13:14] to be a firewise community and also fortified

[2:13:17] gold home community.

[2:13:19] I should step back this evening.

[2:13:21] I have with us Amanda from Hanover Brunetti.

[2:13:25] I have Carol Rice, who did our fire of fire safe plan.

[2:13:31] And she can speak much better than I can to what all

[2:13:34] that that thing means.

[2:13:36] And I'm going to call her up later

[2:13:38] to answer some of your questions as it relates

[2:13:40] to when we get into fire spread and some of the things

[2:13:44] that are part of this, this project.

[2:13:47] As you can see from the from the drawing it's a 75 acre parcel.

[2:13:51] The aerial.

[2:13:52] So 75 acre parcel.

[2:13:53] And you can see that we're developing about 18 acres.

[2:13:57] And that also includes the emergency road,

[2:14:00] which you can kind of see off to the side.

[2:14:02] And some of you have been on the site.

[2:14:06] We refer to this a quarry road, that little loop road.

[2:14:09] And the emergency road is a connection

[2:14:11] from the back cul de sac to that which will then ultimately

[2:14:14] come out to Pierce Road.

[2:14:18] Critical improvements There were some questions that

[2:14:20] came up relative to Pierce Road, Pierce Road is a is a and a fair

[2:14:25] and Pierce pointed to this as well That's a major improvement.

[2:14:29] Pierce Rosen in a section which we'll get to on another slide

[2:14:32] to show you where that might be is a road

[2:14:35] that's slipping right now.

[2:14:36] And part of our conditions of approval

[2:14:38] and our agreement with the city is

[2:14:41] that we will participate in repairing that problem we're

[2:14:46] going to construct a mile of trail along Pierce Road

[2:14:49] to make a connection from Saratoga Heights

[2:14:52] to somewhere in or about Highway nine,

[2:14:55] depending on where the city tells us we make the connection.

[2:14:59] OK.

[2:14:59] Emergency access.

[2:15:00] We talked about fire suppression, infrastructure.

[2:15:03] We're putting in seven hydrants, a whole fire

[2:15:06] system within the road system.

[2:15:09] Okay.

[2:15:10] Significant fire modifications.

[2:15:11] This is an aerial of the the property.

[2:15:15] And you can see that we're very consistent in our homes are very

[2:15:20] consistent with the size and location lot

[2:15:22] sizes of the surrounding community We purposely did that.

[2:15:26] It wasn't by chance.

[2:15:27] That's how we design this project.

[2:15:28] It was a question about how many units could we have,

[2:15:31] homes could we have put on this site

[2:15:33] I think you know the answer.

[2:15:34] We could have put a lot more homes on this side

[2:15:36] or proposed a lot more homes on this site.

[2:15:39] We chose to do what we did These are the Affordable picture,

[2:15:46] The affordable houses for sale or for bedroom,

[2:15:48] two and a half bath.

[2:15:50] They're designed for families, and they help make those.

[2:15:53] We have built this product in the past

[2:15:55] and it was a very, very marketable product.

[2:15:59] It's a very, very nice home floor plan of the,

[2:16:03] you can see every floor plan of the homes, pictures.

[2:16:10] Chris had already put up some pictures

[2:16:12] of some of the other houses.

[2:16:13] This is a rendering of one, just to give you

[2:16:15] a general idea of what we have in mind, Fire resistant design

[2:16:18] materials and landscaping And it will be have a fireplace

[2:16:21] certificate requirement.

[2:16:24] We'll talk about that a little bit.

[2:16:25] Again, what that means for the trail

[2:16:30] If you can see in yellow, if you look along,

[2:16:33] Pierce Road right there, you can see

[2:16:34] like a little yellow section.

[2:16:35] That's the Pierce General location

[2:16:38] of where the Pierce road is.

[2:16:39] Having the issues with the slide right now.

[2:16:42] And that will be a portion of what we're going to repair.

[2:16:45] Blue dotted line is the trail.

[2:16:47] We're proposing.

[2:16:47] And then it's hard to see.

[2:16:50] But the green area to the left of the Pierce Road

[2:16:53] is the emergency access road which will

[2:16:56] be for emergency purposes only.

[2:16:57] But as you can see, it's also designed to not only provide

[2:17:02] emergency access from the subdivision,

[2:17:04] but also from a secondary access around Pierce

[2:17:09] Road in the event of some kind of failure on Pierce Road

[2:17:12] can be used for fire equipment or fire

[2:17:15] or just turns emergency access road.

[2:17:23] I just talked about got a little bit ahead of myself.

[2:17:25] This is a design for the infrastructure.

[2:17:28] You can see the fire hydrants located in red.

[2:17:30] Currently.

[2:17:30] There's nothing as you well know.

[2:17:32] And these not only benefit our community,

[2:17:34] but you can see their location relative to the rest

[2:17:37] of the community.

[2:17:38] Some of these hydrants are is are less than 100ft away from

[2:17:42] some of that existing community as a significant amount of fire

[2:17:46] protection.

[2:17:47] And in the general community and to the wildlife area

[2:17:51] that will be undeveloped fire mitigation.

[2:17:56] I'm going to go very quickly here because I'm

[2:17:58] going to ask to allow is if you'll let us to talk about this

[2:18:02] a little bit with somebody, Carol Rice, who's

[2:18:05] much more qualified than I to discuss

[2:18:07] the mitigations that we're proposing.

[2:18:09] They are significant.

[2:18:10] Some of the findings that you're being

[2:18:12] asked to make address what's taking place from a community

[2:18:16] benefit.

[2:18:17] The mitigation measures that we're

[2:18:19] proposing that address some of the issues that concerns

[2:18:22] relative to how do you how do you offset some

[2:18:25] of the and some of the impacts that the project could

[2:18:30] have on the evacuee?

[2:18:32] This is one of them.

[2:18:35] The fire new fuel modify station.

[2:18:38] Again, Carol can speak to this but doing

[2:18:41] what we're doing this was all generated

[2:18:44] through a type of modeling.

[2:18:47] And again, I'll let her speak to it more.

[2:18:50] But the fire modifications can reduce the rate of spread

[2:18:54] meaning how quickly to 93% based on our mitigation.

[2:18:58] This is a very important picture.

[2:19:01] This is a before and after.

[2:19:04] You can see the side is what what the colors mean.

[2:19:08] But if I tell you red is bad and blues good,

[2:19:11] that's what the charts will say.

[2:19:13] This is the difference between the intensity of the fire.

[2:19:16] Again Carol can speak to this.

[2:19:19] But it's this is all addresses.

[2:19:21] What do we do to slow the impact of a wildfire

[2:19:25] and help prevent an increased amount of damage as a result?

[2:19:30] So it comes through fuel management tree trimming, things

[2:19:33] that you can do You speak to it in the Mary.

[2:19:37] You had a fire preparedness meeting.

[2:19:39] And I will just refresh everybody's memory.

[2:19:42] The whole conversation was around hardening communities.

[2:19:45] And what do you do to better prepare for that event?

[2:19:48] That's what we're talking about here.

[2:19:50] That's exactly what we're proposing Benefits

[2:19:54] of the mitigation on the left hand side or the existing

[2:19:58] conditions.

[2:19:59] I'm going quickly.

[2:20:00] I'm running out of time.

[2:20:01] Right hand side is the benefits that we can see 48 to 70%

[2:20:05] reduction in in the fire rival so quickly,

[2:20:08] the fire gets to you.

[2:20:10] OK.

[2:20:10] Why is that important?

[2:20:12] Well, if we can reduce how quickly the fire gets you,

[2:20:15] that obviously gives you much more time to evacuate.

[2:20:19] Um, 76 to 99 minutes delay in the fire growth

[2:20:23] How quickly does the fire expand as we go?

[2:20:26] 94% reduction in the flame.

[2:20:28] All of this has to do with the mitigation and the fuel

[2:20:31] management that we're talking about.

[2:20:33] Okay?

[2:20:33] And these are model numbers.

[2:20:38] Boy, I mean, that's our that's our that's our presentation.

[2:20:41] I went very quickly.

[2:20:43] I do have a couple of answers to a couple of the questions that

[2:20:46] were asked.

[2:20:47] I'd be happy to respond to that.

[2:20:49] But I know that my time is limited here.

[2:20:54] Yes, Tina, I think we should let him

[2:20:56] answer a couple of the questions that we

[2:20:58] asked before because we did direct

[2:21:00] that they were the answer.

[2:21:01] So yeah, Thank you.

[2:21:03] I took the best notes.

[2:21:04] I could, but there was a couple I'll start with in the order

[2:21:08] that you kind of asked the questions,

[2:21:11] you were asking some questions about the fire department

[2:21:13] in our meeting, their requirements and i

[2:21:16] confirmed with Brad Fox.

[2:21:18] Yes.

[2:21:18] I didn't want to say something inappropriate here,

[2:21:21] but we have met all the requirements of the fire

[2:21:23] department.

[2:21:24] And what Brad was referring to are some of the things

[2:21:27] we needed to do relative to the location of some of the houses

[2:21:31] and hardening the houses that were fall into the, um,

[2:21:37] thank you.

[2:21:38] We have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven

[2:21:43] lots that fall into the high fire area three of which

[2:21:48] are the of the units closest to Pierce Road.

[2:21:52] There are very high, the very high I'm sorry if I said high.

[2:21:57] Very high.

[2:21:58] I'm sorry.

[2:21:58] And what, what it really is, is Brad was explaining.

[2:22:02] It's.

[2:22:02] It's is a requirement.

[2:22:03] So that to try to stop fire from going from house to house.

[2:22:07] And so there's a requirement of 30ft and we meet that

[2:22:10] requirement where it was a little bit tight.

[2:22:14] We added some additional things.

[2:22:15] Brad referred to limiting prohibiting the building closer

[2:22:21] to in the setback lines hardening the surfaces on some

[2:22:26] of the walls of additional fire protection

[2:22:29] that the question was asked will come in under the building

[2:22:32] permit Okay, but these are required

[2:22:35] things that are have been put into place on this application.

[2:22:38] So they were required to do that when we get to the building.

[2:22:42] OK There was a question.

[2:22:46] Thank you.

[2:22:47] Uh, excuse me I know that First carbon is here,

[2:23:02] and the consultant who prepared the fair, the report specific

[2:23:06] to our project, the Kittleson and Associates, is on zoom.

[2:23:11] So they can answer this question better than I.

[2:23:14] But I am prepared to let you know that there

[2:23:16] are there were three reports done to by fair

[2:23:19] and pierce the ones that the presented to you already.

[2:23:22] And one done through the air process, through first carbon,

[2:23:26] through the direction of the city by Kittleson associates

[2:23:30] which dealt directly the impacts of our project Mason

[2:23:33] Estates and that's the report that I think you were asking,

[2:23:37] what are the results of their report?

[2:23:40] They were the 24 to 54 seconds that you've heard kicked around.

[2:23:46] That is the result of what our impact, what they determined

[2:23:49] was our impact, our impact business rates impact.

[2:23:54] Again, I would prefer to have you direct that to them.

[2:23:57] But that is the basis.

[2:23:59] There were different reports.

[2:24:00] OK.

[2:24:01] One study, our project, the other

[2:24:03] started to study the cities OK.

[2:24:08] The VMT was addressed.

[2:24:14] Conditions on Peirce Road.

[2:24:18] I think we addressed and those were my only notes

[2:24:22] and the questions, unless I missed

[2:24:23] something, Any questions Tina?

[2:24:30] Thank you.

[2:24:30] So a little more detail and I'll just

[2:24:34] add the questions right now.

[2:24:36] So you can address some or if the mayor permits.

[2:24:40] Kittleson can respond to that So I

[2:24:43] do want to understand from them about the 24 seconds and the 54

[2:24:48] seconds.

[2:24:48] I want to know what is the impact of this project in terms

[2:24:54] of evac location, time, addition for from this project

[2:24:59] and based on the study.

[2:25:00] So I heard you say that they can respond That's one question.

[2:25:04] The second question I have is you responded earlier

[2:25:10] and you showed in your slide the condition of Pearce Road,

[2:25:15] the land is slipping.

[2:25:16] There's a landslide there.

[2:25:19] The improvement can use specifically call out

[2:25:23] the improvement that you are proposing

[2:25:25] and you talked about the what what was the word you used?

[2:25:36] The the evacuation route or the second reaccess access road

[2:25:40] Emergency Access road.

[2:25:41] Thank you.

[2:25:42] How does that play into that?

[2:25:44] How does that support that?

[2:25:46] And I saw some there You were calling out the annual Firewise

[2:25:53] certificate.

[2:25:54] Yes.

[2:25:55] So once if the project were to be approved

[2:25:58] and once construction happens, you

[2:26:00] are going to sell all the 25 homes,

[2:26:03] is the assumption I would make.

[2:26:05] And at that point, who's responsible for making sure

[2:26:10] that the fire by certification happens in every year as well

[2:26:14] as I know somebody was going to ask the next question.

[2:26:17] So I will as well.

[2:26:19] In terms of the mitigation, the management

[2:26:24] of the fuel modification and keeping that contained.

[2:26:27] Okay.

[2:26:28] How do you see that?

[2:26:30] Okay.

[2:26:30] And is it.

[2:26:32] And I'll add to that is that all included

[2:26:34] in the conditions of approval as presented in the staff back?

[2:26:38] Let me go backwards because this is you

[2:26:40] remember it in the reverse order to answer your question,

[2:26:43] was it all included in the.

[2:26:46] Yes, There's specific conditions of approval.

[2:26:49] And I can give you the exact conditions.

[2:26:52] There's only three that require the ongoing, if you will,

[2:26:58] maintenance and certification as we

[2:27:01] go specifically condition P dash two condition engineering,

[2:27:07] ESG dash.

[2:27:09] I'm holding my glasses 16 and P W dash 13.

[2:27:13] These are the requirements that, if you will give teeth

[2:27:18] to two to the first one is, is it requires

[2:27:22] an HOA to be in covenants and restrictions

[2:27:25] to be put in place to a through an HOA homeowners association

[2:27:29] that within that which the city will review,

[2:27:33] those have to really be reviewed by the city

[2:27:35] and comment before we record the map.

[2:27:38] The subdivision map.

[2:27:39] And within that it's already the conditions

[2:27:41] of approval or in the conditions of approval

[2:27:44] that we will provide for exactly what you're saying.

[2:27:46] There will be a third party monitoring

[2:27:48] of that on an annual basis.

[2:27:50] So who will be held responsible?

[2:27:52] The HOA will be held responsible.

[2:27:54] How does that get enforced?

[2:27:56] There's a requirement that we self

[2:27:58] monitor through a third party.

[2:28:01] The HOA selves monitors through a third party.

[2:28:03] So there's some teeth to that.

[2:28:07] The engine and dash 16 is kind of a says that again

[2:28:13] in a different manner.

[2:28:14] But it's the kind of the same condition

[2:28:16] and the public works condition number 13,

[2:28:21] it says owner applicant shall implement a fuel reduction

[2:28:25] program for fire mitigation covering those parcels prior

[2:28:28] to certification of occupant C So

[2:28:30] so it's a require permit that's ongoing is my point.

[2:28:35] OK.

[2:28:35] Now you're going to make me remember going backwards here.

[2:28:39] Yeah.

[2:28:40] And you're going to make me remember.

[2:28:41] What was my other question?

[2:28:43] The other question was the emergency access road.

[2:28:46] How does that play into the or how

[2:28:49] does that relate to the improvement

[2:28:53] that you're saying you would work with the city?

[2:28:57] From what I recall to different things.

[2:29:00] Okay.

[2:29:00] Two different things.

[2:29:01] The first one is this the improvement on Peirce Road very

[2:29:05] early in our design, when we met with public

[2:29:08] was very, very early in the project.

[2:29:10] The topic came up about the failures on Peirce Road,

[2:29:14] and so there was a discussion with Public Works that would we,

[2:29:17] as developers be willing to cooperate,

[2:29:20] participate in the improvements?

[2:29:21] And it was agreed and it's a condition of approval

[2:29:25] within our application.

[2:29:28] You're finding and the conditions

[2:29:31] that we all participate with the city on a 5050 basis

[2:29:33] to make those improvements.

[2:29:35] So your second part of that question was,

[2:29:37] what are those improvements yet to be determined?

[2:29:39] The studies are just now taking place.

[2:29:42] There's going to need to be a design, which

[2:29:45] the preliminary design have already been done.

[2:29:48] The two to.

[2:29:50] It's going to be a part of grading.

[2:29:53] There's going to be some need to be some excavation,

[2:29:55] some walls built. Okay.

[2:29:57] To reinforce that area of Peirce Road

[2:30:01] And we have agreed to participate that participate

[2:30:03] with the city more than likely we will be doing

[2:30:06] the construct in the city will be participate in with dollars

[2:30:10] at the end of the day honest answer

[2:30:12] it'll be cheaper for us to do it than probably the city to do it.

[2:30:16] So it's a better way for us to handle it.

[2:30:18] And so as part of that would be that condition,

[2:30:21] the estimates is somewhere in the neighborhood of $3.5 million

[2:30:24] at this point.

[2:30:25] But you also said to be determined.

[2:30:28] Absolutely.

[2:30:29] Is the final design is not complete, but it would include,

[2:30:32] for example, qualitatively in a few words,

[2:30:34] how would you describe the possible scope of work?

[2:30:39] There'll be an excavation.

[2:30:41] It's a slide.

[2:30:42] So normally what happens on a slide

[2:30:44] is depending on how deep it is, you're

[2:30:46] going to ask me an engineering question.

[2:30:48] Be careful, I'll bore you on a slide.

[2:30:51] Depending on how deep the slide is,

[2:30:53] we're either going to bore through it.

[2:30:55] OK and see how deep Piers would have

[2:30:57] to go to support to get to solid earth or if it's shallower,

[2:31:02] we could excavate and re compact.

[2:31:04] You can use shot create walls more than likely,

[2:31:07] these would be drilled piers with some kind of wall.

[2:31:09] And that would be the extent of the improvements.

[2:31:11] OK.

[2:31:12] Thank you.

[2:31:12] And the emergency access road.

[2:31:14] We're just the access is kind of it is separate from that bridge.

[2:31:17] You see access that goes from the cul de sac.

[2:31:19] As you can see on the upper left of the picture

[2:31:22] comes down and goes to for sake of argument.

[2:31:25] It would come out somewhere in the area

[2:31:27] where our front gate is.

[2:31:28] If you know where that is.

[2:31:30] On Peirce Road, it would be somewhere in that general areas

[2:31:33] where it would come through Okay.

[2:31:35] It would be used for emergency purposes.

[2:31:37] And however, it's emergency purposes for anybody

[2:31:40] in the event of an emergency, for example

[2:31:44] if Pierce Road for some reason would

[2:31:46] be blocked one lane or the other,

[2:31:48] the fire department could use that access to, you know,

[2:31:51] go around Pierce Road.

[2:31:52] It could be used as a secondary let fire

[2:31:54] equipment come that way.

[2:31:55] That other people go use Pierce Road could

[2:31:58] be used for really whatever reason,

[2:32:00] it would need to be used for maintain built and maintained

[2:32:04] by the development and maintained

[2:32:06] by the associate nation.

[2:32:08] So it's a private road.

[2:32:10] All the roads are private.

[2:32:11] Just want to make sure.

[2:32:12] Yes.

[2:32:12] So it's going to be a private road and only for an emergency.

[2:32:17] It would be open to the public as well as the fire.

[2:32:23] Correct Typically, the fire department

[2:32:24] will require us to change it, put

[2:32:27] a knock off lock that they have access to

[2:32:29] or something like that.

[2:32:30] So it's not used on a regular basis.

[2:32:33] That's typically what happens with an emergency

[2:32:35] road like that.

[2:32:36] They have access, they.

[2:32:37] OK, thanks.

[2:32:39] Back to my first question.

[2:32:40] Yes the traffic.

[2:32:42] OK.

[2:32:43] Well, you're the evacuation.

[2:32:45] You're correct.

[2:32:46] Yeah, that was I think you said the I'm going to defer to them.

[2:32:52] But I will answer your question.

[2:32:56] That that the report that was under sequel

[2:33:01] were required to address that the

[2:33:03] impacts that our project would have on the community.

[2:33:07] Okay that's what the report that that was prepared

[2:33:10] for the air and that was the purpose of that to conclude

[2:33:14] and it was it was different.

[2:33:16] As Ferrum Pierce pointed out.

[2:33:17] It was different than their report or their report

[2:33:21] involved the city report involved

[2:33:23] or that report involved our project.

[2:33:27] And the conclusion and it had a little different criteria.

[2:33:31] A Fair Empiricist report talks about evacuation and correct.

[2:33:35] You can ask them, but I'm fairly certain i'm correct.

[2:33:38] The evacuation safe point was Highway 85

[2:33:41] from the city to Highway 85, when the report

[2:33:45] was done for our project, there were several different locations

[2:33:49] picked as basically safe havens, one

[2:33:52] of them being West Valley College, another one being there

[2:33:55] were several And there in the report that's part,

[2:34:00] by the way, that's part of the fire prevention plan

[2:34:04] where file wildfire protection plan and I know this by heart,

[2:34:08] it's in the appendix to the air appendix J,

[2:34:12] as in Jaguar And that's made part of our report

[2:34:16] is part of that fire prevention book.

[2:34:20] The conclusion lines of that report are in that.

[2:34:23] And so when we refer to this in terms of fractions of a minute,

[2:34:29] that were those were the conclusions

[2:34:30] of the impact of our project on that evacuation

[2:34:35] to those locations.

[2:34:36] As we've had conversations with Ferrum Pierce,

[2:34:39] this is not an exact science by any means Somebody

[2:34:44] be off by tens.

[2:34:45] You bet they could be.

[2:34:47] Can it be a few minutes?

[2:34:49] Could it be less than that?

[2:34:50] Could there be no impact?

[2:34:52] It's not that an inexact science,

[2:34:54] but it gives you an idea of the magnitude.

[2:34:57] And so to compare the two reports, which

[2:35:00] they are quite different, but the in the fair in Pierce

[2:35:04] report.

[2:35:05] There were three sections A, B and C,

[2:35:08] The original one was the existing condition.

[2:35:10] B was it was is.

[2:35:11] He added units within the city that was consist of

[2:35:17] and don't quote me, but I think was 700

[2:35:19] and I have it here 725 additional units there was there

[2:35:25] was included in that report.

[2:35:27] And the final one, which was C included in another addition,

[2:35:31] all 4498 units.

[2:35:33] OK.

[2:35:34] Bring in a total for the entire city, every square inch of land

[2:35:38] you could ever develop.

[2:35:40] Basically 2 2 200, 220, 223 additional units.

[2:35:46] That's what was prepared in the fair in Pierce Report

[2:35:50] Hours Project was included in Section B, which

[2:35:54] were 25 units out of 725.

[2:35:57] So you can do the math yourself.

[2:36:01] We don't have that significant of an impact given 725 units.

[2:36:06] So it makes logical sense again.

[2:36:10] But to tie it down to two minutes and seconds,

[2:36:12] I think you got to look at the magnitude of our impact Now.

[2:36:19] Okay.

[2:36:20] Those are my statements.

[2:36:22] You should probably ask Kittleson the same questions.

[2:36:25] I do see the Great Gutter Henry, and she's probably

[2:36:29] going to say I said something wrong, so I'll

[2:36:31] be playing to the interest of everybody's time.

[2:36:34] I'm good with this now, but if it's

[2:36:36] going to save us public comment time, I'm okay.

[2:36:39] Only because I just like to ask is

[2:36:41] anybody else would like to ask a question before we go.

[2:36:43] I just like to ask one question about the hardening

[2:36:45] of the homes.

[2:36:47] It I was wondering if you could describe some of the things

[2:36:50] that you're doing to harden homes.

[2:36:53] Can I have can I have Carol address this?

[2:36:55] Because it comes into the whole department under the can I can

[2:36:58] I have her address that?

[2:36:59] Thank you Thank you.

[2:37:06] Thank you for having me up here and describe

[2:37:08] to be able to describe this to you.

[2:37:11] I'm Carole Rice with Wyland Resource Management, who wrote

[2:37:14] the wildfire protection plan.

[2:37:15] Just as a note, I've been doing this for about 40 years.

[2:37:20] And working in the wildland urban interface, worked

[2:37:23] on community wildfire protection plans

[2:37:25] for 4, 4, 3 counties, two cities and most did most of the work

[2:37:31] for the big landowners in the Bay Area.

[2:37:34] I did help start the International Association

[2:37:37] of Wildland Fire and started up the wild Land Fire

[2:37:40] section for that National Fire Protection Association.

[2:37:44] Who certifies these firewise communities?

[2:37:46] So I have a deep involvement of urban interface

[2:37:50] and that so to your point about the hardening of the homes,

[2:37:55] the buildings are going to be made out

[2:37:58] of noncombustible exteriors and that

[2:38:03] includes not only the surface of it,

[2:38:07] but also they require that there is an additional tempered glass

[2:38:10] in it.

[2:38:12] So that because oftentimes windows are a weak link.

[2:38:15] So they added additional levels of protection

[2:38:18] for the windows They also require

[2:38:21] that the do this alternative means of Compliance

[2:38:25] was also additional non combustible

[2:38:27] zones adjacent to the homes.

[2:38:30] So we were the current it's not even code yet.

[2:38:34] But there is going to be a called

[2:38:38] a zone zero and noncombustible zone for the first five feet.

[2:38:41] And in this case, it's going to be ten feet.

[2:38:44] And so that makes it gives it an additional level of safety.

[2:38:48] And then, as as Brad had mentioned,

[2:38:52] we are going to have a non buildable easement

[2:38:57] and that's important because we want to have at least 30ft

[2:39:00] separation from house to house.

[2:39:02] One of the things that we're understanding

[2:39:04] is that homes will burn up each other if they

[2:39:06] are too close to each other.

[2:39:08] And this assures that that will.

[2:39:10] That's separation will be sufficient.

[2:39:11] So those are some of the ways that we can make sure

[2:39:14] that those homes are fire safe to the point where

[2:39:17] on this one of the slides, it shows that each of these homes

[2:39:22] can be a gold level of of wildfire prepared home

[2:39:26] as certified by the Institute for Building and Home Safety.

[2:39:29] So it's a it's a really big coup.

[2:39:32] Very few homes are available are are to that standard.

[2:39:35] And so these will be.

[2:39:37] Thank you very much.

[2:39:38] Appreciate it.

[2:39:41] If at the end will no.

[2:39:47] Okay.

[2:39:47] So since Grace is still got her hand raised, I'm going to ask,

[2:39:52] is a woman right ?

[2:39:54] Well, I'd like to see if can you let Grace talk?

[2:39:57] There's I am promoting her to panelists right now.

[2:40:00] OK.

[2:40:00] Thanks.

[2:40:06] So she'll be joining right now.

[2:40:09] Here she comes And you all hear me?

[2:40:13] Sure can.

[2:40:14] Yep.

[2:40:15] Perfect.

[2:40:15] I will start by saying that I still, I

[2:40:18] think, got to the same answer I was going to give but I'm

[2:40:22] happy to just answer any follow up questions,

[2:40:25] if there are any of.

[2:40:29] I'm good.

[2:40:30] Thanks, Chris I think we're okay.

[2:40:33] Grace Thank you.

[2:40:35] OK.

[2:40:35] We may have more later, though.

[2:40:38] I think you're in.

[2:40:40] OK So with that, I would like to open the public comment period.

[2:40:46] I How many speaker slips do we have?

[2:40:49] I have 19 right now.

[2:40:51] And I know there's at least, gosh,

[2:40:55] I see 51 attendees remotely, a number

[2:40:58] of whom will speak council.

[2:41:00] I was thinking maybe we limit that

[2:41:02] to two minutes per speakers.

[2:41:04] That sound okay.

[2:41:06] OK with it So we're that is that okay?

[2:41:13] Council So we're going to limit our time of public speaking

[2:41:17] to two minutes and left elbow over and we prepare.

[2:41:26] So we have a policy in our meetings

[2:41:29] that when we have a more than a certain number of speakers

[2:41:32] and typically it's 20 that we limit the time

[2:41:36] we do that all the time.

[2:41:37] And we have two people on line.

[2:41:39] So we have at least two people on line.

[2:41:41] And there's always people come down.

[2:41:42] I recognize the fact we want to hear from you

[2:41:44] all There's no doubt about it.

[2:41:47] So let's do the two minutes, and we'll see how it goes over.

[2:41:53] I will accommodate people to finish their statement after two

[2:41:56] minutes, but not too much longer.

[2:41:59] So Bridget Brick, could you please explain the process

[2:42:02] and call our first speaker?

[2:42:04] OK If you would like to address the City Council on this item.

[2:42:08] Now and you have not submitted a speaker slip,

[2:42:10] now is the time to do so for your attending via Zoom.

[2:42:13] Is the time to raise your hand.

[2:42:15] We will start within speak in person speakers

[2:42:19] once I've reached the last speaker slip,

[2:42:21] we will go to our virtual speakers.

[2:42:25] We will not come back to our in-person speakers.

[2:42:30] So the first speaker and I would like

[2:42:33] to I'm going to call pick the speakers.

[2:42:36] We'd like you to kind of cue up.

[2:42:37] So it kind of keeps the movement going.

[2:42:41] So we'll start with Dave Rossi, followed by Stand boghosian,

[2:42:44] followed by Becky Rhodes Okay.

[2:42:54] First of all, I'd like to thank the applicant for not proposing

[2:42:57] a 38 story MAX32665 minute for somebody project like Menlo has.

[2:43:02] Nice job.

[2:43:03] Thank you.

[2:43:04] Also, correction nine units could be 18

[2:43:07] with as benign or been last but so 18 years

[2:43:11] could be the max on the property.

[2:43:13] My name is Dave Rossi.

[2:43:14] I grew up on Palomino.

[2:43:16] I my parents to live there since 1978.

[2:43:20] I played with the cows across the street from this project,

[2:43:23] from cardboard boxes down the hill.

[2:43:25] I'm very familiar with this property.

[2:43:26] And this project.

[2:43:28] So when you're talking about evacuation

[2:43:30] we're talking about my 83 year old parents

[2:43:32] who still live there.

[2:43:33] And I love them very much.

[2:43:35] Another thing I'd like to address the council for

[2:43:37] is your role, and I hope everyone in this audience

[2:43:40] understands the council's role.

[2:43:41] They are stewards of the HRA.

[2:43:44] Their job is to support the HRA They have no authority

[2:43:50] except to approve the HRA.

[2:43:53] And you're going to hear a lot of words like significant

[2:43:57] and unavoidable without having the existing safety

[2:44:01] standards that does not pertain for cause for rejection

[2:44:05] under the HRA Also, the impact for evacuation.

[2:44:11] There's a pre-existing condition of two hours and 54 minutes.

[2:44:15] And although the secure guidelines in your calls

[2:44:20] is project Avoider, will significant and unavoidable

[2:44:25] if because of a preexisting condition which is also not

[2:44:29] enforceable by this council, the HRA governs that.

[2:44:32] That is an approval process for this project.

[2:44:35] It cannot be canceled for those reasons.

[2:44:38] And I really want to respect the Council.

[2:44:40] The temperatures already seem high when your job is to support

[2:44:43] and you are the police for the HRA Your only thing to judge

[2:44:48] is whether or not there be a lawsuit related

[2:44:50] to a violation of the HRA.

[2:44:52] Hey, that's as simple as that.

[2:44:54] And with respect to the opposition,

[2:44:57] no project in this city will help for evacuation and more

[2:45:01] than this project.

[2:45:02] Thank you.

[2:45:03] You to my parents.

[2:45:04] Thank you Good evening.

[2:45:19] My name is Stan Boghosian.

[2:45:21] I've been involved in community activities in the city

[2:45:26] for I don't know, decades, long time, and I have lived here.

[2:45:34] Most of my life in Saratoga.

[2:45:38] Intuitively, I know I've driven Pierce Road

[2:45:42] multiple multiple times and I don't

[2:45:47] need thousands and thousands of dollars of traffic studies

[2:45:53] to show that you can drive on that road

[2:45:56] and know when people are getting out of trying to get off

[2:46:01] that road in a fire situation.

[2:46:03] In And they're trying to get into either

[2:46:06] onto Big Bay some way.

[2:46:08] I mean Big Bay some way or Saratoga Sunnyvale road,

[2:46:12] it's going to be a mess if it occurs during commute times.

[2:46:16] It's horrible.

[2:46:20] I think the job of the city councils, number one job

[2:46:23] when you're elected, certainly was when I was elected

[2:46:26] was public safety.

[2:46:28] That's your number one responsibility here.

[2:46:32] And you know, it's been quite that's what you're doing here.

[2:46:40] The other stuff is great, but that's what you're doing here.

[2:46:45] And I see this project at this point.

[2:46:48] Certainly as adding to a safety issue.

[2:46:52] It's already bad and making it worse

[2:46:57] And I don't need to have a degree

[2:46:59] from an accredited engineering school to draw that conclusion.

[2:47:05] All you need to do is drive up there.

[2:47:06] Thank you very much.

[2:47:08] Thank you, Stan Ladies and gentlemen,

[2:47:10] please refrain from applauding.

[2:47:12] That is a form of bullying.

[2:47:14] If someone doesn't agree with you,

[2:47:15] they may be reticent to come up and speak.

[2:47:18] So please be respectful of people with other opinions.

[2:47:20] If you agree with the speaker, please raise your hand.

[2:47:23] Let us know that you agree with them.

[2:47:25] Thank you Hello.

[2:47:32] My name is Becky Rhodes and I live off

[2:47:34] Mountain Eden Road just below the mountain winery

[2:47:38] and adjacent to the Mt.

[2:47:41] Eden Winery.

[2:47:43] I'm a practical person, a no nonsense pragmatic person.

[2:47:47] That's what everyone tells me.

[2:47:48] But I've got to say, I am extremely excited, namely

[2:47:52] worried and scared.

[2:47:53] And it's all due to the strong likelihood

[2:47:55] good of a fire in the hills and the inability for me, my family,

[2:47:59] pets and neighbors who live in a very high fire danger with one

[2:48:03] way out to evacuate alive and unharmed.

[2:48:07] This is not an unfounded fear.

[2:48:09] We all know about the fires in the Palisades,

[2:48:11] in the and with people trying to get out with more roads

[2:48:15] to get out on than we have.

[2:48:17] And many of them did not make it.

[2:48:19] They got stranded in their cars.

[2:48:21] They tried to run.

[2:48:22] They tried to walk.

[2:48:22] You can't avoid fire when it comes blowing through.

[2:48:26] We also experienced a fire a few years ago just up the hill

[2:48:29] from where we live.

[2:48:31] I wasn't at home, but my pets were in the house.

[2:48:34] Luckily, Rick was able to get home in time to evacuate them,

[2:48:38] but he sent pictures.

[2:48:39] They were frightening That area was soon

[2:48:43] deemed to be shelter in place because they could not

[2:48:48] have built rescue and fire vehicles coming in

[2:48:51] while people were trying to evacuate out the road.

[2:48:54] Couldn't accommodate both at the same time,

[2:48:57] what would have happened to my neighbors who are elderly

[2:49:01] or infirm ?

[2:49:02] How about their children?

[2:49:04] Their current children and their pets?

[2:49:06] We can't outrun we can't out.

[2:49:09] Drive a fire.

[2:49:10] If it comes through.

[2:49:12] We really have to keep in mind that Pearce Road is already

[2:49:16] over capacity.

[2:49:17] Fixes can't be done to it, and the evacuation impact

[2:49:20] is significant and unavoidable.

[2:49:23] So I ask you to deny this project on the safety basis.

[2:49:28] Do not deem this this risk as acceptable.

[2:49:31] Thank you.

[2:49:33] Thank you.

[2:49:34] OK.

[2:49:35] We've got Richard Larsen, followed by Sonny yule,

[2:49:39] followed by Suman.

[2:49:41] Goal Hello, I'm Richard Larson.

[2:49:54] I'm Becky's partner, housemate.

[2:49:57] Everything else we've lived on money and road for 12 years,

[2:50:03] and I'm urging you to vote no on a Mason Estate's proposal

[2:50:07] to prioritize the safety of the areas currently residents.

[2:50:11] I would note that, Mr. Hershman, it's a nice plan,

[2:50:15] but he says nothing about anything.

[2:50:17] Anyone else in the neighborhood.

[2:50:19] It's all about the fire safety of that 25 houses.

[2:50:25] This section of Pierce Road that he addresses

[2:50:27] is a small fraction of the road.

[2:50:29] And it has nothing to do with where I'm

[2:50:31] going to have to evacuate it.

[2:50:33] I have to evacuate through that narrow stretch over the bridge,

[2:50:38] down closer to the flat area.

[2:50:43] As Becky mentioned I was driving up Highway 85 and 2017

[2:50:48] and I saw Plumas smoke.

[2:50:49] I was down in San Jose.

[2:50:51] And the smoke was rising up, but high enough that I could see it.

[2:50:55] I was heading back to work.

[2:50:57] And I got to Saratoga, Sunnyvale Road, and I go,

[2:51:01] I don't like that plume.

[2:51:02] The smoke.

[2:51:03] So I made a left turn.

[2:51:05] Then it going to work and rescued our dogs and evacuated.

[2:51:10] I'm fortunate I was able to get out right before they shut down

[2:51:13] the evacuation.

[2:51:14] They literally shut down the evacuation

[2:51:16] because they had to bring in heavy equipment.

[2:51:18] Ten acres burned that day.

[2:51:22] Thanks to our fire department, they were able to put it out.

[2:51:25] But the damage, nothing happened.

[2:51:26] But we all know that up and down the state of California,

[2:51:29] along the urban wildlife interface,

[2:51:32] there have been tremendously damaging fires that

[2:51:36] cost people's lives and literally billions of dollars

[2:51:40] in damage, property damage There are plans for at least

[2:51:46] 460 houses to a builder's remedy coming up from that 30 day

[2:51:51] window that was left open.

[2:51:54] This is not about one development.

[2:51:56] This is about 460 houses going in on our evacuation corridor

[2:52:02] and no one's going to talk about that.

[2:52:04] None of their presentations will mention that.

[2:52:07] They'll all talk about how fire safe and they are They're not

[2:52:11] going to talk about us.

[2:52:12] Thank you.

[2:52:12] Thank you Depresses me.

[2:52:23] No, no, you should be okay.

[2:52:25] Oh, okay.

[2:52:26] Good evening, Council members, members of City staff and fellow

[2:52:30] residents.

[2:52:31] Thank you for taking the time to listen to me tonight.

[2:52:34] My name is Sunny.

[2:52:34] You and I am a resident of the Saratoga Hill site.

[2:52:38] I'm here tonight to urge the City Council members to take

[2:52:41] seriously the threat of fire and the safety of residents

[2:52:44] when considering these extensive developments, development

[2:52:47] projects in the hillside area.

[2:52:48] The air for the Mason project found

[2:52:50] that the evacuation time for the hillside area

[2:52:52] is something like two hours, 45 minutes to get 90% of people

[2:52:55] out.

[2:52:56] And stretching to five hours to get 100 everybody out.

[2:52:59] These are staggeringly horrific times.

[2:53:01] For comparison, the Palisades fire in SoCal

[2:53:04] spread from ten acres to 200 acres in 20 minutes.

[2:53:07] And within three hours had gone to 1,200 acres.

[2:53:10] To top it off, if all the builders

[2:53:12] remedy projects were to go through,

[2:53:14] that would add 500 more units, not including the 80 unit hotel

[2:53:18] that mountain winery here is planning to add.

[2:53:22] The this project is in a very high fire hazard severity zone.

[2:53:25] A large portion of the Saratoga hillside

[2:53:27] is in the very high fire hazard severity zone.

[2:53:31] We should consider how that impacts height.

[2:53:34] Then higher density developments in that area The air,

[2:53:37] I believe, outlines winds and alternative

[2:53:39] lower density housing development for a reason.

[2:53:42] You heard about nine houses.

[2:53:45] The also the two major evacuation routes,

[2:53:47] which is Pierce Road and Mt.

[2:53:49] Eden, do pass through these very high fire hazard severity zones.

[2:53:53] And in the event of a wildfire, it's very high likelihood

[2:53:57] that one of these routes or both of these routes

[2:54:00] end up unpassable and that we should take that into account.

[2:54:03] Council Member While you asked if there

[2:54:05] were a preexisting evacuation standards,

[2:54:08] I believe that the city's general plan, which

[2:54:11] would have limited this development to a lower

[2:54:13] density of nine houses, would have been an inherent stand that

[2:54:18] would have been set to limit the evacuation times.

[2:54:21] I hope the city council members will do the right thing here.

[2:54:25] And to protect those residents.

[2:54:27] Thank you very much.

[2:54:30] Thank you, Sunny.

[2:54:32] My next OK, guys, I may need a little time.

[2:54:37] So when does this start?

[2:54:39] Don't start until I start speaking.

[2:54:42] Okay.

[2:54:43] Hello?

[2:54:43] City Council.

[2:54:44] The Mason State Builders Project.

[2:54:47] Is Firewise safe?

[2:54:48] And gold standard.

[2:54:49] But this does not take into account the evacuation process

[2:54:52] that is in question.

[2:54:55] Remember that as owner of the property, even

[2:54:58] without this development they should be responsible owners

[2:55:02] and make their land.

[2:55:04] Firewise safe no matter what.

[2:55:06] As did the Saratoga Heights Homeowners Association.

[2:55:09] We are firewise safe because we are responsible homeowners.

[2:55:15] Please also be aware that the emergency rule that they

[2:55:18] talked about that gives access to all the people

[2:55:21] will guess what?

[2:55:22] It comes out into Pearce Road, doesn't

[2:55:25] help whatsoever Also, the graciously they're

[2:55:31] claiming that the 55 acres that they're leaving on

[2:55:34] developed at the city at a planning commission meeting

[2:55:38] it was pointed out that it does not prevent them in the future

[2:55:43] from developing that 55 acres of land.

[2:55:46] So don't be fooled by that all the data

[2:55:52] that's based on the wildfire that comes with a warning.

[2:55:55] But how about the fire within the community that

[2:56:00] comes without warning that spreads and people are trapped

[2:56:05] with little ability to evacuate?

[2:56:08] So I get the need for builders remedy.

[2:56:12] I'm not against builders.

[2:56:13] Somebody.

[2:56:14] I'm against builders Remedy of Pierce Road.

[2:56:18] The earthquakes into Account The Lives

[2:56:20] of Birds and animals and frogs.

[2:56:22] But does not take into account the human life used.

[2:56:26] You Set your hands are tied, yet without your approval,

[2:56:31] this project cannot proceed The path of least resistance is

[2:56:36] to vote in favor of this project.

[2:56:38] The Americans spirit is not to take the easy path,

[2:56:44] but rather to take the right path.

[2:56:47] You all know how dangerous this project and all

[2:56:51] the other builders and project are in your heart, what is right

[2:56:56] and what is wrong.

[2:56:58] I request that you make you not make the easy

[2:57:02] and convene your decision, but make the right decision

[2:57:06] and vote no for the approval of this project.

[2:57:09] Thank you.

[2:57:10] Thank you Next, we have manana.

[2:57:15] Should go.

[2:57:17] Glen Hendricks and Glenda Annie Hello.

[2:57:29] Mayor and City Council member staff.

[2:57:31] Today I'm asking you a very specific question.

[2:57:34] What has changed since July 8th, when the planning Commission

[2:57:38] reviewed this and concluded that the EIA and clothing emergency

[2:57:43] access response time and evacuation is at or over

[2:57:48] capacity?

[2:57:49] The applicant mentioned appendix J and I have those pages here.

[2:57:57] And it says the consultant says there's already

[2:58:02] of volume to capacity ratio of one

[2:58:04] or higher without a project on Port Road on both sides

[2:58:10] and on Tollgate Eight and on peers meeting overnight.

[2:58:13] So imagine with this project and many more lined up what that

[2:58:18] will still be overcapacity.

[2:58:21] So Saratoga General plan Safety Element Section

[2:58:24] 5.6 says New development must ensure

[2:58:27] effective future evacuation, which is anchored sustained

[2:58:31] in consist with the EIA.

[2:58:33] Appendix G. Saratoga Plan 5.10 says make improvements

[2:58:40] and expand the capacity of emergency evacuation route,

[2:58:44] which is not happening either.

[2:58:46] The Sica guidelines say evacuation analysis

[2:58:50] should consider roadway capacity, which is not happening

[2:58:54] here either The here's some starts from Cal

[2:59:00] Fire in the last one year, 31 deaths.

[2:59:04] Why wildfire deaths eaten and Palisades happened

[2:59:08] in the last five years.

[2:59:10] 81 wildfire that's happened for firefighters.

[2:59:14] This is California starts in ten years, 231.

[2:59:18] So let's not make Saratoga a possible start in future.

[2:59:23] And so you have a decision to make.

[2:59:27] And in closing, the planning commission identified the risk.

[2:59:31] It has a narrow exception of health and safety exception.

[2:59:35] Please look into it.

[2:59:37] City attorney can look into it and let us not

[2:59:40] let us uphold the Planning Commission decision.

[2:59:43] Thank you.

[2:59:44] You.

[2:59:44] Thank you, Menashe.

[2:59:50] Hello, Glen Hendricks.

[2:59:52] The Planning Commission could not honestly

[2:59:54] determine that the benefits of this project

[2:59:56] outweighed the impacts.

[2:59:57] Think about that statement.

[2:59:58] The positives don't support the negatives.

[3:00:00] The only benefit that makes sense about this project is.

[3:00:04] So the city doesn't get sued.

[3:00:06] So now the project comes to you, and you

[3:00:08] have to approve the project, even

[3:00:10] though from a wildfire and evacuation perspective

[3:00:12] it's a terrible project.

[3:00:14] I suggest you approve the yellow EIA on a 3 to 2 vote.

[3:00:18] The city doesn't have the resources

[3:00:20] to fight a lawsuit with a current law from Sacramento.

[3:00:22] You just lose.

[3:00:23] But I request.

[3:00:24] It's clearly explained to the public

[3:00:26] why you are approving the statements of overriding

[3:00:28] consideration.

[3:00:29] Tell us what you like.

[3:00:30] Tell us what you don't like or that you just

[3:00:33] don't want to be sued.

[3:00:35] The Planning Commission decision was not made an error.

[3:00:38] This meeting is proof the HOA process is being legally

[3:00:41] followed I'm having a problem with the evaluation time.

[3:00:45] And I think it's been misrepresented

[3:00:47] and it's the math that's got me bothered

[3:00:50] And maybe it's just because I have a us public education

[3:00:54] school system thing that's going on.

[3:00:56] But the starting condition is that during an evacuation

[3:01:00] the road stops, traffic doesn't move.

[3:01:04] If traffic's not moving.

[3:01:06] I don't understand how you only increase the evacuation

[3:01:09] time by 24 seconds.

[3:01:10] The problem is the overall traffic

[3:01:13] before any new building goes into the hillside.

[3:01:18] The evacuation study you have says current conditions today,

[3:01:21] the roads stops.

[3:01:23] So I don't get work 2020 for second.

[3:01:25] Come from.

[3:01:26] And it was talked about VMT VMT where

[3:01:29] the distance doesn't change.

[3:01:30] I haven't heard anybody talk about how many

[3:01:33] new vehicles are doing that new VMT for what goes on.

[3:01:36] Again, I'm pro you know, some people

[3:01:38] are likely to say I think you have to approve this project.

[3:01:42] The law says you have to will get sued, will lose.

[3:01:45] But tell us why you think you're going

[3:01:47] to do what you're going to do and do it on three 1, 2, vote.

[3:01:51] Thank you, Glenn I have never used this before,

[3:02:03] so hopefully I'm doing it.

[3:02:05] All right.

[3:02:06] My name is going to Arnie.

[3:02:08] I've lived on Pierce Road for over 40 years.

[3:02:11] Mason Estates is only going to add 25

[3:02:13] 250 or more cars on Pierce Road every day While this doesn't

[3:02:18] sound like an increase in traffic,

[3:02:20] this is not the whole story.

[3:02:22] This same developer is planning to build 237 housing

[3:02:27] units and an 81 room hotel at Mountain Winery, which

[3:02:30] is not in separate yoga.

[3:02:33] And these two developments are going to add hundreds of cars

[3:02:36] to pierce Road.

[3:02:38] Make no mistake, hundreds of cars.

[3:02:41] And we are all going to be at risk every day

[3:02:46] I don't think the city can deny this application.

[3:02:51] I'll just make a couple of comments that based on things

[3:02:55] I've heard in the last couple of weeks,

[3:02:58] if the city had annexed Mountain Winery in 2020,

[3:03:01] the developer would be working with the city on the housing

[3:03:04] plan versus using builder's remedy project in reality,

[3:03:08] the developer would still be building a lot of housing

[3:03:11] and a hotel at Mountain Winery That

[3:03:14] would create a lot of traffic on Pierce Road.

[3:03:16] This same developer and let's just

[3:03:21] blame Sacramento for these builder's remedy projects.

[3:03:24] Yes, Sacramento is enabling these projects.

[3:03:27] And we need to elect new representatives who

[3:03:30] will change these laws.

[3:03:32] But for now, these developers are choosing

[3:03:35] to use builder's remedy.

[3:03:36] So they can do what they want to do.

[3:03:39] They're choosing money over the safety of residents

[3:03:42] I don't know how to fight these projects,

[3:03:44] but for me, going forward, I am only

[3:03:47] going to support the developers.

[3:03:49] The businesses, the organizations

[3:03:52] and the realtors who are not developing or promoting builders

[3:03:55] remedy projects in wildfire areas.

[3:03:58] And I will try to elect people who

[3:04:00] will change the laws to account for safety

[3:04:02] of residents in wildfire areas.

[3:04:04] Thank you.

[3:04:06] Thank you, Glenn.

[3:04:07] OK.

[3:04:08] Next, we have David AMI followed by Xavier Casanova, then

[3:04:13] Bill Dalton.

[3:04:19] Hi, I'm Dave Varney otherwise known as Mr. Glinda.

[3:04:25] I everybody's already talked about the over capacity during

[3:04:33] or the literal stoppage of Pierce Road.

[3:04:37] So I was thinking also about is I

[3:04:42] don't know, how are you going to deny this given

[3:04:44] the HRA and the situation.

[3:04:46] So what can we do?

[3:04:48] So I had three suggest and I ask you to investigate these and see

[3:04:54] if there would pan out.

[3:04:56] One, We need alerts, systems even that

[3:05:02] go beyond what the fire departments doing

[3:05:05] with the shelter in place.

[3:05:12] And then warning and then and order.

[3:05:15] It's almost like we need a pre warning system.

[3:05:18] I feel like I need to become an expert in weather

[3:05:21] and wind and light dry lightning and just get out then.

[3:05:25] So I don't know if the city can do something especially

[3:05:29] for the very high fire area, to go, you know,

[3:05:33] just get just get out.

[3:05:35] Second idea you know, maybe the developers and other HHR yards,

[3:05:43] we could require them to do some more fuel

[3:05:46] removal Pierce Road is got all kind of fuel on both sides.

[3:05:50] City ID and have money to remove all that stuff that

[3:05:54] could block the road because the road's on fire.

[3:05:58] And the last idea is, can we connect Pike Road

[3:06:04] over to Saratoga Hills up there where those water towers are,

[3:06:09] where the old great Grandview Ranch is, that would give me

[3:06:15] give me another way to get out.

[3:06:20] Thank you Good evening.

[3:06:38] My name is Xavier Casanova.

[3:06:39] I live off of Houston court, which is basically Pierce Road.

[3:06:44] I grew up in Paris with a lot more concrete than nature.

[3:06:49] When I came to the bay Area as a Stanford student,

[3:06:52] I started exploring the Bay Area Driving through the South

[3:06:55] Georgia Hills on my way to Skyline Boulevard,

[3:07:00] I fell in love with the trees, the vegetation

[3:07:04] and the natural beauty of these hills.

[3:07:07] 14 years ago.

[3:07:09] My wife and I chose Saratoga as the place

[3:07:12] to raise our family Our two boys were

[3:07:17] just four and eight years old.

[3:07:19] But we've also learned how vulnerable this place can be.

[3:07:25] In 2020, we watched the sky.

[3:07:28] Turn orange because of the wildfires.

[3:07:32] In 2023, we lost our fire insurance.

[3:07:36] We lost our insurance policy for a house,

[3:07:39] and we had to go to a fair plan.

[3:07:41] And then in January 2025, the Eaton Fire the

[3:07:46] devastated Altadena near Caltech.

[3:07:49] When my son studies and we go to 2 a.m.

[3:07:53] call from him, if actuating because the campus was

[3:07:57] at risk, suddenly evacuation wasn't something like a report.

[3:08:05] It was my own son getting out of the path of a wildfire.

[3:08:10] And tonight the city's own study tells us

[3:08:14] that evacuating the hillsides could take approximately already

[3:08:19] takes approximately Five hours.

[3:08:22] This is our home.

[3:08:24] We know these hills are vulnerable.

[3:08:27] We know evacuation is already difficult.

[3:08:31] And the next wildfire will not wait for us to fix our mistakes.

[3:08:37] Don't make it harder on my family or my neighbors.

[3:08:41] And on every family that those hills in those heels

[3:08:45] to get out of out safely when the day comes.

[3:08:49] Please As with the safety of these families

[3:08:52] who already live there first.

[3:08:54] And the nicer you.

[3:08:56] Thank you, Xavier Good evening again.

[3:09:04] Well, I happened to live in the flatlands

[3:09:07] and won't be impacted by this.

[3:09:09] I still don't understand how we can

[3:09:12] find the benefit yet of this project

[3:09:15] outweighs the negatives All right.

[3:09:19] Hopefully you can find the silver bullet

[3:09:22] and deny the project Kiwi have Mohini followed by Moana Cower,

[3:09:35] followed by Sophia Ko Yeah, I kind of like the.

[3:09:50] Good evening, Mayor and council members.

[3:09:52] We strongly urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's

[3:09:55] denial of on estates and put public safety first.

[3:09:59] Misogynistic.

[3:10:00] It's proposes 25 homes on Pearce Road, a narrow winding road,

[3:10:04] one lane in each direction already burdened

[3:10:07] by residential and mountain winery traffic.

[3:10:10] It was never designed for this intensity of development

[3:10:13] and cannot simply be widened and massone estates cannot be

[3:10:17] considered in isolation.

[3:10:19] The same developer proposes 237 housing units and an 81 room

[3:10:24] hotel at the adjacent mountain winery.

[3:10:27] It may be on the county jurisdiction,

[3:10:30] but traffic does not recognise jurisdictional boundaries.

[3:10:33] Neither does Wildfire Together, these development points

[3:10:37] could add hundreds of vehicles to the same constrained hillside

[3:10:41] roads.

[3:10:42] This is not about traffic inconvenience.

[3:10:44] This is about evacuation and life safety.

[3:10:47] During a wildfire, residents will

[3:10:49] be trying to get out while emergency responders are trying

[3:10:52] to get in on Pearce Road.

[3:10:55] There's little margin for error residents are doing our part

[3:10:58] home hardening, clearing vegetation and preparing

[3:11:00] for evacuation.

[3:11:01] But we cannot widen.

[3:11:03] Pearce Road or create evacuation capacity.

[3:11:06] Government controls, development decisions.

[3:11:09] So I ask, what public benefit justifies this additional risk?

[3:11:15] We have also heard conflicting information about the number

[3:11:18] of affordable homes.

[3:11:20] Affordable housing must be real, clearly defined and enforceable.

[3:11:24] Not simply a label that enables greater density.

[3:11:28] The community should not bear increased traffic, evacuation

[3:11:32] risk and permanent hillside impacts.

[3:11:34] When the primary benefit accrues to the developer,

[3:11:37] the HRA provides housing protections,

[3:11:40] but public safety must remain paramount Council members,

[3:11:44] you are entrusted with protecting this city,

[3:11:46] its residents and community.

[3:11:48] Please uphold the Planning Commission's denial.

[3:11:51] We cannot undo a tragedy after the fact.

[3:11:54] Public safety must come first.

[3:11:56] Thank you.

[3:11:57] Thank you Good evening.

[3:12:08] So I've spoken in front of you many, many times.

[3:12:11] So i actually just want to respond today to this letter

[3:12:14] that you received, which suggests

[3:12:16] that builders remedy basically ties your hands

[3:12:18] and that denying this project somehow makes you anti housing.

[3:12:22] And that is simply not true.

[3:12:24] This is not about being for housing or against housing.

[3:12:27] It is about whether this particular project

[3:12:29] in this particular location is safe

[3:12:32] And these safety concerns are not hypothetical.

[3:12:34] We all know that cities own evacuation study, 2.2 hours,

[3:12:37] 45 minutes.

[3:12:38] We put all of that.

[3:12:39] And that assumes that everything goes right, which

[3:12:42] means every road stays open.

[3:12:44] There is no fallen trees, no disabled cars, no blocked roads,

[3:12:47] and no interference from emergency operations The study

[3:12:50] itself describes this as a best case scenario

[3:12:54] and says that evacuation times would

[3:12:56] increase if roads were closed.

[3:12:58] So please do not allow an outside advocacy organization

[3:13:03] to reduce this to a very simplistic slogan of housing,

[3:13:07] where, say versus anti housing.

[3:13:09] Yimby is not a law.

[3:13:11] It's an advocacy position.

[3:13:12] The Housing Accountable Act is the law.

[3:13:15] And your job is to apply that law to the actual facts

[3:13:18] and evidence before you not to an outside groups

[3:13:20] definition of what pro housing is supposed to mean.

[3:13:24] And you know, frankly, it's very strange

[3:13:26] to see a housing advocacy group take a position that

[3:13:28] feels so anti-people.

[3:13:30] So if being pro housing means brushing aside

[3:13:34] whether the people who will actually live there

[3:13:36] and the neighbors around them can safely

[3:13:38] evacuate a wildfire here, then something

[3:13:40] is very wrong with the reasoning.

[3:13:42] Yimby is not pro housing.

[3:13:43] They are just pro units.

[3:13:45] Even the language quoted in Yimby's own letter

[3:13:50] recognizes that a specific adverse impact on public health

[3:13:54] or safety matters.

[3:13:56] The Planning Commission looked at this evidence

[3:13:57] and voted five zero to deny this project.

[3:14:00] Please uphold that decision.

[3:14:01] Deny the appeal and put public safety first.

[3:14:04] Thank you.

[3:14:05] Thank you, Mona OK.

[3:14:14] Good evening Mayor and councilman.

[3:14:17] I'm Sophia Cao, a long time resident up here through.

[3:14:21] I support affordable housing.

[3:14:23] This affordable housing unit are central to the Project Builder's

[3:14:28] Remedy status and are cited as a benefit supporting approval.

[3:14:33] If the Council relies on that benefit,

[3:14:36] it should ensure this home's art delivers through

[3:14:40] and enforceable process.

[3:14:43] This unit are four bedroom approximately 2370

[3:14:47] five square foot detached hillside homes.

[3:14:51] A restricted self-pride alone does not

[3:14:54] show whether ownership will remain sustainable

[3:14:57] for a qualifying low income household.

[3:15:01] Buyers must also pay taxes insurance, which

[3:15:05] is very important in this.

[3:15:07] Hi fi risk area.

[3:15:09] Maintenance Utility and HOA dues.

[3:15:14] Yet the posted material provide neither HOA budget

[3:15:19] nor a purchase specific insurance

[3:15:22] estimate Council should require disclosure

[3:15:26] under a short a total monthly housing cost

[3:15:30] and explain how it will be verified CP-5 requires sales

[3:15:37] to qualify in low income household, all in a 45 year

[3:15:41] restriction But CP-4 requires only

[3:15:45] permit applications before a 13 C building permit request.

[3:15:51] Not completion or proportional occupancy

[3:15:54] with the market rate homes.

[3:15:57] Saratoga, New or B PM ordinance s

[3:16:01] requires council concur rent construction in proportion

[3:16:04] no occupancy because this project predates that ordinance.

[3:16:09] Please identify what enforceable condition

[3:16:13] provides equivalent to protect it before voting.

[3:16:17] Please clarify who will verify my eligibility

[3:16:21] and administer it.

[3:16:22] Selection on how total housing cost will be calculated

[3:16:26] and the deadline for complete eating and occupying

[3:16:29] all five homes.

[3:16:30] Thank you.

[3:16:32] You.

[3:16:32] Thank you, Sophia.

[3:16:35] Next, we have Sabrina, then scores Nikki will,

[3:16:42] and then I believe it's.

[3:16:45] Is it Bomb balloon?

[3:16:48] Follow Can you please just give me tens to get my notes?

[3:16:56] I certainly think you appreciate that So

[3:17:03] my name is Sabrina Vance.

[3:17:04] Because I'm a sequel lawyer.

[3:17:06] I also do housing rights.

[3:17:07] Lawyer, represent tenants and groups

[3:17:10] that want to protect housing, protect tenants.

[3:17:14] I've been practicing for about 25 years,

[3:17:17] secretly land use and housing rights I reject the notion.

[3:17:21] And by the way, I represent citizens for Responsible

[3:17:24] and Equitable Development, a nonprofit organization

[3:17:26] in in this community I reject the notion that the legislature

[3:17:32] intended intended the builders remedy law

[3:17:34] to Trump public health and safety.

[3:17:37] I do not think that one can interpret

[3:17:40] the HCA to actually say that.

[3:17:44] I believe that if that were the case,

[3:17:47] the HCA would not have a public safety exception.

[3:17:51] Now, my friend here, who I respect as an attorney,

[3:17:55] I know he knows this stuff and reasonable minds can disagree,

[3:18:00] but I would ask you to think about whether or not

[3:18:04] it makes rational and logical sense

[3:18:08] to say that the subdivision map Act findings are essential.

[3:18:13] Lee Moot because the HCA trumps the subdivision map Act,

[3:18:19] but that is what my friend would like you to believe.

[3:18:24] I don't think that the language of the HCA

[3:18:27] supports that kind of interpret patient.

[3:18:29] If it did, the HCA would say the Subdivision Map

[3:18:32] Act is exempt in HCA builders.

[3:18:35] For many projects, it doesn't One

[3:18:38] has to read the law in harmony with other laws that

[3:18:42] are not expressly exempt.

[3:18:44] So you have to read the subdivision Map

[3:18:46] Act as requiring you to make the findings that are required

[3:18:51] in the subdivision and Map Act.

[3:18:52] And you cannot do so because the way that the staff report reads

[3:18:58] is that you it doesn't even make the finding.

[3:19:01] It says we do not make the finding because of the well,

[3:19:06] I'm already at the end.

[3:19:09] She's over a couple more things to say, if you don't mind.

[3:19:14] Please, please 15 seconds.

[3:19:16] Don't.

[3:19:17] We don't do that.

[3:19:18] Thank you.

[3:19:20] The Well, I'll just.

[3:19:23] I'll end it here.

[3:19:24] If there ever was a time to reject the to reject a project

[3:19:30] and exercise your police powers, this is the time to do it.

[3:19:34] You approve this one, and you're going

[3:19:37] to have to approve all of them because you

[3:19:40] will have created a precedent and you will

[3:19:42] have hit that first domino.

[3:19:43] And the rest of them go, Thank you.

[3:19:46] And I appreciate your time.

[3:19:47] Thank you.

[3:19:47] Thanks.

[3:20:00] Good evening, Mayor and council members.

[3:20:02] My name is Nicole Bolick Kristin and I live at 21720 Villa Oaks

[3:20:06] Lane here in Saratoga.

[3:20:08] I'm asking you to uphold the Planning Commission's denial

[3:20:11] and to make findings that hold up on review.

[3:20:14] I want to be clear about who bears the impact.

[3:20:16] 25 households is what the project adds.

[3:20:19] The people who carry the risk are

[3:20:20] everyone already living along.

[3:20:22] Peirce Road who receive no benefit from the project

[3:20:25] and absorb all the added demand on the way out.

[3:20:28] And a sequel to the Baseline is existing condition.

[3:20:30] So the question in front of you is not

[3:20:32] whether 25 families can evacuate It

[3:20:34] is what happens to the neighborhood that is already

[3:20:36] there when those families join them on the same road.

[3:20:39] The record calls the second road an emergency vehicle access road

[3:20:42] if it's being counted as evacuate from capacity,

[3:20:45] the findings should say.

[3:20:46] So plainly and should state whether it's gated.

[3:20:48] Where terminates.

[3:20:49] As I understand it, it returns to another stretch

[3:20:52] of Peirce road feeding into Highway nine, which will already

[3:20:55] be overwhelmed with the households that live further

[3:20:57] up Highway nine.

[3:20:58] Second, the law.

[3:20:59] I have heard that the HRA leaves this council

[3:21:02] no choice but government code Section 65589.

[3:21:05] 5D2 provides a health and safety pathway for denial and requires

[3:21:09] the specific adverse impact that is quantifiable.

[3:21:13] I would ask the city Attorney to state on the record

[3:21:15] whether denial is legally unavailable

[3:21:18] or whether this is a judgment about litigation risk.

[3:21:20] Those are different things.

[3:21:22] And the residents of this city deserve to know.

[3:21:24] And if the record lacks the quantified analysis

[3:21:26] that the statute requires, I ask that you continue

[3:21:29] this matter and direct staff to commission an independent health

[3:21:31] and safety and evacuation study in the city's

[3:21:34] own name on a defined timeline.

[3:21:36] I support.

[3:21:37] Well out housing that doesn't exist in residents at risk,

[3:21:41] especially for three low income and two

[3:21:43] below market rate units, which is not

[3:21:45] an acceptable acceptable benefit for the city.

[3:21:48] While putting hundreds of families at risk.

[3:21:49] Thank you for your time Thank you, Mayor and council members,

[3:22:05] for allowing me to talk.

[3:22:07] I'm not going to repeat everything that's happened here.

[3:22:09] I have a really very pragmatic, simple question.

[3:22:12] I hear clearly that it was related to health and safety.

[3:22:15] You can deny, deny this request.

[3:22:19] So i am totally puzzled because it's

[3:22:22] very clear the data shows that it is impacting health

[3:22:27] and Safety at the same time, the city and the fire department

[3:22:32] is making exceptions.

[3:22:34] Which I just don't understand.

[3:22:36] We know there are so many exceptions

[3:22:39] made, including the number of units and also the setbacks.

[3:22:45] We're making accommodations on setbacks.

[3:22:47] I don't even get it.

[3:22:49] You have so many reasons you can use to deny this.

[3:22:54] And if you're worried about lawsuits,

[3:22:57] you should also consider what happens if there is a fire.

[3:23:01] You will have hundreds of lawsuits against the city.

[3:23:04] That city approved knowingly that it affects the safety

[3:23:09] and of the people of Saratoga.

[3:23:13] I have lived with my family in saratoga,

[3:23:19] and I passed through the road for the last 38 years.

[3:23:24] And I don't know how many times that road gets blocked

[3:23:28] for one reason or the other.

[3:23:29] A tree falls down.

[3:23:32] That is a land in a landslide and so on and so forth.

[3:23:35] So it's not Steve, how many people can pass through there,

[3:23:38] whether it's even available.

[3:23:39] In fact, there was a fire up on the mountain and hills,

[3:23:44] and we are actually preparing to evacuate.

[3:23:46] And we were told that we can't go through mountain

[3:23:49] and because they had all the fire trucks there.

[3:23:54] So even the availability of the road is not guaranteed.

[3:23:57] And now if you add this many units as many people have said,

[3:24:02] it is not just a slippery slope.

[3:24:04] Once your procedural tool like more

[3:24:06] and you'll have a serious health and safety situation.

[3:24:11] I don't know how you can deny that.

[3:24:13] I really request the council to uphold the Planning Commission's

[3:24:18] denial of mass initiatives.

[3:24:20] Thank you.

[3:24:21] Thank you.

[3:24:21] Below came the last speaker slip I have is from Mahal.

[3:24:26] Mohan A few things stick out from everything

[3:24:40] that we've been exposed to, everything we've heard.

[3:24:44] First is there is a constant assertion that the HRA is

[3:24:50] the job of this committee is just

[3:24:51] to infer approve or be there and move on

[3:24:55] And I have equally well heard that there is actually

[3:24:58] an exception to the HRA.

[3:25:00] If there is a real fire and evacuation at risk and the air

[3:25:06] and the various documents that for referenced made statements

[3:25:11] about unmitigated will high risk of evacuation.

[3:25:15] So what the city council does, if it actually overrules

[3:25:19] the planning commission judgment and allows this project

[3:25:22] to go forward, is to set aside the concern for the welfare

[3:25:28] of the citizens and a wildfire situation

[3:25:31] are trying to evacuate the town in order

[3:25:34] to somehow be good voice under the state's HRA mandate.

[3:25:39] I think there is a misstatement and a misinterpretation that

[3:25:43] is being promulgated here that the HRA has

[3:25:47] no exceptions at all.

[3:25:48] You can see the fire department here made a bunch of exceptions

[3:25:51] in terms of 30ft setback or a whole bunch of other

[3:25:53] considerations and only evaluated water access and road

[3:25:58] front does something like that.

[3:26:01] It's it's like a sewer.

[3:26:03] It's full of holes in terms of allowing for this

[3:26:08] as a fire safe development.

[3:26:10] So I asked that you don't have fire and blood

[3:26:15] on your hands by overlooking the well articulated

[3:26:19] under documented safety risks of this very

[3:26:23] next piece of the hills.

[3:26:25] That's also a high fire risk area.

[3:26:28] And overall, the Planning Commission

[3:26:29] said in order to just sort of make it easy for yourself,

[3:26:32] Thank you.

[3:26:33] Thank you.

[3:26:36] K for go to our virtual.

[3:26:39] Let's see if there's anyone else who'd

[3:26:41] like to speak before I move, because we're not

[3:26:43] going to come back to anybody in the chambers.

[3:26:45] So anyone else would like to come up to speak.

[3:26:47] Please come up and speak My name is Elaine Dalio.

[3:27:04] I did not to thinking I will ever speak today,

[3:27:07] but after I hear all of the things.

[3:27:10] And by the way, I live near the pierce lode,

[3:27:14] I go out and home every day through Pierce.

[3:27:19] So i was thinking before you make the vote first,

[3:27:25] I think that News the fire is early,

[3:27:29] so I think you need to remember how much fire was there.

[3:27:35] I think everybody know that.

[3:27:38] And the fire is from the mountain

[3:27:41] and then goes all the way.

[3:27:44] So I think never will happened to us Another thing is if fire.

[3:27:53] What happened to the Pierce Pierce is too small.

[3:27:57] So before you approved anybody, I

[3:27:59] think you should just to make a project, make Pierce better

[3:28:04] or make another way.

[3:28:07] I think that would be good for our citizens.

[3:28:10] OK.

[3:28:11] As all.

[3:28:13] Saratoga that we have to do something good for our family

[3:28:20] and the kids wherever and the John rush to the judges

[3:28:28] want to approve anything before you make a wrote to be safe.

[3:28:34] And then you can do other things also in the while fire

[3:28:41] and that there is no way you can actually do anything.

[3:28:45] You're putting more people in to those mountain.

[3:28:50] You actually create more accident.

[3:28:53] That's what I think.

[3:28:56] OK.

[3:28:57] So please just think about if you are living in the mountain,

[3:29:04] if you have something happen to your family what

[3:29:08] are you going to do?

[3:29:10] Please make sure the exit is a very important.

[3:29:14] And then make it exit.

[3:29:16] Then you can have more people by the way,

[3:29:19] for the loading come February.

[3:29:22] I think on the flat area near the public station

[3:29:28] is a more suitable for them.

[3:29:30] Thank you very much.

[3:29:31] Thank you.

[3:29:32] By.

[3:29:35] Okay great Oh.

[3:29:39] Oh.

[3:29:40] Thank you.

[3:29:41] Thank you.

[3:29:43] To the City Council members to give us

[3:29:48] a couple of minutes to speak.

[3:29:50] I had only a couple of questions.

[3:29:52] The 30 foot setback that was required

[3:29:55] in the very high respire zone, I. Why is that not being met?

[3:30:01] And what does the written specification which allows it

[3:30:06] to be instead interpreted as just the distance between

[3:30:09] the two homes the written law says that it has to be 30ft

[3:30:14] setback.

[3:30:15] What what is the written record that allows it

[3:30:18] to be interpreted differently?

[3:30:20] I would like for the city to explain that that has not

[3:30:24] been quite answered.

[3:30:25] The second is the 30 foot setback

[3:30:27] is not being met, as far as I understand,

[3:30:30] by the below market and the low income houses.

[3:30:33] How is it that as a city.

[3:30:35] We decide that the lower income houses with.

[3:30:38] It's called the low market or low income?

[3:30:41] Why they alone don't deserve the safety requirements of the 30

[3:30:44] foot setback.

[3:30:45] Those are my two questions.

[3:30:46] Thank you.

[3:30:47] Thank you Hi, my name is Steve Overcast.

[3:31:07] I live on Surrey Lane Living here for 26 years.

[3:31:10] Thank you for giving me an opportunity

[3:31:11] to speak for the last for most of this year

[3:31:14] I've been on crutches for a variety of reasons.

[3:31:16] So suddenly this discussion about evacuation and X

[3:31:20] and address make a lot of sense to me

[3:31:23] for completely different reasons than I was here last year.

[3:31:27] Having making comments on a similar project on our road.

[3:31:32] I live much further down on Surrey Lane on Pierce

[3:31:36] than the Mass on.

[3:31:38] Project.

[3:31:39] However, the fact that getting out and getting around

[3:31:44] and especially for people like with disabilities and hopefully

[3:31:47] my next year.

[3:31:48] I'm going to be good again.

[3:31:50] But I know there are people on more permanent and worse

[3:31:54] situations than I am.

[3:31:55] And I just want to make sure that we are thinking of them.

[3:32:00] Thinking of how it is impacts everybody.

[3:32:03] And not just people who are able to get in a car

[3:32:06] and drive away, which sadly, I'm not able to do for a few months.

[3:32:11] Thank you.

[3:32:11] Thank you OK, We'll move to our remote speakers.

[3:32:26] Oh, if anybody else wants to speak, please come down.

[3:32:31] Forward.

[3:32:31] So you don't We can get that.

[3:32:34] All right.

[3:32:35] Is it on?

[3:32:36] Yep.

[3:32:36] All right.

[3:32:37] I'm going to be very brief and I'm just

[3:32:39] going to talk about math.

[3:32:40] Some very, very basic math that any lawyer could easily

[3:32:46] explain to any jury the message is this one.

[3:32:50] So we are talking about not just Mason Estates

[3:32:53] We're talking about seven other developments on Pierce Road.

[3:32:58] If you do some basic math, we're talking about 450 homes,

[3:33:02] families of four.

[3:33:04] If I do the math correctly, we are talking about 1,800 people

[3:33:11] a additional 1800 people living on Pierce Street and using

[3:33:17] Pierce Road on a daily basis I advise you all to drive Pierce

[3:33:24] Road.

[3:33:25] It is narrow and surrounded by flammable bull oaks

[3:33:32] That's all I'm going to say.

[3:33:33] 1800 people more that would need to be evacuated.

[3:33:38] And again, we're not talking about just Mason estate.

[3:33:41] It might be defensible on its own,

[3:33:43] but when you look across all seven projects that

[3:33:46] are going to be approved, if this one gets

[3:33:49] approved This is you need you to think about your safety

[3:33:53] and think how you will be defending yourself if you know

[3:33:58] it's the city council in the future has to defend themselves

[3:34:02] against the fact that we you will

[3:34:06] have jeopardized the safety of the residents living on.

[3:34:10] Password.

[3:34:12] Thank you.

[3:34:14] Thank you.

[3:34:16] OK.

[3:34:17] I think we're cool for online.

[3:34:22] Okay.

[3:34:23] First is Rafi.

[3:34:26] Sure.

[3:34:26] Turn to speak in.

[3:34:28] Great.

[3:34:29] Can you hear me?

[3:34:30] Yes, go ahead.

[3:34:31] OK.

[3:34:32] Good evening.

[3:34:33] My name is terrific Power and I live on Mount Eden Road.

[3:34:36] And I'm.

[3:34:37] I'm here to say some things simple, which

[3:34:39] is this city can fight this.

[3:34:42] Other cities have.

[3:34:44] And I don't believe we truly tried it, you know,

[3:34:48] for months we've been told what Saratoga cannot do.

[3:34:52] Our hands are tied.

[3:34:54] The state won't let us.

[3:34:56] Every conversation starts from this surrender.

[3:34:59] But what?

[3:35:00] What?

[3:35:01] That isn't what is happening elsewhere in California.

[3:35:04] Communities up and down the state

[3:35:06] have pushed back on project exactly like this one.

[3:35:09] And they've won some used the public safety

[3:35:13] exception the same one available to you tonight.

[3:35:15] And by the way, I still haven't heard

[3:35:18] a valid clearly articulated argument

[3:35:21] as to why our current written standards.

[3:35:24] The state fires safety road rules, our fire code,

[3:35:27] our own safety plan can't be considered written.

[3:35:31] Objective standards in place prior to the application

[3:35:36] I haven't heard that argument being made

[3:35:38] or why we're not fighting that that is a valid argument.

[3:35:41] Other cities went straight to their legislators

[3:35:43] and got themselves written out of these rules entirely.

[3:35:46] Santa Barbara did that in a single session, One

[3:35:49] neighborhood, one senator signed into law.

[3:35:52] They didn't win because their situation was better than ours.

[3:35:54] Ours is worse They won because their cities decided to fight.

[3:35:59] You know, I've also heard the argument

[3:36:00] that if the city doesn't approve this project,

[3:36:03] there's a risk that builders remedy opportunities could

[3:36:05] open up again.

[3:36:06] The state could decertify our housing element.

[3:36:09] Has that risk been truly quantified?

[3:36:12] Have we thought about whether that might be worth

[3:36:14] letting happen to fight this?

[3:36:16] You know, we've been told by the city

[3:36:18] that it can push back when there are objective written health

[3:36:21] and safety standards on the books.

[3:36:23] So fine, adopt them.

[3:36:24] Now, this month that will protect us

[3:36:26] if we're faced with another builder's remedies

[3:36:28] situation in the future.

[3:36:30] Because we fought this one.

[3:36:31] That's just one idea from one resident.

[3:36:34] But I just want to see our city working aggressively

[3:36:38] on this on this approach.

[3:36:40] I understand there's risk in fighting.

[3:36:42] But I want you to weigh honestly against the risk of not fighting

[3:36:46] If we if we fight and we thank you

[3:36:48] for this litigation that's money.

[3:36:50] It's painful.

[3:36:51] But if the city doesn't fight, we

[3:36:53] get this project and the next one and the next one on a road.

[3:36:57] You already know is unsafe.

[3:36:59] Thank you.

[3:37:00] Thank you Next is timely.

[3:37:10] And I'm telling all.

[3:37:13] And I live on Mount eden.

[3:37:16] Right directly under a mountain in a winery.

[3:37:19] And often here, the concerts from Mountain Winery.

[3:37:21] And we moved here a year ago with our four kids and our two

[3:37:25] dogs.

[3:37:25] And we're very active in the community.

[3:37:27] And we quickly found out that we have this development that's

[3:37:30] been proposed.

[3:37:31] 2200 has a development right next door to us,

[3:37:34] and Mount Eden has one right across the street

[3:37:37] located on the east side of Mount Union Road between Villa

[3:37:39] Oaks Lane and Vista.

[3:37:40] Regina.

[3:37:42] It's very terrifying to know that there

[3:37:43] are three developments that are sitting within a couple

[3:37:46] feet of our house that could impact our ability to get out.

[3:37:49] I don't know if you've ever been to the Mountain Winery concerts.

[3:37:53] They're great until you hit the traffic.

[3:37:55] If you're ever on Mount Union Road

[3:37:57] and you're trying to turn on appears

[3:37:58] to leave or exit the community.

[3:38:00] And you could be sitting there for 20 minutes waiting

[3:38:03] for a break in the traffic as people are trying

[3:38:05] to get off of pure street.

[3:38:06] You could be on Piers for 30 minutes waiting

[3:38:08] at the line at Saratoga, Sunnyvale,

[3:38:10] trying to get back on to the freeway.

[3:38:12] And this is without a plane behind you.

[3:38:14] The traffic on Piers Road that has become from this property

[3:38:17] is immense.

[3:38:17] And it impacts the local community.

[3:38:19] Another thing that I want to state

[3:38:21] is that the applicant also mentioned

[3:38:23] that they have no brush management and no evacuation

[3:38:25] plan.

[3:38:26] However, they encourage and invite people to their venue

[3:38:29] all the time.

[3:38:30] This puts the local community already at risk.

[3:38:32] Why would we trust this applicant

[3:38:34] knowing that this is already a risky situation, that he's been

[3:38:37] involving the community in.

[3:38:38] And now he wants to further develop

[3:38:40] on this property for his own personal gains?

[3:38:42] I didn't know about the hotel That's.

[3:38:45] Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

[3:38:46] That's definitely something I need to be more engaged in,

[3:38:49] as well as I'm sure there's no benefit to low income housing

[3:38:51] there.

[3:38:52] I know that that might be in Santa Clara County,

[3:38:55] but of course, it still impacts your residents.

[3:38:57] So I just hope that you really think

[3:38:58] through the precedent that you'll be setting,

[3:39:00] not only with this development and the other developments

[3:39:02] and the risks that you're already

[3:39:04] putting on your local residents with the fire evacuation

[3:39:07] issues on Pierce.

[3:39:08] Thank you.

[3:39:10] Thank you, Tony Next is Bina Hello.

[3:39:24] Can you yes, go ahead.

[3:39:26] Hi, my name is Peter.

[3:39:29] And good evening, council members.

[3:39:32] I'm Richard Quest that you would divide project meeting

[3:39:36] on in on the transport on a mountain road.

[3:39:40] And I think it a very dangerous idea

[3:39:43] to approve anything like this.

[3:39:46] And then have this cascading effect

[3:39:48] of having other projects with a positive precedent Yes.

[3:39:53] It also signal growth going up and down

[3:39:55] one lane up and one game down, winding Dr. Kobes and then

[3:40:01] lots of trees off the site.

[3:40:03] And it looks like the fire department has been on a roll.

[3:40:08] It has been very flexible in order

[3:40:10] to accommodate this project And this whole thing about it

[3:40:14] being some sort of an advantage for housing

[3:40:17] and providing housing and adding all these forms of forms

[3:40:22] to elsewhere.

[3:40:24] In the end, they're all going to be with us

[3:40:27] and a more risky situation while the builder makes his money

[3:40:30] and walks away it just becomes more and more dangerous

[3:40:34] as years go by and congestion builds up on these roads.

[3:40:40] You know, this road even gets very congested.

[3:40:42] Like some people said when mountain Mind has control,

[3:40:46] it just gets clogged up and it takes a long time

[3:40:49] to go one way or the other.

[3:40:51] And I can just imagine quietly trying to come up

[3:40:55] or an emergency vehicle trying to go down or whatever.

[3:40:58] And cars are stuck.

[3:41:00] There's no way to make exit that road

[3:41:03] and let the fire truck pass in that situation.

[3:41:06] So it's just extremely dangerous and you know,

[3:41:10] it's just a fact of the precedent that this would set.

[3:41:14] That makes me think that this is a very blocking tool in order

[3:41:17] for us not to have to take a losing backing in the future

[3:41:23] to get them to.

[3:41:25] So anything you could do, could you

[3:41:27] go through President and safety on people's property?

[3:41:32] Thank you.

[3:41:38] Next is an iPhone Hi, this is Brady.

[3:41:47] I live on Pierce Road and i would

[3:41:49] like to echo several of the speakers.

[3:41:54] I mean, the commenters ideas, specifically graphics

[3:41:59] and the lawyers and the lady with the map

[3:42:03] putting in total 1800 more people on pierce.

[3:42:09] It doesn't make any sense.

[3:42:10] It's dangerous in many places.

[3:42:13] And Pierce Street, if you go up and down this road,

[3:42:16] are literally touching the road.

[3:42:18] If there's a fire somebody hits the side sign

[3:42:21] and is going to come and no one can get out.

[3:42:24] If a fire engine is trying to come in,

[3:42:26] it's going to block people because it's

[3:42:28] going to push into the road and people can't drive by.

[3:42:32] Everyone who signs up on this is basically

[3:42:36] exposing the city to liability because we're

[3:42:40] signing off on this.

[3:42:42] The guys were coming up at the traffic protection who

[3:42:46] haven't done a proper job They're also exposing us

[3:42:49] to this risk.

[3:42:51] The five firemen who are basically being very

[3:42:55] relaxed in looking at every thing.

[3:42:58] I've also I've creating more risk on all the existing people

[3:43:04] who live there.

[3:43:05] It doesn't make any sense to add more people

[3:43:08] to an already dangerous road.

[3:43:10] I highly recommend we take the two ideas to basically bypass

[3:43:15] and stop this due to safety.

[3:43:18] Thank you.

[3:43:20] Thank you.

[3:43:26] I have no other speakers.

[3:43:29] Okay.

[3:43:30] Then we will close the public comment period

[3:43:34] and bring it back to council.

[3:43:36] I see that it's 10:45.

[3:43:38] I think.

[3:43:39] We would normally take a break in about 15 minutes.

[3:43:42] Do you want to take a quick one now,

[3:43:45] or shall we go forward for Oh, we got the.

[3:43:49] Appellant Yes, sorry.

[3:43:51] Gosh, I'm losing it here.

[3:43:52] So yeah, please, the appellant can come back up.

[3:43:55] And I'm so sorry Good evening, Mayor Paige and members

[3:43:58] of the City Council.

[3:44:00] My name is Brian Winter and I'm the land use and secure attorney

[3:44:03] on behalf of the applicant, I am going

[3:44:06] to try to simplify the two things that we're wrestling

[3:44:09] with tonight as best I can.

[3:44:11] Just briefly, I've been doing this also for about 25 years.

[3:44:15] I've also served as a city attorney.

[3:44:17] I've been involved in the drafting of SB 330

[3:44:20] and numerous others of the state housing laws,

[3:44:22] including many of the recent amendments to the AG going back

[3:44:25] over the last 8 or 10 years.

[3:44:27] If you go back to the inception in 1982,

[3:44:30] it was originally a one paragraph statute

[3:44:32] that didn't say very much, and it's

[3:44:34] been amended 25, 26 times at this point,

[3:44:37] always in the direction of strengthening the law.

[3:44:40] If you read the statute carefully,

[3:44:41] you can see that the legislature very much recognizes

[3:44:43] that the lack of housing in California

[3:44:46] and the denial of housing projects

[3:44:47] are improper reasons is actually a significant negative effect

[3:44:51] on the environment.

[3:44:52] Says that itself, if you read it carefully,

[3:44:55] the source substantive reference to secure is in subsection E,

[3:44:59] and it it acknowledges that development projects

[3:45:03] must comply with secure whatever given project requires.

[3:45:07] If you look at secure.

[3:45:08] So you have an agency where the two major laws you're wrestling

[3:45:11] with tonight if you look at secure and section 21 000G

[3:45:16] secure recognized is the need to provide housing for every

[3:45:20] Californian.

[3:45:21] If you look at section 21004 of the public resources code

[3:45:26] and 15040 of the secure guidelines,

[3:45:29] those sections explain very clearly

[3:45:31] that secure is not an independent source

[3:45:33] of legal authority.

[3:45:34] And in fact secure is subject to the authorities set forth

[3:45:37] in other laws such as the Housing Accountability Act.

[3:45:41] Secret secret does not operate in a vacuum and nothing

[3:45:44] in sequel or anywhere else says that, quote, trumps the Housing

[3:45:47] Accountability Act.

[3:45:48] If you go back and look at the housing

[3:45:50] Accountability Act, including reason amendments to the HRA,

[3:45:53] the legislature has added the state wide policy

[3:45:56] that public agencies are required to afford the fullest

[3:45:59] possible way to the interest, approval

[3:46:01] and provision of housing.

[3:46:03] They've also added a statement in there

[3:46:04] that the circumstances that give rise

[3:46:06] to a specific adverse impact quote,

[3:46:08] arise infrequent, where the legislature knows what they're

[3:46:12] doing, they're aware of the broader universe in California

[3:46:16] and other events that happen.

[3:46:17] They are still putting a heavy hand

[3:46:19] on the scale in favor of housing.

[3:46:22] The HRA also establishes, and this

[3:46:23] has been interpreted in various cases

[3:46:25] the only basis to say no to a housing development project.

[3:46:29] The only way to do it is by making

[3:46:31] the specific adverse impact findings.

[3:46:33] Those findings cannot be made here and they cannot be made

[3:46:36] with the passage of any amount of time.

[3:46:39] The city attorney, I believe made that clear at the Planning

[3:46:42] Commission meeting, and you're welcome to ask

[3:46:44] him to agree with me or not on that on that tonight.

[3:46:47] But there is no dot in order to make a specific adverse impact

[3:46:51] finding, there has to have been a written document that

[3:46:53] was in effect as of the date the project application was deemed

[3:46:57] complete, against which when you look at the project,

[3:47:00] he would conclude it would have a significant, direct,

[3:47:02] quantifiable and unavoidable impact.

[3:47:04] And it has to be supported by a preponderance

[3:47:06] of the evidence in the record, not substantial evidence.

[3:47:08] It's a higher standard.

[3:47:10] There is no document here.

[3:47:12] There was no document in effect as of the date.

[3:47:14] This application is incomplete There

[3:47:15] isn't one today against which those findings can be made.

[3:47:19] But the simple fact is this project cannot be disapproved.

[3:47:22] The findings can't be made, and I will also

[3:47:25] note that you've heard a couple of times the mentioned

[3:47:28] that this project sets a precedent

[3:47:30] or would set a precedent for you.

[3:47:32] There is no such thing as land use precedent in California

[3:47:35] or anywhere else in this country,

[3:47:37] there's there's no case establishing that when

[3:47:39] a public agency takes an action on a given development project.

[3:47:43] It must take that action on every other project.

[3:47:45] Every project stands on its own.

[3:47:47] We stand on our own.

[3:47:48] We've worked very hard to make this a great project to address

[3:47:51] everything that we can possibly address

[3:47:52] to make it a good project for the community

[3:47:55] And we have met every requirement.

[3:47:58] And I do respectfully ask that you grant our appeal

[3:48:01] and allow this project to proceed.

[3:48:04] Thank you.

[3:48:05] Thank you.

[3:48:07] You got another minute?

[3:48:09] Anything you want to build?

[3:48:11] Anybody want to say Only if there's any questions.

[3:48:16] Does the council have any questions?

[3:48:22] No, thank you.

[3:48:23] Okay.

[3:48:27] All right.

[3:48:27] Council, Do we have questions of staff?

[3:48:29] I know a bunch of questions have been raised,

[3:48:31] and I think we probably want to ask them.

[3:48:33] Shall we do it now and take a break after we're

[3:48:36] done with that, the okay.

[3:48:39] All right.

[3:48:40] Let's go for a break.

[3:48:42] But okay Yeah and go ahead.

[3:48:46] I just want to thank everyone for speaking out tonight.

[3:48:50] I do have a question.

[3:48:53] This is probably for our legal counsel.

[3:48:58] Does the city have any legal basis

[3:49:02] to deny this project under the builder's remedies

[3:49:05] provisions of the HRA?

[3:49:07] Specifically, is there any objective written health

[3:49:12] or safety standard that this project fails

[3:49:15] to meet that would provide us a lawful basis for denial There

[3:49:22] is not any objective health and safety standard that meets

[3:49:26] the requirements of the builder's remedy

[3:49:28] that this project isn't consistent with.

[3:49:30] So there's no standard that could form the basis of a denial

[3:49:35] under the builder's remedy provisions of the HRA.

[3:49:40] OK Can I just ask for a few more?

[3:49:43] Yep So people talk about, you know,

[3:49:55] very concerned about the significance and audible wealth

[3:49:59] of all wildfire impact Any new development in this high fire

[3:50:08] hazard hillside area would not result in a second effect.

[3:50:14] And avoidable wildfire evacuation impact.

[3:50:18] I can't answer that question.

[3:50:20] Generally I'm not a person who does evacuation impact analysis.

[3:50:26] So that's not in my expertise and more.

[3:50:30] So I can't answer questions about other projects.

[3:50:33] We know how the impact analysis worked for this project.

[3:50:38] We haven't seen the analysis or review

[3:50:42] of any other project in the very high severity fire zone.

[3:50:46] So let's say if just the nine units, if they were going

[3:50:50] to be just nine units, would there

[3:50:52] still create the significant and laudable wildfire impact?

[3:50:58] Again we haven't done that analysis.

[3:51:02] I think that's right.

[3:51:03] Did we do the analysis?

[3:51:05] No, we haven't done this.

[3:51:06] We had one alternative in the air

[3:51:10] that included the a nine unit version of the project.

[3:51:13] We didn't do the quantitative analysis of evacuation time.

[3:51:18] Six.

[3:51:18] It doesn't require us to analyze the alternative

[3:51:21] at that level of detail.

[3:51:23] So I don't know that answer for certain.

[3:51:26] What I can say is that the standard

[3:51:29] of significance that we used in the air

[3:51:33] was extremely conservative.

[3:51:35] And we determined that any addition

[3:51:39] to evacuation time of any size would be a significant impact.

[3:51:44] So I can't run the numbers on a nine unit project,

[3:51:48] but we do know that if it added anything to evacuation time,

[3:51:52] then it would be considered significant under the standards

[3:51:55] we used in this year So you're saying just adding a 80,

[3:52:01] you were will create that kind of impact?

[3:52:04] I don't know the answer to that.

[3:52:06] That's a that is a matter of analysis that we haven't done.

[3:52:09] Okay.

[3:52:11] Can you I mean, someone just mentioned about the Santa

[3:52:14] Barbara lawsuit.

[3:52:15] Can you comment on that?

[3:52:16] Do we know what the result or any lawsuit?

[3:52:21] I don't know specific what what that commenter

[3:52:25] was talking about.

[3:52:26] I do know that there was a controversial project approved

[3:52:29] in Santa Barbara hillside in in a similar fire zone that

[3:52:35] eventually was subject to legislation

[3:52:37] and that I believe exempted it from the builder's remedy

[3:52:42] or at least allowed consideration of fire impact

[3:52:46] within the builders remedy that that was a specific statute that

[3:52:51] was adopted by the legislature or not directly aimed

[3:52:55] at this project.

[3:52:56] But that covered this project and was inspired by it.

[3:53:02] So that's how that's how Richard may have a little bit

[3:53:05] more detail Let's talk about the this law

[3:53:09] received a fair amount of press.

[3:53:12] The I believe it was the Senate president pro

[3:53:16] tem used her power to get this law through and it exempted.

[3:53:23] It was a law that said for projects in counties,

[3:53:27] in cities and counties with a population bigger than this.

[3:53:30] And smaller than this.

[3:53:32] And it turned out that the only place that applied

[3:53:35] was for this project near the Santa Barbara mission.

[3:53:39] And the legislature did pass that law.

[3:53:41] So there has been litigation about it.

[3:53:45] I don't know where that all stands but we don't.

[3:53:50] Your council has met with our legislators

[3:53:52] on a number of occasions.

[3:53:54] You've asked them to work with these laws

[3:53:57] and you have been with even the most minor change.

[3:54:01] At one point, you asked them when

[3:54:05] allocating the arena to consider wildfire risk, you said,

[3:54:09] We just want a bag.

[3:54:11] When they're allocating arena to treat wildfire.

[3:54:13] The same as flooding.

[3:54:15] Was your proposal and your legislature of representatives

[3:54:19] said no, we do not want to propose legislation

[3:54:23] that would allow consideration of fire risk

[3:54:27] in allocating arena.

[3:54:29] So give me you've made the effort.

[3:54:33] That's where it's been.

[3:54:34] And that's where it stands And I note

[3:54:38] that the fact that they require hired legislation to,

[3:54:44] uh, to get out of the builders remedies

[3:54:47] suggests that without that legislation,

[3:54:49] they would have been subject to the builders remedy in precisely

[3:54:52] the way this project is asking us.

[3:54:55] Maybe One last one.

[3:54:58] What would be the legal consequence

[3:55:00] is if the City Council denies this project tonight?

[3:55:07] that's more up to the applicant than to me.

[3:55:11] But I think that a lawsuit is likely

[3:55:16] and I have stated what I believe the law tells us we need to do.

[3:55:23] And that that position would be the subject of that lawsuit,

[3:55:28] telling the court that we did not do what the law tells,

[3:55:31] tells us to do.

[3:55:33] I think in addition to that, there

[3:55:36] would be additional scrutiny from HCD

[3:55:39] which pays some attention to what we're doing in Saratoga.

[3:55:44] I think they would be paying closer attention to what

[3:55:48] we'd be doing in Saratoga.

[3:55:51] There's possibility of lawsuits from other groups

[3:55:54] housing rights groups have the right

[3:55:55] to bring a lawsuit similar to the applicants

[3:56:00] and all of those lawsuits would be likely to, if successful

[3:56:06] to include attorney's fees awards in which the city would

[3:56:09] end up paying for those fees.

[3:56:13] Thank you.

[3:56:14] Okay.

[3:56:15] Anybody else you know I have a few questions.

[3:56:19] I was jotting down as residents were raising them,

[3:56:23] but I'm going to follow up with where Gabe,

[3:56:26] you were responding to on the questions for Gabe and Richard.

[3:56:30] Whoever wants to answer, I think i heard what the answer is.

[3:56:39] But I would ask you a very specific.

[3:56:42] Holly, can Saratoga I use the existing evac coersion capacity

[3:56:48] problem as outlined in the fair in periods

[3:56:51] report that exists on Pier road currently

[3:56:56] as the basis for denying misogynistic rates when given

[3:57:03] what I heard from Bill hershman was on the state's project

[3:57:08] applicant that that project specific evaluation

[3:57:12] analysis shows either point four or point nine, depending on you

[3:57:18] include or not include marked in mind 3.4.

[3:57:22] 9 minute increase in evacuation time We cannot not

[3:57:28] because of the size of the impact or anything,

[3:57:30] but because we do not the city does not have a specific written

[3:57:36] standard that the project is inconsistent with concerning

[3:57:41] that evacuation time, there's no rule that we have that says this

[3:57:47] amount of evacuation time is too much or something of that sort.

[3:57:52] I see What about I, I think no, thank

[3:57:59] you so much to each one of you who has.

[3:58:02] I'm talking about the residents who

[3:58:03] have come here today and spoken and expressed your concerns.

[3:58:08] I think Maynard's brought up the point about the safety element.

[3:58:12] You're coating things So I know, Gabe,

[3:58:16] you have recently once again, read

[3:58:19] the safety element is the one that management

[3:58:23] action or anything else you have seen

[3:58:25] that could be considered an objective standard.

[3:58:30] Well, when I reread the safety element, um, the standards

[3:58:34] or the policies of the safety element

[3:58:36] are not the sort of objectives, standards that would create

[3:58:42] a health and safety standard that we could use

[3:58:45] to deny the project under the Housing Accountability

[3:58:48] Act, the standard that the Speaker mentioned, if I recall,

[3:58:53] you said that there has to be an effect of evacuation plan

[3:58:57] effective is not an objective standard.

[3:59:01] It requires the application of judgment

[3:59:03] and that under the under the law's definition

[3:59:06] is not an objective standard.

[3:59:08] That would be something very specific,

[3:59:11] quantifiable, that would that we can quantification

[3:59:14] is the easiest route to being an objective standard.

[3:59:18] There might be other ways to do it.

[3:59:21] The word effective is not okay and we don't

[3:59:24] have anything like that today.

[3:59:26] Do not there has been a question brought up

[3:59:29] by multiple residents based on the response from County Fire

[3:59:34] folks that exceptions have been made for either the 30 foot

[3:59:40] setback or the grade.

[3:59:44] The slope around the access ways to get around

[3:59:47] tollgate area or something.

[3:59:49] I mean.

[3:59:50] Which is not abutting this, but both those two exceptions

[3:59:55] to in the process of assessing this project,

[4:00:00] what's your comment on that?

[4:00:02] Is that how can we the council say those exceptions are okay,

[4:00:09] help us walk through that.

[4:00:10] Those exceptions are allowed under law

[4:00:13] and are given to the county fire department

[4:00:15] to determine whether making the exception is warranted.

[4:00:19] And they have made that determination in those two cases

[4:00:22] that the exception is warranted.

[4:00:25] So the project is consistent with those fire standards.

[4:00:29] The standards include the exception process

[4:00:33] They've got the exceptions.

[4:00:35] So they're consistent with the standard.

[4:00:37] So they don't.

[4:00:38] So those standards, then don't form a basis of denial

[4:00:41] because the project meets them subject to the exception.

[4:00:44] So we have the County Fire approval, correct based

[4:00:47] on those exceptions, Correct.

[4:00:49] So as far as read, the city are concerned,

[4:00:53] we have that approval.

[4:00:55] So we are not the ones making that exception.

[4:00:58] Exactly.

[4:00:59] If a resident feels strongly, then that response ability

[4:01:03] lies with county fire.

[4:01:05] Correct?

[4:01:05] Yes.

[4:01:06] Okay.

[4:01:11] Bill mentioned non buildable easement

[4:01:13] and I believe he also mentioned it was a couple of hours ago.

[4:01:18] I think he said, you can't go and build an Adu.

[4:01:22] How valid would that be?

[4:01:23] It's a non buildable easement.

[4:01:25] Again, talking off the 30 foot setback between our distance

[4:01:28] between structures.

[4:01:30] Is that a legal position?

[4:01:34] Because in my time ten years planning commission,

[4:01:36] six years on council, I've lost track of how many times

[4:01:40] the state has mandated reducing the setbacks for addus non

[4:01:49] buildable easement.

[4:01:50] Yes I think that is an easement, as is

[4:01:59] a limitation on property rights and any roads

[4:02:03] duction and setbacks probably.

[4:02:05] I'm getting a little ahead of myself.

[4:02:07] We need to do the analysis.

[4:02:10] But I think that the easement would would still not

[4:02:15] be buildable regardless of setback requirements.

[4:02:19] Richard gave us much more familiar with the details.

[4:02:26] But I think we do have you know, we

[4:02:28] will work to make sure the document

[4:02:30] to do everything we can do.

[4:02:32] So that the they operate as intended.

[4:02:35] But as has been, as you noted in your initial question,

[4:02:39] when the state legislature decides

[4:02:41] to say that general plans, which when I went to law school,

[4:02:46] were called the Constitution of Development,

[4:02:48] when they say that the Constitution doesn't apply,

[4:02:52] I can't say that the legislature won't pass

[4:02:54] a law that says a restriction.

[4:02:56] We've we have prepared in connection

[4:02:59] with the plan might apply.

[4:03:00] But I can't say that we will work

[4:03:02] to make these documents do what they intended under the law.

[4:03:07] As it stands today.

[4:03:09] Thank you.

[4:03:11] One clarify question for members of the public.

[4:03:14] They talked about, I think couple of persons

[4:03:17] spoke about the affordable requirements.

[4:03:20] I think Sophia raised that issue for us.

[4:03:22] Sophia, call how do you mandate how do you ensure that stays?

[4:03:27] And can you just quickly into a sentence

[4:03:29] as explained that how that is taken care

[4:03:33] of in two sentences at when the final map for this project

[4:03:37] comes back, we will include as part of the final map package

[4:03:43] agreements, covenants that apply to those the lots where

[4:03:49] the affordable housing units are that require for that they meet

[4:03:54] the affordability standards and that stays with the land.

[4:03:59] Correct?

[4:04:00] That stays with the land If there's

[4:04:02] a term that the length of that covenant, the years

[4:04:06] of that covenant is set in the builders remedy law

[4:04:09] and it will be there will stay with the land for that term

[4:04:13] Okay.

[4:04:13] And there's nothing.

[4:04:14] I know that.

[4:04:15] I'm just I know Sophia is still here and somebody else.

[4:04:18] There is that issue.

[4:04:20] So the answer is it becomes enforceable through an agreement

[4:04:22] that we apply to the land at at the time of the final approval.

[4:04:27] OK.

[4:04:28] Thank you.

[4:04:29] And I hopefully the last question

[4:04:32] There may be one more multiple people

[4:04:34] have brought up the slippery slope, the cumulative Builders

[4:04:39] Remedy project and Development in the Hills.

[4:04:43] Can you just walk us through that yet?

[4:04:46] Okay.

[4:04:46] What is it in front of us tonight?

[4:04:49] This project is in front of you tonight.

[4:04:51] This is the only project that you're deciding on.

[4:04:55] And this is the project that the legal requirements

[4:04:58] of the HOA that we've discussed apply to this project in that we

[4:05:04] don't have a ground to deny this project to the extent

[4:05:07] that there is no precedent, there

[4:05:11] is no ongoing effect of this approval on the next approval

[4:05:15] or the one after that.

[4:05:16] The state law will still apply to those,

[4:05:20] but we're deciding on this one.

[4:05:23] Can I take into my considering action?

[4:05:28] Is it appropriate for me to take into my consideration

[4:05:32] that there are more builders remedy projects in the hillsides

[4:05:35] and that cumulative impact that should be considered

[4:05:40] in my argument The Housing Accountability Act

[4:05:46] does not include that consideration as one

[4:05:50] of the reasons we're allowed to deny this project.

[4:05:56] Okay.

[4:05:58] Thank you, Richard.

[4:05:59] Is there any other high level question

[4:06:01] that residents may have asked that we have not yet covered?

[4:06:07] I just wanted to say that if I missed something or one of us

[4:06:11] missed something, I know Yarn asked quite a few questions.

[4:06:15] No, I mean, I think the you know, this is a very, you know,

[4:06:19] troubling set of laws that we have to operate under

[4:06:23] But I think Dave has outlined that law.

[4:06:26] Thank you.

[4:06:27] Thank you so much.

[4:06:28] Thank you.

[4:06:28] Mayor.

[4:06:28] Thanks for creating I have one question.

[4:06:34] I just want to go back to the evacuation time

[4:06:38] and the objective standard.

[4:06:40] And you said that effective is not objective.

[4:06:43] I completely understand that.

[4:06:46] Does any city have a standard like this that, you know,

[4:06:50] not that I know of.

[4:06:51] We have done some preliminary work

[4:06:53] to look at that and not found an evacuation time

[4:06:57] standard in California.

[4:07:00] Hmm.

[4:07:01] That's i am I mean, I don't know where it would go anyway.

[4:07:08] It's like, well, hey, tens is okay with 20 is not good.

[4:07:11] I don't want anybody to get stuck.

[4:07:14] No, there isn't anyone else.

[4:07:17] And then I guess I do have one question for the appellant We

[4:07:21] heard a speaker talk about they said that there was no brush

[4:07:25] management or evacuation plan.

[4:07:27] I could have sworn I heard something.

[4:07:31] Bill the the HOA was going to manage vegetation and manage

[4:07:37] brush.

[4:07:38] I'm sorry, I so one of the speakers

[4:07:41] said that they didn't hear that there

[4:07:43] was any plan to manage brush or have an evacuation plan.

[4:07:48] I could have sworn I heard that the HOA was going

[4:07:50] to do some things to keep it.

[4:07:52] A Firewise community.

[4:07:53] I heard two different things.

[4:07:55] One, because the project.

[4:07:56] But I heard someone else say that we had never

[4:07:59] had a plan at the mountain winery for the last ten years.

[4:08:03] Maybe you could elaborate.

[4:08:05] So to answer the first one, Carol Sir,

[4:08:08] which is one of the reasons we met her, because we

[4:08:11] were had a plan for 15 years.

[4:08:14] Yes, 15 years.

[4:08:16] We were one of the first people to do a fire clearing

[4:08:20] area, to do a at the winery.

[4:08:23] They of the fire safety Council came to us.

[4:08:25] And we were one of the first experimental groups.

[4:08:27] We have our own fire system at the mountain wineries

[4:08:30] so I kind of take pride in the fact

[4:08:34] that we manage that property very, very well.

[4:08:37] So there is a plan to respond to your second question,

[4:08:42] there's there will be conditions imposed

[4:08:45] through this process that will require us to build

[4:08:51] within our 16 hours As as a city attorney has pointed out,

[4:08:54] it will be reviewed the whole set of 16 hours

[4:08:57] will be reviewed before the map is filed,

[4:09:00] which includes the responsibility

[4:09:02] to maintain in the future all these various.

[4:09:05] So it will be it'll be police based through the HOA,

[4:09:09] but there's also a requirement.

[4:09:12] It's not a direct analogy, but it's

[4:09:15] sort of like weed abatement.

[4:09:17] We're going to be required to have a third party in spec that

[4:09:22] on a regular basis to make sure that we're the HOA is here

[4:09:25] in those standards.

[4:09:26] OK.

[4:09:27] Yeah.

[4:09:27] If you're doing the gold standard for correct

[4:09:29] test and correct.

[4:09:30] OK I thought that I heard that.

[4:09:33] And I just want to clear it up.

[4:09:35] Thank you.

[4:09:36] Thanks.

[4:09:37] Okay.

[4:09:37] No more no other questions.

[4:09:39] OK, then we'll close the the conversation here

[4:09:43] and bring it back to council after we have a well,

[4:09:47] keep going.

[4:09:49] Oh, we at least a couple people need to have a little break.

[4:09:53] So we'll take seven minutes.

[4:09:55] Please.

[4:09:59] Oh oh I guess how you guys.

[4:15:55] I don't know what they wanted me to I want to turn over and have

[4:16:10] everybody, you know, one way or another can also be myself.

[4:16:23] The real.

[4:16:27] All right Thank you for coming back in promptly.

[4:16:32] Okay.

[4:16:33] So with we're bringing this back to council for your comments

[4:16:38] and whatever else occurs, do we have a volunteer Yes.

[4:16:52] Cookie, thank you.

[4:16:55] Thank you to staff and to everyone who came out tonight

[4:16:57] to have their voices heard for approving this project is

[4:17:01] required under the builders remedy provisions of the housing

[4:17:04] Accountability Act.

[4:17:06] In considering the project the specific benefits

[4:17:09] outweigh the risks of its potential adverse impacts.

[4:17:13] There are real and meaningful benefits to this project

[4:17:17] and a full list is included in the meeting documents.

[4:17:20] For example, approval allows the city to comply with the law

[4:17:25] and protects the city from potential liability associated

[4:17:28] with noncompliance.

[4:17:31] The project provides affordable housing,

[4:17:34] helping provide much needed housing will

[4:17:36] also helping the city meet its Rina obligations.

[4:17:39] The project aligns with California's housing production

[4:17:42] goals and the state's broader efforts

[4:17:45] to increase the housing supply.

[4:17:48] The project provides improvements to pierce Road.

[4:17:52] Again, thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion

[4:17:56] and shared their perspective for the reasons stated

[4:17:59] My vote is to follow the law.

[4:18:03] I support staff's recommendation to approve the project.

[4:18:06] Thanks.

[4:18:07] Thank you.

[4:18:08] You.

[4:18:11] Anybody else go to you know you want to?

[4:18:25] Well, all right.

[4:18:26] I'll jump ahead.

[4:18:27] I'm not ready, but I'll go for it.

[4:18:29] You know, um, a couple of perspectives on this

[4:18:33] to Glen's point, we'll share.

[4:18:35] How is up, but also give you a sense of a lot of my thinking

[4:18:38] and approach to this.

[4:18:39] Um, I am in agreement where, per the HOA,

[4:18:44] we have to approve this, right?

[4:18:46] That that is a consideration here Um,

[4:18:49] and I do think by not follow the state law,

[4:18:51] right, like we as a city, as a council,

[4:18:53] are elected to, you know, help write

[4:18:55] the town's ordinances for what we want to see and do here.

[4:18:58] But we are also subject to the laws of the state of California,

[4:19:02] which do supersede a lot of what we want to do here.

[4:19:04] Um, I would say there have been any number of rules and laws

[4:19:09] that have been passed in the last couple of years

[4:19:11] that do challenge the rational mind on multiple levels.

[4:19:14] Right.

[4:19:15] Um, this is a project that I think we as a council,

[4:19:17] as a city, even as well as several others

[4:19:20] have, have been paying attention to just given the location,

[4:19:26] given the the hazard zones from a fire safety perspective

[4:19:31] and what that all means.

[4:19:32] I'll give you a sense of some of the things

[4:19:34] that do give me comfort and also some of the considerations

[4:19:37] and how I'm thinking about this.

[4:19:39] I do appreciate we have approval from county Fire.

[4:19:42] They are the experts on this.

[4:19:44] They do a tremendous amount of work on this

[4:19:47] to make sure that anything that is built

[4:19:50] does have the right amount of fire access and requisite water

[4:19:54] resources to Put out any kind of fire.

[4:19:58] Um, any time you're considering building in a very high fire

[4:20:01] hazard, even a moderate zone, I think

[4:20:03] you have to be take it very seriously.

[4:20:06] Someone mentioned don't take the easy and convenient route

[4:20:09] There is nothing easy and convenient about this right out

[4:20:11] of the any of us.

[4:20:13] Take this lightly.

[4:20:13] Even if we are all voting in favor of it

[4:20:16] or against it, whatever it is, I know each member of this council

[4:20:19] takes what we do up here very seriously.

[4:20:21] And the health and safety of that.

[4:20:23] But part of that's also related to taking a look at the broader

[4:20:27] legal picture.

[4:20:27] And what the implications that has for us as a city.

[4:20:30] If we choose to not follow the law,

[4:20:32] there are financial implications that could actually

[4:20:35] quite cripple us.

[4:20:36] There are significant housing implications as well,

[4:20:39] because we could potentially lose

[4:20:40] more control, which is why we're in this position

[4:20:43] in the first place.

[4:20:44] I do think the improvements our peers road are material,

[4:20:48] and we've identified five roadway days

[4:20:49] in the hillsides over the last couple of years, many thanks

[4:20:52] for public works team.

[4:20:53] They're doing everything they can to keep it afloat.

[4:20:56] We do not have the funding today to go and fix

[4:20:58] all of those right.

[4:21:00] We need at least $15 million, if not significantly more.

[4:21:03] We've requested grants from federal and state partnered

[4:21:07] legislature to legislators to see

[4:21:09] if they can help us get there.

[4:21:11] And this actually helps us get there in a significant way.

[4:21:14] On one of those five areas.

[4:21:15] And so that, to me, is quite material

[4:21:18] because we're taking sort of like Band-Aid type measures

[4:21:21] and have really gotten lucky.

[4:21:22] I do think there are multiple risk to consider here.

[4:21:26] And so, for example wildfire is one risk,

[4:21:28] but earthquake risk was another.

[4:21:30] Thinking about have road.

[4:21:31] What if a road collapses?

[4:21:33] Right.

[4:21:34] That's what I mean by like none of this is easier or convenient.

[4:21:37] We've been taking a very serious look

[4:21:39] at this as a council for a number of years

[4:21:41] in terms of what are the overall disasters that we have

[4:21:44] to potentially plan for, many of which

[4:21:46] are just outside of our control, Right.

[4:21:48] We can't control literally where lightning is going to strike.

[4:21:50] And I think all of us have been you know,

[4:21:52] I remember when there were orange skies, six years ago.

[4:21:54] It was terrifying.

[4:21:55] Right.

[4:21:56] We all to be under evacuation and we didn't

[4:21:59] have to evacuate to be ready.

[4:22:02] I do think it's a nice development for Saratoga.

[4:22:04] It's a good project.

[4:22:05] I think it is.

[4:22:06] Well done.

[4:22:07] It could have been 300 units.

[4:22:08] It could have been 500 units.

[4:22:10] But I think you're choosing 25 units within that context.

[4:22:14] I think that is more reasonable than what

[4:22:17] we've seen other folks do, not just in saratoga,

[4:22:19] but in the broader state of California.

[4:22:22] Yeah, I've you know, been fortunate enough

[4:22:24] to meet with residents to meet with Bill,

[4:22:26] to meet with anyone who's really reached out

[4:22:29] to have a conversation.

[4:22:32] I just want to be in listening mode.

[4:22:37] I do agree that legislation is a potential solution here.

[4:22:41] But again, to Richard's point, I just

[4:22:43] did some quick reading on this in our break is

[4:22:46] is that element of this was a specific local legislature

[4:22:49] or legislator that was able to get that through the state.

[4:22:53] And so I don't I think that is a viable solution.

[4:22:58] But it requires a pretty major investment and a lot of things

[4:23:01] have to come together.

[4:23:02] And to be clear, we've all had this conversation, right,

[4:23:05] with our with our own legislators about,

[4:23:07] hey what can we do here?

[4:23:09] Because we do significant things.

[4:23:11] There is a significant risk, in our hillsides,

[4:23:13] the last thing I'll say is if you're here

[4:23:16] and you're concerned about this, I

[4:23:17] hope you are meeting with your neighborhood

[4:23:19] around starting the Firewise community,

[4:23:21] because there are many things that we can be doing.

[4:23:24] I think this is just one neighborhood.

[4:23:26] We're talking about.

[4:23:27] But given all the things that have been mentioned

[4:23:29] from a legal perspective of, especially when

[4:23:31] it comes to the housing accountability of HOA,

[4:23:33] when it comes to, you know, provisions of the borders

[4:23:36] remedy, and also the fact that I think this

[4:23:38] is a decent development for the area.

[4:23:40] I will be voting in favor of it.

[4:23:44] Thank you.

[4:23:45] Yeah Once again, I want to thank everyone

[4:23:52] for taking your time to write to us

[4:23:55] and speaking with us on this opt on this project I know how much

[4:24:02] concern.

[4:24:03] This project has raised, particularly regarding

[4:24:06] file safety and emergency evacuation I have heard you.

[4:24:11] I understand those concerns.

[4:24:14] Public safety has always been our city's top priority

[4:24:19] but we also have to consider the legal constraints before us.

[4:24:26] This project qualifies for the builder's remedy under the,

[4:24:30] you know, a as we all have heard,

[4:24:34] we have no legal base to deny this project This project would

[4:24:42] provide 24, 25 housing units, including five affordable units,

[4:24:47] to help us meet our city's rina obligations.

[4:24:55] You know, this project also dedicate a public trail

[4:25:02] and also include a site specific wildfire protection plan

[4:25:07] and also help us I think it's there's a provision that also

[4:25:15] to improvements to Pierce Road and contribution

[4:25:19] towards the retaining wall by.

[4:25:22] But I do want to make it clear that proving this project

[4:25:27] does not mean we dismiss the fire and evacuation concerns

[4:25:33] raised by our residents.

[4:25:35] I share those concerns.

[4:25:39] But as elected officials we have a responsibility

[4:25:44] to follow the law.

[4:25:46] Even when the choices are difficult. Given the legal

[4:25:51] and the financial risks of denying a project that we do not

[4:25:56] have a lawful basis to deny I believe

[4:26:01] approval is a responsible choice that we can make today.

[4:26:07] So I will be voting to approve this appeal as proposed.

[4:26:16] Thank you, Tina.

[4:26:21] I understand that by thanking each one of you who came here

[4:26:24] tonight spoke those who have reached out earlier

[4:26:28] and spoken with me I truly hear your concern,

[4:26:32] your concerns about wildfire evacuation,

[4:26:36] emergency access are all serious And I have listened to them

[4:26:43] carefully.

[4:26:46] Those of you who know me know that I don't make

[4:26:51] difficult decisions easily.

[4:26:54] I take them through.

[4:26:56] And this is one of the fairly tough decisions

[4:27:02] that I've had to make sitting on this side.

[4:27:09] My responsive ability is for the public safety.

[4:27:16] My response ability is also for the whole city of saratoga.

[4:27:24] I have no choice but to follow the oath of office.

[4:27:28] I took, which is to uphold the laws of the state of California.

[4:27:35] I have to balance the needs of all the sides.

[4:27:38] Considering all the implications, the financial

[4:27:44] as well as the others You know, this goes against everything

[4:27:54] that I hold dear for Saratoga.

[4:27:58] I was the mayor who made sure we the city did our job on time

[4:28:05] to submit the housing element.

[4:28:07] We submitted it on time Most of you

[4:28:11] have no idea what I faced from residents who are not

[4:28:16] in the hillsides because that council did not

[4:28:20] propose a single opportunity site in the hillsides.

[4:28:26] The concerns were wildfire.

[4:28:29] I do take it seriously It was the state act

[4:28:34] that took 24 months to approve our housing

[4:28:40] element that zero change in opportunity sites, those builder

[4:28:45] remedy projects happened.

[4:28:47] Not because the city was not responsible It

[4:28:54] is very difficult for me to say this doesn't meet

[4:29:00] the general plan but I have to say yes, it's very, very

[4:29:05] difficult. I understand the challenges

[4:29:08] that the city has legally, financially, I

[4:29:12] have to consider the applicant.

[4:29:15] I have to think of all the neighborhoods, all of you who

[4:29:18] have come here to speak and those who have reached out,

[4:29:24] as has been said, the proposal still

[4:29:29] does provide improvements on Peirce Road,

[4:29:34] some critical improvements for the landslide area.

[4:29:37] It's very easy to actually not It's

[4:29:46] it's very difficult to for me to be able to weigh

[4:29:53] the benefits on the risks.

[4:29:55] I actually cannot I will only say I have to comply with

[4:29:59] the law.

[4:30:00] The builders remedy has been imposed on us

[4:30:03] not by somebody sitting in this room,

[4:30:05] but by our state legislature.

[4:30:07] Was do we have we tried to reach out?

[4:30:12] I think everybody has said, starting with our city attorney,

[4:30:15] we have reached out to the state legislators multiple times,

[4:30:20] Do we have objective design standards currently?

[4:30:24] No.

[4:30:25] Do we need them?

[4:30:26] Yes.

[4:30:27] That is why I asked staff a couple of months

[4:30:30] ago to bring us a report to continue

[4:30:32] for an ordinance for the wildland urban interface area

[4:30:35] so that we can set a clear, objective threshold.

[4:30:39] So that if there is an increased evacuation in a situation

[4:30:45] which we find unacceptable impact,

[4:30:48] what are those standards So that something like this

[4:30:52] does not happen again?

[4:30:55] As the mayor asked earlier, is there in the city,

[4:30:58] in the state that has those none.

[4:31:00] So I want to reassure you, it is not

[4:31:05] that we have ignored anything.

[4:31:07] It is the Endless list of state laws

[4:31:10] that have been coming at us.

[4:31:12] I have spoken with our colleagues in other cities.

[4:31:16] I have discussed this at Cities Association

[4:31:21] and I am working with other cities to work on this.

[4:31:23] In fact, several years ago, Saratoga

[4:31:26] did support a statewide ballot initiative

[4:31:30] to limit state control We it did not go too far.

[4:31:35] So I know this is not the outcome any of you residents

[4:31:42] who have come here, you are hoping for.

[4:31:46] And I know how deeply matters to you.

[4:31:51] It is not a decision I am making lately,

[4:31:55] but I have reached this decision based on what I I believe.

[4:32:03] And I understand, the law is the way the law is written and has,

[4:32:12] as has been presented before us tonight.

[4:32:17] So I will be supporting the appeal,

[4:32:21] which is in favor of the project as presented.

[4:32:29] Thank you I think it's all been said

[4:32:34] and I'm going to repeat a few things

[4:32:36] and maybe bring up one thing before I do.

[4:32:38] I just want to say that prior to this meeting.

[4:32:41] I have had conversations with both the President of cran

[4:32:44] and with the developer.

[4:32:46] So in just to make it full disclosure,

[4:32:51] because I figure the more I learn, the better off.

[4:32:54] I am.

[4:32:55] There are some benefits to this project, certainly not the ones

[4:32:58] that we want.

[4:33:00] I don't know how a council could sit up here and try

[4:33:04] to define an objective standard for evacuation time increases.

[4:33:07] As I said before, it's a I'd be hard pressed to say,

[4:33:12] oh 25 seconds is okay.

[4:33:14] So that's only three homes that one get out and 50s is no good.

[4:33:18] I don't think we'd want tens We wouldn't want one second.

[4:33:22] We want to make it better than it is.

[4:33:24] And this project does a little bit of that.

[4:33:28] The Pierce Road will be widened in front

[4:33:30] of the whole frontage of this property

[4:33:33] or of the project area I think that's really important.

[4:33:37] The land movement that has been happening on Pierce Road

[4:33:40] is going to be fixed That's a good thing.

[4:33:44] That helps to protect us from, other closures because

[4:33:47] of other reasons, including fire.

[4:33:50] But at the end of the day, I swore

[4:33:53] this oath and i swore an oath to uphold

[4:33:56] the cost of the state of California,

[4:33:58] no matter how I don't like the laws that are included in it.

[4:34:03] And I but I have to do that.

[4:34:06] And I'm not doing it in lieu of risk or adversity

[4:34:10] to Saratoga residents.

[4:34:12] I think that everyone that I've spoken to,

[4:34:16] everyone that's come forward tonight, I feel your pain

[4:34:19] and it irks me that I have to make this decision But I do.

[4:34:25] And I think that ultimately, we will

[4:34:28] find that we will gather some really great neighbors who

[4:34:31] have Harden homes, which we've done another study that

[4:34:34] says for every home that gets harden,

[4:34:36] three homes don't burn all we've got 25 of them that are harden.

[4:34:40] So there's an area that could very well slow down

[4:34:43] fire and actually protect more of us.

[4:34:46] So we may find that there's some benefits to this.

[4:34:49] I'm especially happy that that we've got a zone zero.

[4:34:52] I mean, we put it into our code an ember free zone

[4:34:56] because Zone zero hadn't been defined.

[4:34:58] And I'm so happy that voluntarily you

[4:35:00] all chose to do that.

[4:35:02] I think that's tremendous.

[4:35:04] And and I think that it's going to be beneficial to us

[4:35:08] all, even if we don't see it.

[4:35:11] But I also will support the staff recommendation which,

[4:35:15] by the way, they did have a discussion with H KD our state

[4:35:20] earlier this week and the state said

[4:35:22] we support the staff recommendation, which

[4:35:24] is a to me, it's a kind of a sideways way

[4:35:28] of saying don't do anything other than that,

[4:35:31] because the worst thing would be that builders remedy can come

[4:35:34] back in 22.

[4:35:35] More projects come into Saratoga and places

[4:35:37] that aren't appropriate.

[4:35:39] So I will be supporting the staff recommendation.

[4:35:42] And again I thank everyone for coming out

[4:35:46] and let's all continue to work together

[4:35:47] to make our hillside safer.

[4:35:49] Let's build Firewise communities and if we ever get to the point

[4:35:53] where a climate resilience district makes

[4:35:55] sense for this city I'd love to see it happen.

[4:35:58] Thank you.

[4:36:00] So now we're looking for a motion.

[4:36:03] Below I'll move to approve the appeal of the Planning

[4:36:09] Commission decision of IPCC 20 6-3.

[4:36:15] Okay Do we have a second one?

[4:36:19] Adopt all resolution as speaker.

[4:36:21] Multiple to adopt all of the resolutions as recommended.

[4:36:25] As recommended by staff.

[4:36:26] Beautiful.

[4:36:27] And the second I second.

[4:36:29] And we have a second.

[4:36:31] I'm sorry, it was a second by Councilmember Fitzsimons.

[4:36:34] Thank you.

[4:36:35] OK All those in favor, please say i i any opposed.

[4:36:41] Any abstentions?

[4:36:42] Motion carries unanimously.

[4:36:43] Thank you.

[4:36:45] All very much.

[4:36:47] Excuse me.

[4:36:55] Where we don't I'm going to do.

[4:37:03] So.

[4:37:03] Yeah I wanted me committee.

[4:37:09] OK.

[4:37:10] So now we go to general business item number

[4:37:16] one, which is the purchase of electrical equipment

[4:37:19] for the Werner Hutton house and the Joan Pisani Community Center

[4:37:22] to support facility.

[4:37:23] Facility electrification.

[4:37:26] Do we have a staff report?

[4:37:27] Would any of the council on would a question?

[4:37:30] Sure.

[4:37:30] Would any councilmembers be open to us deferring some of these

[4:37:33] items for next time, or do you want to keep going ?

[4:37:39] I know some people have early morning flights

[4:37:41] and Yeah, I it's fine.

[4:37:43] Do you think we can?

[4:37:45] I think we can.

[4:37:46] I think we only got I think we can will get through it quick.

[4:37:51] Okay.

[4:37:51] All right.

[4:37:52] One of two.

[4:37:53] All right.

[4:37:54] Good evening and may your patience.

[4:37:56] Make sure Francisco that it's turned on a.

[4:38:03] My name is Francisco Alvarez, and I

[4:38:05] am I am the facilities maintenance manager.

[4:38:09] Tonight, a staff is asking the council to approve 95,100 this

[4:38:14] amount amount doesn't include the cell tax to purchase new

[4:38:18] electrical heating and cooling equipment for from c h

[4:38:22] mechanical for the 1:00 house and US and community center

[4:38:28] in 2025.

[4:38:30] The city received 483,000 ground from telecom Valley clean energy

[4:38:35] transition Essex and gas, electric power equipment with

[4:38:39] new electric power heat pumps.

[4:38:41] This project support the City Climate Action Plan

[4:38:44] and will reduce the city's reliance on natural gas.

[4:38:48] The 100 House We will replace the existing gas,

[4:38:52] electric H-back equipment.

[4:38:54] And we, with a new electric powered heat

[4:38:58] pump at the campus and the community center

[4:39:01] will replace eight gas, electric units with new electric bike

[4:39:06] heat pumps.

[4:39:07] Most of these h-back equipment systems

[4:39:10] are nearing the end of their useful life.

[4:39:15] The grant provides an opportunity

[4:39:17] to replace their equipment while reducing the overall cost

[4:39:20] to the city to lower the total project costs serious staff.

[4:39:24] We propose purchase the equipment directly

[4:39:27] and conduct a separate competitive bid

[4:39:30] for the installation work.

[4:39:34] The Civic Center Theater Heating System

[4:39:36] is also included in their overall electrification project.

[4:39:39] However, because the system is more complex,

[4:39:43] a staff will evaluate design and engineering options

[4:39:47] and will return to the City Council with it

[4:39:49] as a separate proposal.

[4:39:52] If approved tonight, a staff plans

[4:39:54] to purchase the equipment in October.

[4:39:57] We deliver delivery anticipated in December Construction

[4:40:01] is expected to begin next year.

[4:40:03] The staff recommend that the city council approve

[4:40:05] the purchase of the equipment from CRH Mechanical

[4:40:08] and the amount of 95,100.

[4:40:12] Again, this amount does not include the sale tax.

[4:40:15] Thank you.

[4:40:16] And I'm available to answer any questions Do

[4:40:21] you have any questions?

[4:40:24] I just I just have one question.

[4:40:26] I know this wasn't in our budget, so where's the money?

[4:40:29] Where is it come from?

[4:40:31] I thought we usually got a report that showed what fun.

[4:40:34] The money's coming out of and going into something.

[4:40:37] Anybody can answer that ryan may be able to.

[4:40:47] The total the 493 K for this project

[4:40:50] is included in our budget.

[4:40:52] It was oh that's right.

[4:40:54] It was it was a last job at that at the end.

[4:40:57] And the 95 is that just to where's the 90.

[4:41:00] Whatever it was.

[4:41:01] Is that a component of the 493.

[4:41:03] Yes.

[4:41:04] So the 95,100 would be reimbursed from those 983,000.

[4:41:11] So it'll be reimbursed.

[4:41:12] Yes.

[4:41:13] So it's just an upfront payment before we get that.

[4:41:15] Perfect.

[4:41:15] Yeah.

[4:41:16] That would come from 493,000.

[4:41:18] Excellent.

[4:41:19] Thank you.

[4:41:20] Okay Thank you very much.

[4:41:22] Is there any public comment?

[4:41:25] I don't see anybody in the chambers here.

[4:41:28] Anybody on line who would like to address the city

[4:41:32] council on this item.

[4:41:33] Now is a time to raise your hand.

[4:41:39] Nice.

[4:41:39] You know, hands raised.

[4:41:40] All right.

[4:41:41] Thank you So I'll bring it back to council.

[4:41:44] Maybe I like to make a motion or have a discussion.

[4:41:47] I'd like to make a motion to move staff recommendation.

[4:41:50] OK Do we have a second?

[4:41:53] Second, we have a motion and a second.

[4:41:55] Second.

[4:41:56] All in favor.

[4:41:57] Please say I. I and the opposed.

[4:41:59] None.

[4:42:00] Opposed any abstentions None of those.

[4:42:03] So passes unanimously.

[4:42:04] Thank you.

[4:42:05] OK.

[4:42:06] Item 3.2 Designation of League of California Cities Annual

[4:42:09] Conference Voting Delegate and alternates Mayor.

[4:42:13] Yes.

[4:42:14] Oh, well, go ahead.

[4:42:16] I was ready to make a motion.

[4:42:17] Oh.

[4:42:18] Oh, well, a little bit of stuff.

[4:42:19] Hey, I just wanted to say the item before you is, as you know,

[4:42:24] the annual conference is taking place in Anaheim,

[4:42:27] September 23 through the 25th.

[4:42:29] And the city council needs to designate a voting delegate as

[4:42:33] well as up to two alternates and that is a very brief staff

[4:42:41] report All right.

[4:42:43] Thank you.

[4:42:44] Yeah.

[4:42:45] Oh.

[4:42:47] Oh, I'm sorry.

[4:42:48] Yes.

[4:42:48] Is there anyone.

[4:42:49] Oh, Any questions of staff ahead Who's attending?

[4:42:54] Well, first, what I think all every member of the council,

[4:43:00] it is my understanding that all council is attending this year.

[4:43:04] I do know, I do have a comment about that.

[4:43:07] So with that, be in the comment period, then after that,

[4:43:11] none the questions.

[4:43:12] OK.

[4:43:13] Any other questions of staff?

[4:43:14] OK.

[4:43:15] We'll open the public comment period.

[4:43:17] If there's anyone that would like to speak on this item.

[4:43:20] Now would be the time to either raise your virtual hand

[4:43:24] or reach down to the podium.

[4:43:27] Seeing no one racing and no hands raised on line

[4:43:31] confirm that for it.

[4:43:32] Nobody's on there.

[4:43:33] No hands raised.

[4:43:34] Thank you.

[4:43:35] We'll close the public comment period

[4:43:36] and bring it back to council for discussion or a motion.

[4:43:42] I have a comment Go ahead.

[4:43:47] So attending this conference is the choice

[4:43:50] of each council member.

[4:43:51] If they will attend or not.

[4:43:55] Cheuk Yan and Belal have less than three months left

[4:43:58] on their terms after this conference If I was working

[4:44:04] at an organization and knowing that I would be leaving the job

[4:44:08] and leaving the organization in less than three months,

[4:44:11] I would not ask the organization to pay for the $1,500

[4:44:14] conference.

[4:44:15] It doesn't seem right.

[4:44:16] The organization in this case, the city,

[4:44:19] should be paying the $1,500 bill.

[4:44:21] But it's the choice of each council member

[4:44:24] whether they will attend the conference or not.

[4:44:26] And have the city pay for it or not.

[4:44:29] Thanks.

[4:44:36] To the comments.

[4:44:40] Sure.

[4:44:40] I'll just provide comment on that.

[4:44:42] I understand or appreciate that perspective

[4:44:45] I have found the conference to be incredibly valuable in terms

[4:44:48] of just like learning coming back

[4:44:50] and then sharing those learnings with staff, with other council

[4:44:52] members, with residents as well.

[4:44:55] And so I actually think that sort of like

[4:44:57] given I know I'm throwing off, I want

[4:44:59] to go and make the most of it and try

[4:45:00] to come back with as many learnings as possible

[4:45:02] to share it.

[4:45:03] So that's really how I think about it.

[4:45:05] But I can understand and appreciate

[4:45:07] there are different perspectives on that.

[4:45:09] Thank you.

[4:45:09] Below.

[4:45:10] Yeah.

[4:45:11] Anything?

[4:45:12] Sure.

[4:45:12] I'll show Mary Common on this link of California City's

[4:45:18] annual conference for all existing council members.

[4:45:23] So it didn't say for future council members.

[4:45:26] So I feel even though we only have three months left,

[4:45:30] but I put my heart and soul for serving our community,

[4:45:34] I feel it's very always if there's a new legal update,

[4:45:41] I would like to learn, I would definitely

[4:45:44] think it's very helpful for me to doing my job.

[4:45:48] And I'm actually ready to make a motion.

[4:45:51] If you if you want to make a comment.

[4:45:54] OK, go ahead.

[4:45:56] I just like to say that some of us

[4:45:59] have served on Policy Advisory committees.

[4:46:01] I know again, as I have for I think 11 of the 12 years

[4:46:06] I've been on council, we have met a lot of people,

[4:46:09] learned a lot of things, and many of us

[4:46:11] stay active in public service and some either as

[4:46:15] a community member that comes forward

[4:46:17] and the things we learn at these conferences

[4:46:20] can carry us forward with that.

[4:46:22] Also related to council policy, we

[4:46:25] do have a policy related to how much is allocated for travel

[4:46:30] and expenses for each of us each year,

[4:46:32] and that is our determination to make.

[4:46:34] There's a time and place to change that policy,

[4:46:36] and I recommend that if a councilmember would

[4:46:38] like to change it, that they bring it up as a council item

[4:46:42] and have it considered later.

[4:46:43] Some of us have gone to this conference many, many years.

[4:46:47] And participated in in policy advisory committee meetings

[4:46:49] in Southern California and in Northern California.

[4:46:53] And we've never been put in an expense report

[4:46:56] to have my reimbursement for the air travel

[4:47:00] or the car drive or anything else.

[4:47:03] So I just think that people should keep that in mind.

[4:47:06] Thank you.

[4:47:07] So no emotion.

[4:47:08] Anyone from this motion.

[4:47:13] I move to I'd like to move to designate our mayor as a voting

[4:47:20] delegate and we need to up to two vice mayor as an alternate.

[4:47:28] And I don't know allow you want to be the okay so we're just to.

[4:47:34] That's what should be good enough

[4:47:36] okay the second i'll second okay we have a motion in a second.

[4:47:41] Second.

[4:47:42] All in favor, please say I, I any opposed.

[4:47:46] Any abstentions Oppose opposed.

[4:47:51] So we have for one vote.

[4:47:54] Thank you.

[4:47:57] Okay.

[4:47:58] Next up is the annual code update for 2026.

[4:48:01] Mr. City Attorney.

[4:48:03] So?

[4:48:03] So I'll need to recuse myself for Will in a moment, but.

[4:48:09] OK.

[4:48:10] Let me.

[4:48:11] Please.

[4:48:12] And I'll and I'll explain what's happening.

[4:48:16] So this item is the annual code update.

[4:48:21] And tonight, all you are doing is

[4:48:23] approving, giving us direction to bring forward

[4:48:26] these code amendments.

[4:48:29] You are not approving them.

[4:48:30] Nothing in the code is changing as a result

[4:48:32] of what you do tonight.

[4:48:34] You will be telling us.

[4:48:35] Yes, we think these are good things to bring forward.

[4:48:38] The ones that affect the zoning code

[4:48:40] We will take to the Planning Commission

[4:48:42] and there will be a public hearing at the Planning

[4:48:44] Commission and it will be there.

[4:48:47] So I say all this tonight You should definitely tell us

[4:48:51] if there are things on here that you think

[4:48:52] are controversial and should not be included and proceed

[4:48:56] on a separate track.

[4:48:57] Tell us.

[4:48:58] But you are not committing to vote yes

[4:49:01] on what we bring forward.

[4:49:02] So that's the overall that I want everyone to hear.

[4:49:07] One of these items creates the possibility

[4:49:10] of a conflict of interest for a commissioner for Councilmember

[4:49:13] Fitzsimons.

[4:49:15] It concerns the designation of the village zoning boundary

[4:49:20] So she has indicated that she's going to recuse.

[4:49:23] When you when somebody when a councilmember has

[4:49:25] a conflict on part, they leave.

[4:49:27] We discuss that part.

[4:49:28] And then they can come back in and discuss all the other items

[4:49:32] with you.

[4:49:33] OK.

[4:49:34] So don't go far And so we're going

[4:49:44] to be talking about item 21, right

[4:50:01] And so this item will get more attention than it

[4:50:03] would otherwise, because I'm not going

[4:50:04] to talk about each of them.

[4:50:05] I will answer questions of you all.

[4:50:07] But this item, we flagged this when we brought forward

[4:50:11] the village design standards at the last minute,

[4:50:16] we realized that there was a parcel that was cut in half

[4:50:20] and so part of the parcel is in.

[4:50:24] And part of the parcel was out and we have now

[4:50:27] looked into that further and confirmed

[4:50:29] that that is indeed the case.

[4:50:31] And our proposing based on the characteristics of the parcel

[4:50:35] that it be taken out and Cindy can say more Yes.

[4:50:46] To this, according to this is this building

[4:50:49] was developed in 1950 before the village design guidelines were

[4:50:54] created.

[4:50:57] It's two residential units.

[4:50:59] It's there's no commercial on this property.

[4:51:01] It's been that way for at least 30 years.

[4:51:03] And the property owner would like

[4:51:05] to be taken out of the boundary.

[4:51:07] It's I do have a visual, but it's basically a two properties

[4:51:13] in from Big basin.

[4:51:15] And so if you're looking at the property,

[4:51:18] you have resident X to the left and behind you

[4:51:23] and then all, you know, all up and down oak

[4:51:26] and then to the right, you have another residential unit

[4:51:29] and then to the right of that, you

[4:51:32] have a couple of small boutique commercial units

[4:51:34] and then you have big basin.

[4:51:35] We are happy to answer any questions that you have.

[4:51:39] So, Cindy, is it on this?

[4:51:42] You have a visual maybe that would help me.

[4:51:44] Sorry Yeah, I thought I knew where it was.

[4:51:47] And now I have lost.

[4:51:49] That could be the hour, too OK, so it's the one that's

[4:52:03] highlighted in red.

[4:52:05] Big basin way is that at the top of this screen?

[4:52:09] That's Fifth Street.

[4:52:11] So those two that are highlighted and rather

[4:52:13] the residential units And then if you go up the map,

[4:52:17] you have another residential unit and then you continue going

[4:52:21] towards the big basin, you have commercial and then all along

[4:52:26] kind of the middle of the map is residential uses room 3,000

[4:52:30] and it's a zoning for that So that's Fifth Street.

[4:52:39] So yeah, so is the area behind 14 572.

[4:52:44] That's One of our district parking lots.

[4:52:48] Yes.

[4:52:49] And 1455 72 is probably Darla close or no Fifth Street

[4:52:58] So you have this is.

[4:52:59] Yeah.

[4:53:00] Big basin here.

[4:53:01] You have commercial.

[4:53:02] Commercial.

[4:53:03] So this is in the boundary.

[4:53:06] This is actually residential and it's actually zoned R on 3,000.

[4:53:09] And then these are all are on 3,000.

[4:53:11] And then if you continue going up,

[4:53:13] it's R and 3,000 and I have another visual and that is

[4:53:17] Gala's 14 5.

[4:53:18] So yes, that's what I thought.

[4:53:21] Thank you.

[4:53:22] Yeah, I got it Okay.

[4:53:30] So this was the original guidelines

[4:53:34] before they were updated in 2019.

[4:53:36] And you can see the parcel here.

[4:53:38] And then in 2019, we added some new parcels into the boundary

[4:53:46] and then this is where it looks like they tried

[4:53:49] to make a nice pretty straight line

[4:53:51] and they actually cut the property in half.

[4:53:54] So half the properties in the boundary and half

[4:53:56] is not within the boundary.

[4:53:57] And so you can just kind of see that here.

[4:54:00] And you can see the parking district.

[4:54:02] I mean, the village.

[4:54:04] I'm not in the village okay?

[4:54:08] That's way clearer.

[4:54:09] Thank you All right.

[4:54:13] Yes.

[4:54:15] So did the property owners ask you

[4:54:20] to remove them or is that something you want to clean up?

[4:54:25] The the property owners contacted us to notify us

[4:54:29] of this discrepancy.

[4:54:30] So that they're half and half out.

[4:54:33] And then we put the we made it known

[4:54:36] at that when we adopted the village design

[4:54:38] standards that this would be coming back to you.

[4:54:41] And subsequent conversations with the property owners

[4:54:43] that they want to be taken out of the boundary

[4:54:46] because they are resident uses.

[4:54:48] So what is our zoning?

[4:54:50] So the zoning is CH1 stage one.

[4:54:53] OK.

[4:54:54] Thank you.

[4:54:55] And the zoning will become it doesn't have to change.

[4:55:00] So it could be changed to armed 3,000 to be consistent with

[4:55:03] what's happening adjacent.

[4:55:05] But it doesn't have to change.

[4:55:07] It is a nonconforming use and our non conforming ordinance

[4:55:10] allows it to remain okay.

[4:55:12] And what does it changing and what does

[4:55:15] it allow them to do by right.

[4:55:17] So basically, they would not be if so

[4:55:20] if they wanted to demolish the residential unit

[4:55:23] and rebuild something there.

[4:55:25] If they're in the boundary, they need

[4:55:27] to comply with the village design standard OK.

[4:55:33] Yes.

[4:55:34] Tina, So sorry.

[4:55:36] Let our if not our room three, what else?

[4:55:41] Because I'm understanding they want

[4:55:43] to be out of the village or that sort of the way it's going.

[4:55:46] I'm open to whatever makes sense.

[4:55:49] Just trying to understand because it's half here.

[4:55:51] Half there it is.

[4:55:52] It is zoned CH1.

[4:55:54] So you could, you could actually keep it in the boundary

[4:56:00] And if it does get demolished, then it

[4:56:03] would be subject to the village design standards.

[4:56:05] It's already zoned C each one half of it to see each one.

[4:56:08] Yes, ma'am.

[4:56:09] What's the other half?

[4:56:10] No, no.

[4:56:11] The property is zoned C each one.

[4:56:13] But the boundary is split.

[4:56:16] I think they just wanted to make a nice little straight line

[4:56:18] and they didn't really consider that there

[4:56:20] was an actual parcel there.

[4:56:24] So the property split, which means the parcel

[4:56:27] is in two zones.

[4:56:28] No, the parcels in one zone, the village line

[4:56:33] is going basically it just drew a line

[4:56:35] in the middle of the property, didn't

[4:56:37] think about going to the around the property boundary.

[4:56:40] They just drew a nice straight line

[4:56:43] to make the map look straight.

[4:56:45] Oh, I see.

[4:56:46] OK.

[4:56:46] Okay.

[4:56:47] As such, the property is in the village,

[4:56:50] but the line is not so either.

[4:56:52] We clean up the map essentially for the village map,

[4:56:56] or we remove the whole parcel out of the village.

[4:57:00] Map is that borders.

[4:57:01] So the parcel We should clean up the boundary

[4:57:04] map whether we're going to keep it in the village boundary

[4:57:07] or not.

[4:57:08] It needs to be cleaned up.

[4:57:10] OK.

[4:57:10] Thank you I'm comfortable proceeding.

[4:57:13] Do you need to motion for that?

[4:57:15] For sure.

[4:57:16] Go to any discussion on.

[4:57:18] Yes, I need a motion on this one item.

[4:57:20] So that when Councilmember Fitzsimons comes back this

[4:57:23] is resolved.

[4:57:24] A question.

[4:57:25] Does this have to be annual code update or does

[4:57:28] that you could say this is too controversial.

[4:57:31] We want it handled separately.

[4:57:33] And that's fine.

[4:57:34] The one thing I'll say is, again, you

[4:57:38] will have the opportunity to discuss it.

[4:57:40] And part of our goal is with the annual code

[4:57:44] update is every time we do an ordinance separately,

[4:57:48] it takes more time.

[4:57:49] And staff is doing a separate staff report There's

[4:57:54] a separate public hearing.

[4:57:56] There's notice that the separate public hearing.

[4:57:59] So we just leave it at that.

[4:58:02] Thank you.

[4:58:04] OK Motion.

[4:58:05] I thought I made one.

[4:58:07] And to approve the staff recommendation,

[4:58:09] you moved to approve public comment?

[4:58:10] Oh, I'm sorry.

[4:58:12] I apologize if there's any member of the public who'd

[4:58:15] like to speak on this item.

[4:58:17] Now, it'd be a great time to come down to the podium

[4:58:21] or raise your virtual hand.

[4:58:22] See?

[4:58:23] No virtual hands and no one in the chambers

[4:58:25] will close the public comment.

[4:58:27] Period.

[4:58:27] Why am I like that thing?

[4:58:29] Oh, we had a lot of public comment, which was good OK,

[4:58:34] so we've got a motion.

[4:58:35] Oh no, we've got a motion coming and we've

[4:58:38] got a I'll move to approve the staff

[4:58:40] recommendation on item 21 of the village of the code update.

[4:58:43] Second.

[4:58:44] And we got a motion and a second.

[4:58:46] I just like to say I hope that when this is considered

[4:58:48] by the Planning Commission, they consider

[4:58:50] the ramifications of this change because there

[4:58:53] could be some changes to the way a building is developed.

[4:58:56] And what it looks like.

[4:58:57] And it's really close to our village.

[4:59:00] I just say leave it at that.

[4:59:02] And hopefully they take care of the rest.

[4:59:04] All those in favor please say I, I opposed and no one abstains.

[4:59:10] We're good to go.

[4:59:11] Thank you.

[4:59:12] Motion carries unanimously.

[4:59:15] Come on down so as to the rest of the items,

[4:59:26] I am not going to go through them one by one.

[4:59:28] But if you have questions, I am happy to answer them.

[4:59:31] Tina, Question for number.

[4:59:35] I believe it's Five for or under that same advisory agency

[4:59:41] for subdivision approval.

[4:59:44] Yeah.

[4:59:45] There the amendment would authorize the community

[4:59:48] development Director to approve tentative maps and parcel

[4:59:52] maps of four parcels off your resistance.

[4:59:55] I can understand the need, but this one.

[4:59:58] I'm just wondering if this should be discussed separately.

[5:00:01] It's a slightly larger issue.

[5:00:03] This is not a clean up.

[5:00:05] Think this is versus the one that we discussed a few minutes.

[5:00:08] It is up.

[5:00:09] It is up.

[5:00:11] Excuse me.

[5:00:11] It is up to council.

[5:00:12] My thinking in presenting it to you as cleanup

[5:00:17] is that it does not take away any of the existing process.

[5:00:21] If there is public concern because all the noticing is

[5:00:26] the same It's the community development director would

[5:00:30] basically have a hearing just the way

[5:00:32] the planning commission has a hearing would make the decision.

[5:00:36] And then the community development director's decision

[5:00:38] could be appealed to the city council

[5:00:40] or to the planning Commission and then to the city Council.

[5:00:43] So if there was a project there where

[5:00:46] there was community concern.

[5:00:47] And they didn't like what staff did,

[5:00:50] it would go to the Planning Commission

[5:00:52] just as it would today.

[5:00:54] But if it's noncontroversial, it wouldn't

[5:00:56] go to the Planning Commission.

[5:00:58] So follow up question.

[5:00:59] Yes So this one says only appeal to the planning Commission,

[5:01:03] but you're saying it can be further done

[5:01:05] the way our code is structured, it would go on further.

[5:01:09] Yes.

[5:01:09] OK.

[5:01:10] Then that saves time and simplifies

[5:01:11] the process, streamlines the process.

[5:01:13] And if one person makes a decision that people disagree,

[5:01:17] then they go through seven member PC and five members.

[5:01:20] Okay, great Thanks.

[5:01:24] I had a question.

[5:01:27] This isn't listed here, but there's

[5:01:29] a lot of conversation these days about data centers

[5:01:33] with where in our code are zones where the data is be eligible

[5:01:37] for, for example, you know, industrial commercial if that's

[5:01:43] a big question to answer on the fly,

[5:01:47] our code says that if our code does not permit something,

[5:01:51] it is not allowed So you have to explicitly name the use for it

[5:01:55] to be allowed.

[5:01:57] So a data center, well what would happen?

[5:02:03] There wouldn't be any lawyer involved.

[5:02:05] The data center would ask I to look at our code

[5:02:08] and say, how can I build a data center there?

[5:02:12] And then they would apply.

[5:02:14] And we spend a lot of time.

[5:02:16] And then they'd hire a lawyer and a lawyer would

[5:02:19] say, What were you thinking?

[5:02:21] That's just a little editorial.

[5:02:22] But so my guess is that they would not

[5:02:25] be allowed in Saratoga.

[5:02:27] But I can look into it more closely

[5:02:30] and let you know offline if I thought

[5:02:32] residents are open to it.

[5:02:33] For a fellow council member is open to us explicitly

[5:02:36] looking into what a provision would look like for not having

[5:02:38] data centers that's separate.

[5:02:39] That is that, you know, it's a separate

[5:02:41] and but we can add things right to the you

[5:02:44] can add things I would say that's goes

[5:02:46] beyond noncontroversial.

[5:02:47] OK all right there for sure.

[5:02:49] Okay.

[5:02:50] OK.

[5:02:50] All right.

[5:02:51] They're happy to drop that thing for not for this.

[5:02:54] Gotcha.

[5:02:55] OK.

[5:02:55] Any other questions of staff?

[5:02:57] OK.

[5:02:58] I'll open the public comment period

[5:02:59] and ask any member of the public that's

[5:03:02] here in chambers to come on down or if you're watching us

[5:03:05] remotely or on your telephone, please

[5:03:07] raise your virtual hand or press star, whatever.

[5:03:12] So no one will close the public comment period

[5:03:15] and bring it back to council for motion or comments on a motion.

[5:03:20] I support staff recommend motion.

[5:03:23] Is that a motion Yeah, I think that was a motion.

[5:03:27] A motion framed as well.

[5:03:30] How are we?

[5:03:30] We want motion the second.

[5:03:33] All in favor, please say i I any oppose any abstentions motion

[5:03:39] carries unanimously.

[5:03:41] Thank you.

[5:03:44] Next up is council assignments and below.

[5:03:48] And we start with you.

[5:03:50] And I have nothing to report.

[5:03:52] All right?

[5:03:53] Yeah, I have two meeting to report

[5:03:56] First one is the VTA Policy Advisory meeting.

[5:04:03] You know what?

[5:04:03] I don't think I have anything to report on that one.

[5:04:07] The second one I attended it as late

[5:04:12] as West Valley Sanitation District for the direct meeting.

[5:04:18] And i can report that I don't think I have

[5:04:21] anything important to report.

[5:04:22] All right, great.

[5:04:24] Thank you.

[5:04:24] Nothing new to report, right, Tina?

[5:04:27] 3 meetings.

[5:04:28] Okay Sorry.

[5:04:30] 3 meetings to report.

[5:04:31] Citizen Association of Santa Clara County.

[5:04:34] The executive committee meeting July 30.

[5:04:36] Nothing to report there.

[5:04:38] The legislative action Committee meeting on August 13.

[5:04:42] We discussed some bills and recommended them

[5:04:44] to the board meeting that night.

[5:04:47] The third meeting is the city's Association

[5:04:50] of Santa Clara County Board meeting on August 13.

[5:04:53] And good news, we have a new interim executive director.

[5:04:58] The name is Pamela Root Secondly,

[5:05:01] the I had a study session on e-bikes

[5:05:05] that has been an issue in multiple cities in the county.

[5:05:08] And thirdly we had a guest presenting motion

City Council

Agenda

Transcript