City Council - Regular Meeting

Alright. We're all typing away. Good evening everyone and welcome to the Saratoga City Council meeting of 01/21/2026. I'd like to call the meeting to order and advise everyone that this meeting is being recorded. So anybody that is on stage or speaks, your image and your likeness and whatever you have to say will be on the Saratoga website forever.

I'm serious, forever. So, anybody that's up here, you know, when you're 30 years older and you want to see what you look like, you got a place to go. So tonight we have a special group in the audience. I'd like to invite the six girl scouts, I think there's six, I didn't count, who received the silver awards to please join me on stage for the pledge of allegiance.

Please rise, remove all hats, and put your right hand over your heart.

And then we turn and face the we gotta face the flag.

I pledge allegiance

to the flag

The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, Thank you girls for leading the pledge. Tonight, we'd like to honor our 27 local girl scouts who have received the bronze and silver awards for their commitment and leadership to strengthen our community through volunteer service. So, would you guys, would you girls in the audience please rise so everybody can recognize you? The juniors who have earned the bronze award, they team up with other girl scouts to make a difference in their communities. And so, can I have all the bronze award winners raise your hands, turn and smile at the camera, smile at the audience?

Smile your moms and dads. And cadets earned the silver award. They they've researched an issue, making a plan to address it, and then taking action to improve their communities. Girls, please let everybody know who you are. And let's give them all a big round of applause.

Thank you and congratulations to all of the girl scouts. Please, one of our staff members has your certificates that my hand is cramped from writing so many. But, congratulations to all of you and thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it. So thanks a lot.

I think you guys are gonna unless you wanna stay.

It's a

pretty exciting meeting. I'd like to proceed with our meeting. So Britt, can you please proceed with the roll call?

Pursuant to Saratoga City Council's remote public participation policy, members of the public may participate in this meeting in person at the location listed on the agenda or via remote attendance using the Zoom information listed on the agenda. Public attendees participating by Zoom are automatically muted and are not viewable on camera. I will now call the roll. Council member Aftab?

Present.

Fitzsimmons? Present. Zhao? Present.

Vice mayor Walia? Present. Mayor Page? Present.

We have a quorum and the agenda was posted on January 15.

Thank you very much. I'll do it Richard. Guess it's pretty written out here for me so I can do this. So, we had a couple of closed sessions and I have a report from those closed sessions. On January 9, we had a closed session and the city council voted unanimously to appoint Leslie Arroyo, who has been our assistant city manager, as acting city manager beginning January 31.

She has subsequently accepted and on January 15, we held another closed session with no reportable action. Next we have oral communications on non agendized items. This is an opportunity for in person meeting attendees to discuss any matter that is not listed on the agenda. The City Council is generally prohibited from discussing or taking action on non agendized items. But the Council may instruct staff accordingly. Rick, can you please explain the public comment process and announce the first speaker?

If you would like to address the City Council on non agendized matter, please submit a speaker slip or approach the podium and state your name if you wish. Speakers are limited to three minutes each. The yellow light comes on the podium when you have thirty seconds left. And the red light comes on when your time is up. Mayor, I see no speakers.

All right. We see no one racing to the front of the room. Okay. That's great. At this point, I'd like to share a few announcements with the public.

It'll come up in a second. The city of Saratoga will host a free community seminar on evacuation preparedness on Wednesday, February 25. From 5PM to about 08:30 in the Joan Pisani Community Theater. This event will bring together emergency response leaders from local agencies, have resource tables, and emergency response leaders from local agencies. This will give you some practical guidance to help residents plan for and stay safe in the event of an evacuation.

We encourage everyone to attend and take advantage of this opportunity to learn from the experts. Ahead of the seminar, community members can visit the city's website to share topics or questions they'd like addressed so that the presentations are as helpful and as relevant as possible. For more information and to register, please visit saratoga.ca.us/evacuationpreparedness. A Let's Work volunteer event. The city of Saratoga's Parks and Rec Commission invites community members to take part in our annual Let's Work Winter Volunteer Program at Quarry Park.

The next work day is Saturday, February 14. So right before you go out for that Valentine's dinner, you can come get nice and sweaty and help us in the park. This is a great opportunity to help preserve our natural environment by removing non native invasive plants while enjoying the beauty of Quarry Park. Volunteers aged 15 and older may participate independently, while youths between the age of 10 to 14 are welcome with an accompanying adult. Registration closes three days before each work day or once they're full, so sign up early.

Learn more and register at saratoga.volunteerlocal.com. And SASE, which is their senior group, in response to the rise in fraud targeting older adults, I guess I must be an older adult because I keep getting phone calls. Anybody else getting How many getting spam calls? Like incessantly. It's crazy.

So, there's a lot of these out there. And we're gonna have a seminar that SASE is putting on this Stop Scams Against Seniors seminar in partnership with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department and the senior adults legal assistance. So join us and them on Wednesday, February 18 from 12:30 to 01:30PM at the Saratoga Senior Center in the S. Coo Hall to learn how to recognize common scams, protect yourself and your loved ones, and know where to get help if you've been targeted. Are there any council members that would like to share an announcement?

Seeing none, we'll move to our consent calendar. The consent calendar is typically items of Well, they're important but they're typically not very controversial. So, we typically would vote for them in one motion unless removed by the mayor or council member. Before we get to the motion and anything, I'd like to ask if any member of the public would like to speak on any item in our consent calendar tonight. Britt, why don't you, I know public speakers are limited to three minutes. Britt, can you please explain the process and invite our first speaker.

If you would like to address the city council on the consent calendar and you're attending the meeting in person, now is the time to approach the podium. If you're attending via Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand.

Anybody? Looks

like we have one member of the pod, nope. Mayor, if you would like to approach the podium, you

can You wanna come up and.

This is on the consent calendar?

I don't know what the consent calendar includes.

Okay. It's on the agenda.

What were you here

to You're here for the short term rentals, right? Not right now.

Yes. It'll be in a bit.

Okay. Mayor, I see no speakers.

Okay. I'm just looking through to make sure that I know what we're talking about here. Okay. So I know that Vice Mayor Wally has something to say.

Thank you, Mayor. I would like to recuse from item number 1.3. It is within 500 feet of my residence. And this is for the location of 13035 Reagan Lane. Thank you. Do you want me to leave the room or?

For the consent calendar, as long as you disclose it, it is, and when the court records the vote, she will note that you have recused. That the Public Political Reform Act allows you to be in the room for items on the consent calendar.

Okay. So I'll say this right now, Britt. When I vote for the consent, I'm recused on 1.3, Reagan Lane. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have anybody that would like to pull an item? Anybody would like to make a motion?

Yes, Cook, this first.

Move to approve consent calendar items 1.1 to 1.5.

Okay. Second. The second by council member Avtab. Vice Mayor Walia is recused. All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstentions? One recusation. How's that for a new word? I think I just made it up.

Okay. So thank you very much. Let's see what's next here. Okay. So our next agenda item is business item number one. We have a staff report please.

Sure. Good evening mayor, vice mayor and council members. I'm Leslie Arroyo, your assistant city manager. Our sheriff's office contracts for Saratoga, Cupertino and Los Altos Hills expire at the June 2026. Since basically mid-twenty twenty five, staff have been working with the sheriff's office representatives on a new agreement and negotiations continue.

Because the sheriff's service delivery model covers all three cities, staff believe now is the time to form an ad hoc advisory committee made up of one council member from each city. We believe that it would be helpful to provide coordinated real time insight on community needs and priorities as terms develop. The ad hoc's role would be to review negotiation updates, data, and draft contract terms provided by staff and offer input to the city managers to help advance the negotiations. Topics may include service levels, overhead costs, performance metrics, and other key contract provisions. Staff anticipates several meetings beginning in February 2026, weekly or biweekly as needed, continuing through the completion of negotiations.

The committee would meet with staff and as needed consultants and legal counsel. The council member representative and the city manager would provide updates to the full council during regular city council meetings. Tonight I'm asking the council to appoint a member to this ad hoc committee. This concludes my staff report, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Anybody have any questions? Vice Mayor?

Thank you. Quick question. Am I correct in understanding that Los Altos Hills and Cupertino have or are in the process of appointing their respective mayors to the ad hoc committee.

Correct. Los Altos Hills has already appointed their mayor. And Cupertino is meeting tonight. And it is my understanding that they're going be appointing their mayor as well.

Okay. I'm glad they made that choice. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. We'll open this to public comment. So if there are any, if there are members of the public that would like to speak on this item, now is the time to come forward. And Britta, if you wouldn't mind explaining the rest of the process that I didn't get to.

If you

would like to address the City Council on this item. You're attending the meeting in person. Now is the time to approach the podium. If you're attending via Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand. Mayor, I see no speakers.

Okay. Seeing none, I'd like to open it up for council comments or motion.

Thank you, Mayor. I would like to propose that our mayor Chuck Page be the one to represent the city of Saratoga. It is the right thing to do. And simple motion.

Is that a motion?

Yeah, yeah. That's a motion. I'd like to propose a move to. I Thank second.

Any further discussion?

I'm very supportive.

Thanks a lot. They wear guns, some of these people. Okay. Let's call for the vote. So all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay. Well, thank you very much. I will work in our best interest as I always do. Okay. Next up on our agenda is a resolution updating unrepresented employees compensation in terms of employment. I am going to recuse myself from this. And I believe because it's a general item, I do have to leave the room. So, vice mayor, if you wouldn't mind handling this and then somebody wave at me or come and knock on the door.

Sure. Okay. I'll wait for you to get your few steps before we get moving. Who's going to give us the staff report on this one? Is this Richard's?

This will be mine.

Oh, okay. Great. I think Chuck is almost out of the room. So maybe have the staff report, please, Matt.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. The city of Saratoga has two represented bargaining units and one unrepresented unit. Unrepresented unit, typically align with the negotiated deals out of the other two units. We completed that process of negotiations at the end of last calendar year, and this is an opportunity to fall back and align the unrepresented group with the represented groups. With that, there are three areas that are out of alignment.

One is a $500 one time lump sum payment to the members. The second is increasing the in lieu payment opportunity from $400 to $600 for those who take participate in that. And then the third is increasing the city's contribution to medical premiums from approximately 89% to 92%, which will take effect in February. These simply align with either SEA or the Carpenters Union as they represented groups. And with that, that concludes our report. And we're here for questions.

Thank you, Matt. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, I am going to open for a public comment. Britt, can you help us with that, please?

Sure. If you would like to address the city council on this item and you're attending the meeting in person, now is the time to approach the podium. If you're attending via Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand. I see no speakers.

Thank you, Britt. With that, I close public comment period and bring it back to counsel. Any thoughts or motion? I see Council Member Aftah.

Thank you for bringing this. I move to approve the resolution and adopt the resolution updating the compensation in terms of employment for unrepresented employees.

I'll second that. Thank you. Seconded by Council Member Zhao. Any other comments? Seeing none, let's call the vote. Britt.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That passes unanimously with Mayor Page recused.

Thank you. With that, we are going to wait for Mayor Page to come back into the room and take control of the meeting again.

Alrighty, I trust that went well?

Yes, we all behaved Chuck.

Oh my goodness gracious, that's good. Okay, next up we have, what do we have? Oh, council compensation I think. Or is it I think we're Yes. Council compensation. So Matt, are you doing

this one? Alright.

So in June 2025, two council members asked for an item to be brought forward to council on council compensation to discuss how the city council in Saratoga is compensated. We've provided a report that provides information on the state law and what the state allows for compensation for councils in various cities. We've also provided some analysis of adjacent cities and what the compensation is for those, as well as options for the council to consider in the discussion. With that, I'll stop the staff report and be available for questions.

Okay. Any questions of staff? Seeing none, let's move to public comment. Britt, thanks for taking this over.

If you'd like to address the city council on this item, you're attending the meeting in person. Now is the time to approach the podium. If you're attending via Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand. Mayor, I see now speakers.

Okay. So I'll bring it back to the council for discussion and or motion.

Balal? Yeah, let's kick off the discussion. I guess I recognize that this was last changed I think in the early nineties, is my understanding. And so it's been quite some time since then. Taking a look at some of the comps of the comparable cities that are in our size range, we are sort of at less than you know, around a third to half of each of the cities that are within our range.

And so on the one hand I feel like I can so there's a few things. There's like compensation in terms of cash and there's additional things, know, of a paycheck. As we are part time employees on behalf of the city. There's also consideration for insurance as well. Both of those things I think do start to add up.

And so I'm really curious to hear what the rest of the council is thinking here as well. I find that sort of with the fiscal situation we're entering, you know, any sort of material cost feels like a challenge right now just because we have some significant increases across the board with a lot of our expenses coming up. And so while I do recognize that we are significantly below our comparable cities, I don't know that I can justify going all the way up to match them. At the same time, recognize that, you know, 350 3,000 a year is about $2.50 a month, and that's before taxes. And so it's not a terrible amount.

I don't think we do this for the compensation. I think we do it because we care. But I think there are considerations for past, current, and future council members when it comes to people being on a fixed income, people being retired. This being a sizable amount of work, there's a lot of driving we do to a lot of different meetings and things like that. We do have the ability to expense certain things. But in general, I'm finding it challenging to support this, but I can understand but I'm also open minded on, like, what if there is some middle ground

here. Okay. Anybody else? Tina?

Sure. Thanks. Bilal, I agree with you. The fiscal situation for the city is such that I am personally concerned as well. Wherever we go, it's not going to really move the needle for somebody. We do this work because we love Saratoga. And we all do that. Wherever we go, even if we were to go maximum, that's not going to help someone really be able to live in Saratoga. So, given that, I personally think this is not the right time. I would not support it.

I basically wouldn't support it. I understand there are some cities that are taking more, and we can. The state law gives us that. And it's been a long time since this was reviewed. It's challenging in my mind. Those are my thoughts.

Okay. Tina, again? Anything? Deep, Cook?

So thanks to staff for finding out all the information. I appreciate it. I look at being on city council as a volunteer job. And when I ran for city council over five years ago, I chose this responsibility to freely volunteer my time, skills, and service as a steward for the health, safety, and welfare of Saratogaans. I can easily spend twenty to forty hours a week on city council matters.

This works out to less than $3 an hour compensation for my time. The $250 per month is a gesture that is greatly appreciated for the time, effort, and expertise that is brought to this position. For these reasons, I support keeping the counsel compensation the same at $250 per month.

Thanks.

Thank you, Cookie. Yan?

All right. You know, I feel the same. I mean, because currently we are facing, you know, fiscal budget pressure, especially we are in the middle of negotiation with our county sheriff department. And also, you know, as everyone said, you know, traditionally, City Council is a volunteer public service. We're definitely we're here for the love of the city.

Another thing, I'm just a little concerned if we just raise a stipend for the City Council, not other commission volunteers. And, it just, you know, we'll give the wrong perception at this We're just doing that for us and not to other commissions. So, for all that reasons, I think I will be with other council members. Just keep where they are at for now. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'll throw in my 2.5¢ because I don't want to over budget. I feel the same way. We don't do this because we want to get a big paycheck. If you want to run for a higher office, you may be able to get that, at least some extent of it. I do know of a city in Santa Clara where somebody, that city provided health care benefits. And somebody ran for council just so they could get health care benefits. We don't want people running for office because they want something for themselves. We want people to run for office to contribute to the benefit of Saratoga in both the short and the long term. And so I also think we should keep it the same.

I don't see any need to change it. I think that people that run, and can tell you I have been in positions where, and frankly the amount of work we have to do on the council contributed to at least the loss of one job that I had. And I could have used a few extra bucks, but that's not why I'm doing this job. So I'm I'm happy and and honored that the people elected me. And I'm honored that I can serve the position to be able to help the city of Saratoga. So I also agree. Let's not make a change and move forward. So if I heard correctly, there is no action on this. So we can move to our next item. Okay.

Thank you. And thanks for the staff report, Matt. Okay. Next up is our, is the first of our public hearings. And this is a proposed ordinance change amending Article fifteen-fifty, our tree regulations. Hi Christina. Thank you for being here and we look forward to your staff report.

Hello, Mayor Page and council members. I'm here to present on the proposed amendments to the tree regulations. This is a continuation of the work of the Wildfire Task Force of 2019 and 2025 that focused on creating goals that will reduce the long term growth of vegetation and wildfire fuels in the WUI and reduce obstacles homeowners face when complying with defensible space. Recent laws require the establishment of an ember resistant defensible space zone for the first five feet around a structure referred to as Zone Zero. CAL FIRE is adopting a Zone zero where they will recommend only non combustibles within five feet of a home or structure.

Zone one will now be five to 30 feet from a structure. And Zone two will remain as 30 to 100 feet from a structure. I'll be presenting three changes to the code today. The first one is to increase defensible space outside of the WUI, specifically for Zone 0 only. The purpose of this change is to allow homeowners throughout Saratoga to create defensible space around their homes for wildfire preparedness and to help them maintain their home insurance.

Since the Palisades fire in January 2025, I've been getting an increased interest in creating defensible space in areas not designated as high fire areas, and homeowners insurance companies are creating their own fire risk maps that are not related to the CAL FIRE maps. Tree permits would still be required and replacement trees would also still be required. That remains unchanged. I wanted to just let you know that when I mean the trunk of a tree, I'm talking about the area of the trunk that's between the top of the roots and the first branch. So this would not include trees that have a branch within five feet of the tree, if that's clear.

So the second change is to remove the public noticing and right to appeal for trees with their trunks located within five feet of a home, allowing tree removals to take place in conjunction with other defensible space. Currently, homeowners have to complete all of the defensible space work before their tree permit can be issued, and it makes it a little bit more expensive for them and a little bit more difficult for them to meet their insurance requirements in time. The last change is to propose a change to planting requirements for development projects in the Wildland Urban Interface, replacing the value of the trees with only two trees for every tree that is removed. And the replacement trees cannot be replanted in the root zone of an existing tree. The concern from the Wildfire Task Force was that replacement trees based on tree value rather than the number of trees removed favors planting many small trees, increasing ladder fuels as well as general wildfire fuels.

Many homeowners do plant understory trees to meet the planting requirement. The replacement trees would be reduced to two trees for every removed tree, and trees planted in the roots of existing trees would not count. If there's not space on the property to plant replacement trees, the homeowner has the option of paying an in lieu fee to the city in the amount of $300 per tree to either the tree fund or the safety fund. The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the long term growth of vegetation and wildfire fuels in the wildland urban interface. By removing the value of trees from the development process and treating all trees as equal, homeowners and developers may be more inclined to remove large, healthy trees.

This is particularly true for projects that fall under California's ADU laws and development related to SB nine projects, lot splits, in which all other disincentives to the removal of large healthy trees do not apply. And here's a summary of the three changes I talked about today. That ends my presentation. I'm going to leave this page up for you for a moment, and I'll take any questions you have.

Any questions to staff? Balaf, so you first.

Christina, thank you for the presentation. I had a question about Zone 0. There's a lot that's been discussed about Zone 0 here at the local level, at the state level as well. If I'm a resident and I ask the question, what is Zone 0? How would I answer that? And how is that different when we think about here in Saratoga versus the state if it's different?

So in Saratoga, we have a lot of wildland urban interface space. Everything West Of Highway South Of Highway 9, West Of Saratoga Sunnyvale, including the Farwell Avenue area as well. So we have a lot of wooded areas. So the having fire preparedness in our area is going to be important. Once CAL FIRE passes their new requirements, areas in those high fire danger areas will need to comply with that. So it does affect Saratoga more than it would an area that doesn't have wildland urban interface.

So the CAL FIRE requirements for Zone 0 only apply in the high where do they apply versus do they apply in all of Owui, or do they only apply in certain portions of the map that they've given for Saratoga?

I believe it will be the entire WUI.

Okay.

But that might be a building official question. Okay. Oh, yeah. And

these rules are the final rules are the subject of extensive debate. Okay. And what seems to be very simple has now been put off to March for the beginning of the next round of discussions.

Okay. Yes, sorry. I was trying to get that clarity for myself, and it seems like there's a lot of uncertainty.

There's the draft ordinance that's included in staff report for that. But they really are still accepting public comments, and they have a lot of decisions they haven't made yet.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Sorry, Tina.

Tina Thanks. So, Christina, thank you for clarifying in the presentation that permits are still required, because I couldn't find that in the staff report. Maybe I missed it. So to summarize, basically what the Planning Commission proposes is in Zone 0, which is or let's just say zero to five feet from every building, all across the city, whether it's wildland urban interface area or not, we require a tree removal permit without notification for the tree removal. Is that and they still have to replace with two trees, or in the area they can pay toward safety fund or park or tree.

There's two separate issues here. The first two relate to tree permits. So, permits for existing buildings for defensible space.

And

that would extend our defensible currently our defensible space rules only apply in the WUI. So, if someone is not in the WUI and wants to create defensible space, the city doesn't have a mechanism for them to remove healthy trees to make that defensible space. What the Planning Commission recommended is that the ember resistant zone, which is also known as Zone 0, homeowners outside of the way can clear five feet from their home for that ember resistance to make their home fire safe. Yeah. And then the tree permits, that's under tree permits. The other part is development projects. And that's a change in the replacement tree requirement for development projects of new development. And that's where the replacement requirements would change.

So for a home, an existing home, in nonbuoy area, to remove a tree within five feet of the building, they require a permit, but they're not required to put replacement trees?

The replacement trees would be required still, but not necessarily at a two to one. That's for development projects.

So I'm not talking development projects. Simple question. Non VOI area, there is a tree with the trunk within five feet of the building. What are the requirements? No notification required anymore per this presentation?

Yes. The notification would be waived, and also with that, the right to appeal. But the replacement trees would still be required.

What is the criteria for that?

It's generally a one to one. So if one tree is coming out, one tree would be replaced.

I see. And now in the development project, we are saying you have to plant two

trees for

every Instead of planting equal to the assessed value of the trees that are coming out, which can be substantial depending on the size and health of the tree.

Correct. Okay. So that dollar amount for that calculation is taken away and we are just saying plant two trees, replacement trees, instead of

For development projects in the wildland urban interface, yes.

Okay. Okay. That's very helpful. So essentially the concern where somebody may remove a tree that is beyond five feet from the building, greater than five feet, can be addressed by the requirement of needing a tree permit, correct?

Are you talking about tree permits for the removal of a tree on any property? So if the tree is outside of five feet of a building, you'd still go through the notification process and it would be a standard tree permit, just like nothing would change for that tree.

I need some help here. I'm not hearing it correctly, or we're talking two different things.

Let me see if I can help with a summary. So we'll start with the first category, which are trees outside of the WUI that are not within five feet of the structure.

No change.

No change. Those would continue as they are course, yeah. Outside of the WUI within five feet becomes a new process to allow for the removal of those trees. And the replacement for that would be?

One tree for every tree removed.

One to one. No notification, but permits still required?

Correct.

Okay.

And then for development projects, which is the third category, there's a two to one replacement requirement.

That would be the new requirement, yes.

Instead of the calculation based on the tree canopy.

Okay. That's exactly what I was asking. Super. And the next question then is if someone removes a tree greater than five feet, which means existing building of course, so a tree is beyond five feet and they're under the impression that this is five feet. What happens then? Because that's the concern. If we move forward with this, there would be a genuine concern somebody can make a mistake.

I would take the measurement personally. Is that what you're asking? If someone's claiming their tree is closer to their house than it is?

Yes. And I'm not saying claiming in a bad way. Just somebody makes the mistake.

Oh, absolutely. No. Most people don't necessarily see distances the same.

Right. That's the point. So you will be checking every permit that comes to you for the non VOI area for a tree removal within five feet?

Correct. It would require a site visit. Okay. That's not being waived.

Okay. Okay. That's what I was looking for. Thank you so much.

Any other questions? I have one. In the ordinance as proposed, okay, so within the five feet, and I'm going make a recommendation about that and the naming of it in a bit. But do

we

have any requirement that that actually become an ember free zone for that home outside of the WUI? In other words, we're going to allow them to take down a tree that's within five feet of the home for defensible space person, purposes, even though it's not in the WUI. What I'm wondering and what I don't think I saw in here was the requirement that they use that five feet as an ember free zone. In other words, it becomes a zone with no flammable material. No plants. You know, it's got to be all hardscape. Is that in there? Did I miss

That's not in there, but that can be added. Okay.

Okay. So, okay. That's good to know.

But we can't add that tonight.

No, I understand. We can do other readings of this stuff. Any other questions? Yan?

I just remembered. So for this new ordinance proposed tree removal ordinance, how does other city I mean, let's see our neighbor in Los Altos Hills, do they have the similar I guess they are all in WUI. Or do they have areas not in the WUI allow the same kind of practice like we do here?

I can't answer to that. Zone 0 is very new. And so there's not a lot of regulation around it yet.

I see.

Another question. Do we want to kind of promote this new tree removal ordinance? Let people know that if, you know I mean, lot of times, people don't even know. You know, even we pass this ordinance, do we want to make, like, you know, wildfire prevention part of this program to let more residents aware of, they have this option? I guess this is not mandate. Only if they want to, right? Correct. So do we want to kind of promote this?

That would be a city manager's office question.

Yeah.

Yeah, if the council has preferences on the level of promotion that we do with this, let us know and we can accommodate. Okay.

All right. Thank you. That just come my questions.

Balan,

I have one more question. On the ladder fuels and general wildfire fuels, we're talking about, for example, for development projects, if you remove a tree adding in two. Help me. This is just like a thought that comes to mind that if I hear that, does that mean are we adding more fuel by having two for one? Or how are we thinking about those two trees that are being added, also while recognizing that there is an alternative for you to pay into a fund instead of planting those two? But if you are planting two, are we creating more fuel or not? How do we think about that?

It would be considerably less trees planted in the WUI if we switched from valuation to two to one.

Okay. Thank you.

I ran the numbers from last year. Would be a 30% reduction in tree planting Oh, citywide.

Okay. And do we okay, that's very helpful.

That's based off last year's numbers. If last year had been treated as if this ordinance were in place, that's the reduction.

And that's citywide, not just the WUI?

Yeah. I have the numbers here if you'd like me to talk more about it.

That would great. You could

just Sure. Read

In fiscal year twenty four-twenty five, we had 44 non WUI projects, and we had 23 WUI projects that had been finaled. We had a final count for those projects. The plantings in the non WUE areas were two sixteen. The plantings in the WUE areas were three sixty one. If we had changed to the new planting style, the new counting, the WUI plantings would have only planted 118 trees instead of the three sixty one, reducing the tree planting by two forty three trees. Citywide, that would end up being a 30% reduction, all of which is in the WUI.

Thank you.

Mayor? Is that because of value, instead of calculating the value, now we are just using the number of trees. That's why there's going to be a reduction.

Yeah. The value of two fifteen gallon trees the city uses, it's $300 per tree. So, that would set the value of all trees at $600 which is considerably lower than they typically get assessed.

Thank you.

Okay. Anything else? One more question? Yeah, sure. This is probably more for our city attorney or development staff. Is there pressure when it comes to our housing element to reduce the cost of development? Because the assessed value approach, right, of an old oak relative to $600 for two trees, that's a material reduction. Is that part of the thinking here?

My sense is that so you are correct that in our next housing element we can report to the state that we've made these changes, and we think that it is removing constraints to housing. I think that the main motivation was the work of the wildfire safety task force and the public safety benefits. But you're absolutely right that this is a co benefit of that approach. Thank you.

Thanks. I have one other question. Knew it was going to fly out of my head as soon as the attorneys started talking. Oh, I remember what it was. It always gets me nervous. Something's going to come up. So there have been some concerns about people that live in the WUI or in the high, you know, anywhere in that area. That the question is, well, Jeepers, why do we, if we want to take out a tree for, you know, to help protect against wildfire, why are you making us plant new ones? Why are you making, why do you have the requirement at all in the WUI? So I was wondering if you could help us understand, and the folks that asked understand, because my language apparently is too awkward for them.

If you might be able to explain why we have that in our code.

Well, as you all know, we are a Tree City USA. It adds to the attractiveness and ruralness of our area. Without our trees, Saratoga would not be the same place. It would be a completely different place. One stark difference, for people who don't particularly, maybe don't care for trees, you know, the Western Side Of Saratoga is 12 degrees cooler than the valley. On a summer day, it's 108, there's a pretty big difference between one hundred and eight and ninety six. Trees provide enormous benefits in Saratoga, not just the aesthetic benefits, but in particular we're talking about our WUI. They're doing our soil retention. They're shading our yards. They're keeping us cool.

They're cleaning our air. They're taking care of us in a lot of ways. So reducing the canopy and the WUI, it's going to have this wildfire benefit. But overall it's going to have a reduction in other benefits that we enjoy.

Excellent. Thank you so much. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Then we'll move to the public comment part of this item. Britt, if you wouldn't mind helping me out here.

If you would like to address the City Council on this item and you're attending the meeting in person and you have not submitted a speaker slip, now is the time to do so. If you're attending the meeting via Zoom and you would like to address the city council, now is the time to raise your hand. I have one speaker slip right now. Anthony Fisher.

Good evening council members. I am Anthony Fisher representing myself, a condominium owner in Saratoga with many nearby trees in my condominium complex. Regarding the proposed amendment of Saratoga Municipal Code by modifying Article fifteen-fifty, I request for safety reasons an additional exemption for trees whose limbs above, if dislodged, could cause injury to the building occupants below, even if such tree trunks are more than five feet from such unit. Okay. This request is in line with my January 20 written comment to my to miss Christina Fusco of your planning department, which you have in your packet.

I am requesting this additional amendment to Saratoga Municipal Code Article fifteen-fifty for safety protection of building occupants because first, in January 2023, my neighbor's condominium, which is connected to my unit, had a branch crash through her roof into her room below. Second, the adjacent tall redwoods to her condominium and mine and other trees in our condominium complex have limbs with drips or crash zones sufficiently above such roofs of building occupants, even though their tree trunks are more than five feet from such units. And third, my proposed exemption would still require Saratoga Department approval and such tree removal or modification. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, be glad to call.

Thank you, Tony.

Okay.

Mayor, I see no other speakers.

Okay. So we'll close the public comment period and open it up to staff, or to counsel conversation. I would like to ask Kristina a question, you're okay with that before we go. Kristina, this is directly from what Tony spoke about. So we currently have a process.

People could come and request that a tree be removed or trimmed so that a large branch could be chopped off if it's going to cause danger to a house. I mean, we've all seen, actually I've probably seen more than most in my business because I've seen a lot of trees that get fallen on houses. Luckily nobody's been hurt. But that's always a possibility. So can you please explain how somebody would go about that if they did have that danger? And would what Tony talked about, would that add or detract from our current code? Or if there's a way to do it?

Criteria one is for safety, for trees that may be unstable, unhealthy. They would apply for a regular tree permit and I would come out for that tree permit. He's talking about some large redwoods. Possible mitigation would be in place such as and weight reduction on some of those limbs for his particular trees. If a tree was unhealthy, maybe one of the trees would need to be removed. But it falls under the regular tree permitting process and not necessarily in relation to defensible space.

Okay. So we do have the ability with our current code be able to rectify some of those situations. The people have to come forward with the request then Correct. You would address it.

Yeah.

Okay. Thanks. Thank you so much. Okay. Council discussion and or motions.

Well, nice to see you down there. Thanks for being here.

Yeah. I go ahead. You want to let somebody else on

the No. You're good.

Thanks for asking. I I had the same question just for our residents' sake to understand here. It's like if you do have a tree that is giving you some concern, is a process for you to do that. There are a lot of trees that are immediately adjacent to people's homes all over the city. I'll just give my quick reactions so we can get the conversation going. I agree by the way that this asked a question for Christina on Zone 0. It's just confusing, I think, a lot of folks. The rules are changing at the state level, so I find myself confused all the time. So I empathize because it's just hard to get my head around it sometimes. But I do believe the defensible space around the home within zero to five feet, I think as we think about wildfire safety as a whole, does make a lot of sense.

I am supportive of doing this. I'm not supportive of doing this citywide. I do think we should only do it in the WUI and potentially only even in higher, very high zones, which already have some of these requirements anyway, but I think at the very least we should limit it just to the WUI. There's this tricky balance between our canopy is aging and we have a lot of trees that are dying. In my mom's front yard last year, a tree literally just that had beaten and realized it was dead for a long time literally just fell over in the driveway.

And a number of trees on a number of streets are sort of reaching that seventy five, eighty year timeline and starting to die. And so when you try and replace that with the assessed value, that ends up becoming quite expensive. And so having some replacement trees that can go in there is helpful that are younger and that can grow into that. And so I do think that that's kind of how I'm thinking about the tradeoff, but I'm also torn a bit because we are a tree city and our trees are really important. I like that we are giving folks the option on the development projects in the WUI to support the safety and the tree fund and pay in there in general.

To me that makes a lot of sense, mostly because if the concern in the WUI and in high fire risk zones is that there's a lot of trees leading to wildfire risk, and then we're mandating that they have the same number of trees and more development, I think we're creating some potential concerns there. And we also have a lot of infrastructure challenges in these areas too. So I do think the Safety and Tree Fund can help support that. That being said, it's an opportunity for us, these tree funds, we can literally use to plant more trees across the city. And I'm wondering if we as a city staff or as we think about that, make sure that we're placing at a commensurate rate.

There is a net housing benefit. I think we're doing this not for that reason. I think we're doing it for wildfire safety. But those are some of my quick reactions. So I'd be supportive of doing this in the WUI only, but not citywide. I don't know if we have to go back and bring this back in the future to maybe have some further discussion on this, if you want to change that. But just wanted to get the conversation started.

Thank you. Anybody else? Tina.

I'll ask a question of Christina or Brian, whoever. I'm curious, why did the Planning Commission, what was their argument to extend this beyond VUI? What did they say?

The initial report was to extend the possibility of defensible space throughout, through citywide. We're having residents who have, are getting nonrenewal notices, but we don't have a process to allow them to create defensible space if you're not in the WUI. That's where the thought process came from. The Planning Commission recommended that only Zone zero be applied citywide.

What is the nonrenewable thing you talked about?

Insurance, home insurance.

Oh, okay. So their logic was based on the home insurance thing?

No, logic, staff's logic was to try to help people maintain their home insurance by allowing them to create defensible space when they're outside the buoy.

I see. And what was the argument the Planning Commission made in terms of extending this to citywide?

They felt that it shouldn't be extended completely citywide, and that zone zero being the ember resistant zone and the most important zone should be extended citywide.

That's the one I'm talking of, zone zero. Because that's what the staff report says, right? I

don't think there was a lot of discussion or reasoning for it. It was just a recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Just a recommendation to have zone zero basically up to five feet from the building in non VOI area to ask for a permit to remove the tree.

Yes, ma'am.

But no real I'm just trying to understand their logic. That's about it. It may help me think through.

It was brought up there was not a lengthy discussion.

There was a lengthy discussion.

There was not.

There Okay. I see. Thank you. Okay. I am still thinking I see the benefit of the additional benefit. We are very concerned about disaster preparedness, wildfire. At the same time, what I'm struggling with is if somebody needs to remove a tree, in any case there is a process that exists that they can come to City Hall and you will ask for the permits. So that is not being taken away. Just the addition of a criteria, basically. That's the only difference, right?

Is there any criteria in the current list of criteria which talks about safety to the home, not just the root structure? I can't recall all of them. That's why I'm asking you. Is there anything else which It comes close

simply to says proximity to structure without any embellishment on that. But with the current defensible space requirement specifically stating in the WUI, then the proximity is structured just for fire safety cannot be applied outside of the WUI in Sure. My

Yeah. Thank you. That was helpful.

Anne?

Thank you so much for your presentation. And I understand, you know, the reason we have this proposed change is to create defensible space citywide. And I'm glad, you know, we still they still have to replace, you know, the the tree, even they removed the one within the five feet with a structure. So, I'm actually comfortable with this proposed ordinance. And, you know, after so many wildfires happening in other cities and other area, I think this is everywhere.

It's to create defensible space in the zone zero. So, I know other cities already done that and special, you know, with slaughter trees and Tahoe and, you know, they don't even take any, you know, permit fees. They would just allow people if it's wasting five feet of structure. I'm comfortable with the proposed change. Thank you.

Cookie?

Yep. Me too. I'm comfortable with the proposed change. I can support this. So did you want to think about language for the non flammable things?

I have a little bit.

Okay.

Vito, go ahead though.

No, I'm done. Wanted to hear what you

had Okay. To

Thank you. Anybody else? I'll give my 2¢ and we can move forward from there hopefully. So one, I'd like to remove the Zone Zero terminology from anything in our code. Which I don't think the code had that in there, but we're talking about it.

Zone zero as it's been defined, and then it certainly hasn't passed through the Board of Forestry yet, is only, there's only a zone zero in the very high fire hazard area. So outside of that very high area, there is no zone zero because it's only defined from within there. However, there is, I like the terminology ember resistance zone. The zero to five feet makes a lot of sense. If we were to move forward with creating defensible space around homes outside of the WUI, I would recommend that the language also include what I asked about before, which is that they must maintain five feet from the house of non combustible, non plant material.

So it has to be hardscape or rocks or something other than a flammable material. You can't have a fence that attaches to your house within there. You can't have a small shrub. It's got to be no it's totally ember resistance. And the reason that we have that in the hillsides where a fire, wildfire might occur, embers will fly and bounce off your house.

That doesn't start your house on fire. But when they fall into that shrub that's within five feet at the, on the ground, well, any of those nice green lush shrubs, you open them up, you look in the middle, and you'll see a bunch of dead stuff. That's what catches on fire and creates that plume of fire, which then catches the house on fire. So, I say that if we would allow folks to, within five feet, give them a break on removing a tree, that we then say, okay, thank you for creating a defensible space. These are the requirements for that defensible space.

And it has to be an ember free zone. So they have to have non combustible materials in that. And I agree with, I think I agree with the rest of it. I'm also not, I'm not 100% sure that I like it going outside of the WUI, but I do know that insurance companies, I'm a little involved with them, some of those, they send drones and they use satellite photos. And when they see growth over the top of a house, they know that creates a danger.

And so they are, that's why these people are getting nonrenewal notices. A lot of times those trees are not within five feet of the house. They are 10 feet away from the house. They just have really big oak limbs hanging over the house. You know, and if you take one of them off, well guess what? Now the tree leans the other way. So you'd have a lot on your plate to do that. But it isn't always within five feet. I know we've had a lot of development projects. I remember being on the planning commission. And a lot of people came forward with a new project. They couldn't expand their house because there was a tree there. And we said that tree is worth X amount. You can't take that tree down. It's a heritage tree.

Or it meets all the requirements of the city. So this might make it easier for some of that type of development to happen. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. But it's something to think about, I think. So I would be supportive of what we've got. And the ability for people in the WUI to be able to contribute to either the tree fund or the safety fund that we talked about. That makes a lot of sense to me because they will do something to help with the evacuation routes or create an entity, create something to be able to help make it more wildfire safe, protect against it. So those are my thoughts. Yes. Yeah, yeah, go ahead.

Just one more question. So for the people outside the way if they want to take out a tree that within the five feet of structure do they just have to replace this one tree or do they have an option to put in the safe fund Or just they have to replace it with another tree? Just

Currently, the code only allows people to put into the safety fund if they have a development project.

That would be another This is not development.

Another change.

No, this is not development. This is the one I'm talking about.

Yeah. So,

that's not You have to replace with another tree.

That's not in the current code or the proposal.

How about or the tree fund? Doesn't it say the tree fund in here?

Thought you said you have to replace with one tree, right? I just heard that. You have to replace?

Yes. Okay. If there is not space on the property, they can request to pay into the tree fund. If there's not space on the property to accommodate a tree safely, then they can request the option to pay into the tree fund.

Got it. Thank you. Tina?

Chuck, I'm thinking about what you just said. It makes sense if somebody is a non VOI and can remove a tree, but to what purpose if there is a wooden fence or shrubs and all of that. My question is, how will we two questions. One is, how will we make what are we asking them to do? How are we clarifying that, that they need to remove all of this around the perimeter of the building, five feet all around, if they want to remove a tree? And secondly, how are we going to enforce them? Maybe Matt can help us, I'll or Richard, if you have

take them backwards. For enforcement, if we're issuing a tree permit, then closing out the tree permit would require all of the conditions of the tree permit to be met, including the ember free zone if that's the direction that the council ultimately goes. So it sounds like a modification to the proposed ordinance is what the mayor is talking about that would create an ember free zone of five feet outside of the WUI that would qualify for the tree removal. And with that permit process would come the validation that that zone is created.

So when they applied for the permit. Go ahead.

So either that would need to take place before the permit is issued, or within six months. You'd need to let me know what you prefer.

Okay.

Before the permit is issued, it will be easier to enforce, because people will be more incentivized if they have up to six months to do that EMBER resistant, then I have to chase them down.

Okay.

Okay. That's right.

There is a process for that. They would receive a courtesy notice saying their permit didn't meet conditions, and then a hold will be placed on their property until they get their conditions met.

Thank you. Yes, that does jog a memory with the regulatory removal permits. Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.

Rolland? I'd be supportive of talking about the ambient resistance zone in the non WUI. I think that does make sense. Just being consistent around the whole house to make sure that it's actually done properly makes a lot of sense to me. And especially because in the non WUI they still have a one to one treatment requirement.

So question for Richard about Mayor? Chuck?

Yeah, go ahead. So

if that were the case for the council, we cannot do that tonight?

No. The mayor's idea is different than I thought from his initial comment. Because this is simply imposing a restriction on what the Planning Commission has recommended. They've recommended something, you're saying, well, that's good, but we just want to make sure it's got this. GOLDEN: I was thinking you were going to be talking about mandating an ember resistant rezone citywide or

in MR. Oh, part jeez, of the no. Please, don't. Please.

Okay. Well,

MR. Where are you going? That's what I mean about the attorneys.

But that's why I said you couldn't do it tonight. But because you couldn't do that tonight.

No, we wouldn't want to.

But you can impose this restriction. I think we will need to work to come up with wording that is effective to implement the mayor's suggestion. So we could either bring this back for another first reading. We could continue this tonight. We'll bring it back for another first reading. Or you can say, work with it, and we'll put something together. And if you like it, you can adopt it on consent next time. And if you don't, you can pull it and provide us with further direction.

Okay. Thank you, Richard. That's helpful. And essentially what you would look from us would be, if that were the way we were going direction to say, if somebody in non VOI area wanted to remove a tree within five feet of the building, then across the perimeter of the said building, they need to create an ember free zone. And the process would be with Christina making sure the ember free zone has been created, then the tree permit would be effective. And then the final, of course, you go back for the inspection. Just this point. Just this bullet point.

Yes. And I would say that you may want to say, shall create and maintain an ember free zone. That would, you know, the city's not going go check that. But if there was a complaint with our complaint driven enforcement system, we would look at it. Or if somebody came in for a permit, and we saw that, oh, these people committed to have an ember free zone, and it's not there, no, you can't get your use permit or your other building permit until you restore your ember free zone.

Okay. So that's one thing. And the rest, as proposed, is the development project in the WUI, giving options and all of that, pretty much. Is there any other change? I just want to make sure we have had some good discussion here. I want to make sure I'm not missing something here. That's why

I'm asking. There's one more thing that I'd like to ask the attorney. So I know that we've got the safety fund for development projects. Could we add that in here as an option for people that live in the WUI? Instead of contributing to the tree fund, if they didn't have room to place the trees, that they could contribute to the safety fund?

I need to look at that. Have we got time? Yeah. You might want to talk about other things.

Okay. Should we continue this until a point later in the meeting?

You can't, except that I'm going to be

No, I'll let you think.

You have

So the Planning Commission would like to continue discussion of the tree ordinance. And so we could look at that at that time. And Richard will have had time to think about it by then.

So we could pass the parts that we can tonight and then leave the safety fund until a different point. Okay. I could live with that. How about you all?

Question. Which other parts of the tree ordinance do they want to look at?

Adding the safety fund option onto tree permits as well as development projects.

Oh, that specifically? No, Planning Commission. No, I'm asking what So Cindy

the Planning Commission hasn't given us that direction. When they looked at this ordinance at the public hearing, one of the commissioners felt like there were things that were left unconsidered. And so what we're going to do is we're going to go back to the Planning Commission. We're going to have kind of an informational meeting with them to see what they want to do. We can bring up this item and then we would bring back an ordinance.

Alternatively, we could ask them to because we're going to be taking the annual work plan to them. We could ask them to include it in their work plan. And that way the City Council will have an opportunity to look at exactly what they want to do.

Okay. I that personally

is a better Yeah. I

would suggest that. And meanwhile, Richard, we can pass the rest tonight.

You can pass the rest tonight. And I will say that as a legal matter, it is fine to make the change the mayor suggested. But I feel that that is outside the realm of what we consulted the planning commission on with respect to the task force recommendations.

Oh, yeah,

I feel like, you know, I'm, again, I'm okay adding the EMBER Resistance Zone maintenance requirement.

Even though I was the chair of that task force, so I'm still coming up

with ideas? You should have just done it all. You're not allowed to have

the I didn't think of it

at the time. So I would be more comfortable again, it's legal for the city to do it if once you hear what the planning commission has to say and you all discuss it. But I would be more comfortable doing it that way than adding it to that. Okay.

I respect that. Thank you, Richard.

We all got that?

So just I didn't make a remark on that. Comfortable to support removal of a tree within five feet in a non VOI area if and only if we were to make that an ember free zone across the perimeter of that specific building. Because a home will have multiple buildings. Want to be very clear.

Okay.

There can be a separate detached ADU structure.

That would not need to be ember resistant at the time of the tree permit?

I think that's going too far. We should that's are you saying the whole property? So then we need to be clear to say that. Because we have been talking so far only about a building.

The defensible space section is for the whole property. Would be aligned with the other part of the criteria.

Everything where we refer to defensible space When

you're removing trees for defensible space in the WUI currently, you have to do the other defensible space items as well.

Right. But I think what Tina's saying is that what we didn't say in here is, for example, say someone has a detached ADU or a detached garage. If they ask for removal of a tree from within five feet of their primary home.

Okay.

And we say, well, one of the requirements for that is to create an ember resistance zone of five feet around the entire structure, then the question becomes, do we also require that they create that ember resistant zone of five feet of no combustible materials around all of the other structures on the property? So that's a different question. I think that's one that, I personally think that that's one that might be better left to the Planning Commission, because it is beyond, I think it's beyond the scope of what they've discussed. And we're probably getting in the weeds that we, you know, we probably don't need to at this point.

Think Chuck, I think we should be clear in what we are saying here. It is important to get into the weeds. Because if somebody wants to remove a tree, which is next to their detached ADU, and we need to be sure when Christina goes there, whether she's asking them to create the ember free zone across the large 6,000 square foot home, not just the small ADU that they are looking for.

I do appreciate the clarity.

Helps Yes. That's why I'm asking the And

we can, you can tonight pass an ordinance that says an ember resistant zone around the structure that the removed tree is within five feet of. Period. And then the planning commission can discuss whether that requirement should be expanded to other structures on the property.

I would be a lot more comfortable with that. Thank you, Richard. Because I think they need to think about it. I am not saying I am against the idea. It just would raise some situations where people would hesitate. And it may be a non issue. I don't know. I haven't thought it through. Thanks.

Okay. Yeah.

If there's no further discussion, I'm ready to make a motion.

Please.

All right. I hope I got what you guys are saying. So, I move to adopt proposed ordinance amending Article fifteen-fifty, tree regulations, with changes called zone zero, change to amber resistant zone, within five feet of home, to within five feet of structure throughout the ordinance. I just look at it. It does say zone zero there, so we'll change that. And waive the first reading of an ordinance amending Article fifteen-fifty. Does it work for

you? Okay.

Do we have a second? Oh, wait.

Can I just clarify? So, does that include the requirement that the ember resistant zone be created and maintained?

No. I thought you were going to work on that later. No.

That piece would be here, but it's not, what he's saying would wait for is around all of the structures on the property. So if the tree is being, if they want a tree removed within five feet of A structure,

But then that have to give, I think the thing is, then we need to give an amber resistant definition.

Correct. Can do that.

Yeah. Because right now there's no definition. When we use that word, it needs to be defined.

Yes.

Okay. So, I'm good with that. So at definition of Amber resistant.

Perfect.

Okay. Good with that.

I would also like to clarify that this is as amended with the amended ordinance that was provided this afternoon. The ordinance that was provided this afternoon. You received an amended ordinance this afternoon.

Is the John, know that?

Well, this is the one I'm reading from currently, what is provided to me. Is this the most updated one? I'm reading the ordinance right now. Is this the most updated online? Or is the over Yes, is online. Then that's good. Thank you. Then I'm getting the most updated one.

I have a question. Can someone go through those changes? What were the changes?

So to my understanding that it is the desk item that was provided to you this afternoon, revised to delete all references to zone zero and replace it with ember resistant zone, define ember resistant zone, and require that as a condition of the tree removal within the ember resistance zone, the owner create and maintain an ember resistance zone around the affected structure.

That works.

Christina, does that work? And does that and it's at the time the ember resistant zone has to be in place at the time that the permit is issued.

Yes, that does work. A structure would also include accessory structures, decks, and things to that effect, whereas a building would be a residence. Yes. Or a building that people can go into. Yeah. Okay.

So you're preferring structure or building? Structure.

Structure. Yeah.

That works

right. Singular. Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. That works. Thanks.

Okay. Bilal, how are doing down there?

Bilal, can you restate the motion, please? Yeah. Just to make sure that I'm fully understanding what we're motioning for here.

She just say what the city attorney said?

Could the city attorney just recap what I break what we're we're doing here. Please, yeah.

Is that okay? Councilmember Zou?

Yes, I go

don't want to steal your words.

No, no, no.

Go ahead, Okay.

To introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance submitted as a desk item this afternoon, modified to replace all references to zone zero with ember resistant zone, define ember resistant zone, and require that as a condition of receiving the tree removal permit in the ember resistance zone, the owner have created an ember, truly ember resistant zone around the structure that is affected by the tree to be removed.

I'll second.

All right. All in favor. First of all, does everybody understand it? I just want

to I just for the record, I understand it. Thank you, Chuck. And Richard, thank you so much. I still feel for the record it would be good for us to, for you, not us, not me certainly, to speak what are the differences, only the change that was proposed in the desk item, the ordinance language. That's the only piece we have not stated clearly for the public. So

the desk item makes explicit what was implicit in the earlier version. That it adds to the list of criteria for which a tree removal permit may be granted. It adds its own special sentence saying a tree removal permit can be granted for removal in the ember, in what we are now calling the ember resistance zone, but what was called zone zero in the desk aisle.

Thank you. I just wanted that to be said so that the public knows.

The desk item also, as we were looking at this, we had a very cumbersome definition of wildland urban interface. And we managed to vastly simplify that and define the term in the definition section of the zoning code. Thank you.

All right. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Any birds that want to nest in a tree that hopefully won't get removed? Thank you very much. That was a very healthy discussion. I'm glad we came to where we are. Next up is item 3.2, a public hearing on proposed ordinance concerning short term rentals. Could we have a staff report please? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Swanson.

Okay. Good evening, Mayor Page, Vice Mayor Wallia, members of this council, and members of the Saratoga community. My name is Brian Swanson, and I serve as the community development director for the beautiful city of Saratoga. At the 10/01/2025, City Council meeting, the council directed staff to refer a draft ordinance to the Planning Commission that authorizes and regulates short term rentals, also known as STRs. Short term rental is a is a residential dwelling unit with a term of thirty days or less.

The planning commission at its 12/10/2025 meeting on a six to one vote recommended that the city council not adopt the ordinance and instead adopt an ordinance that prohibits short term rentals, provide clear enforcement procedures, assesses significant fines for violators of the ordinance, and implements the short term rental facilitator act of 2025 with reports to be reviewed by staff on a quarterly basis. Currently, STRs are prohibited in Saratoga. The prohibition is implicit, not explicit, in our municipal code. The planning commission recommended that the prohibition be made explicit to that it is clear to the residents. Highlights of the ordinance include explicitly state STRs are not allowed, prohibits advertising and making arrangements for short term rentals with each day of advertising or offering to make arrangements for short term rental constituting a separate violation.

Makes clear that business license fees and transient occupancy taxes, which is known as TOT, are due for any short term rental that do occur even though those uses are not allowed. And sets penalties for violating the ordinance of $1,500 for the first violation, 3,000 for the second, and $5,000 for additional violations within one year of the first violation. These penalties are greater than those opposed in for other violations in our city code. The legislature in 2021 amended the law, allowing higher penalties for violations of short term rental ordinances. The council may impose lower penalties if it wishes.

The council also has the option of adopting the ordinance initially referred to the Planning Commission. Highlights of that ordinance would include limiting the number of STRs subject to regulations. Licenses would be required to for each property and could be revoked if the owner is out of compliance with the ordinance. And so how do you become out of compliance? Would be health and safety, parking, occupancy, and nuisance control.

Unhosted rentals would be capped at thirty days. And the number of STR licenses would be capped at 5% of the housing stock. And so the city of Saratoga has roughly 11,504 units, so it would be 5% of the 11,504 units. So finally, we're gonna talk about enforcement. The PC recommended strong enforcement of the new ordinance.

The city's code compliance policy calls for complaint based enforcement, except for imminent threats to health and safety. Proactive enforcement of violations found during the course of an investigating complaints, and violations of city permits or other rules identified during city inspections. The policy provides that the council may direct proactive enforcement or other types of violations by resolution. The STR Facilitator Act of 2025 provides a new enforcement tool. The tool requires companies that facilitate STR, such as Airbnb, Vrbo, to provide cities on information of short term rental activity.

Those reports may be requested quarterly. Proactively requesting the reports and conducting follow-up enforcement will take time from other enforcement activity. Many cities contract with third party companies that specialize in enforcing STR regulations. If the council wishes to pursue proactive enforcement of the STR ordinance, staff will further investigate the other options available, and report back to the city council. Finally, I'd like to thank Richard and Carmen for the great assistance with this report and research. And Mayor Page, this concludes the staff presentation.

Thank you. Any questions of staff? Anybody? Dana?

So, Brian, thank you for a really good report. Especially explaining what was Planning Commission's argument and what their recommendation is. So my question is how much revenue would the city expect to get per year from something like this?

It's a great question. And I'll give an estimate, but potentially 60,000 to $80,000 How much? 60,000 to $80,000

And $60,000 80,000 Yes.

Los Gatos is over that. So they have more STRs than we would have. So that's just kind of an estimate.

And what about the enforcement costs? Where would that go? Staff time. How much additional staff time would be needed? So that's $60,000 revenue. What's the net that the city could expect? Have you talked to Ryan or someone else? So

Nathan, our code enforcement professional is very busy. And if we had to do something in house, it would take away from doing his other enforcement. It would put a it would place a lot of burden on him to be able to do that. And so, you know, there are companies that could help with enforcement that we would have to contract with. But, you know, it's just another task that the Community Development Forum would have to look into, Vice Mayor, if there's any other issues that come up.

Thank you. So if you were to contract with another company, how much would that cost?

We'll have to do some more research on that. But it would probably it would definitely be a cost. The one company we did talk to, it's an interesting company that what they do is they scour all the sites and marketing, and what they do is actually send letters to the STR violators saying, Hey, better stop it. And they do it like three times, three or four times. And then, if that doesn't work, then we have to step in. But that estimated cost, anywhere from, you know, dollars 5,000 to $10,000 for that technology company to help out.

Yeah, I think we all met them at the conference

Long nice.

That was in October. So that's 5,000 to $10,000 per month? Per

Well, believe it's for the year.

For the year? Yeah. Mark, you talked with them. So do we have a quote from them?

No, we haven't pursued any further. We have no direction from counsel on how to proceed here. So we've done no evaluation on specific costs or having quotes from vendors.

So can we make an estimate of what net profit the city would get from something like this?

We would expect that after expenses that we would net 50, about half of the revenue, roughly. That's an estimate. It's just off the cuff. We haven't done the full assessment on it.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Matt. Thank you, Brian. Any

other questions? So Brian, I've a couple. So today, I mean, we implicitly don't allow short term rentals. Because we say that if it's a short term rental is defined as a hotel, and in order to have a hotel you have to have a conditional use permit. So you're not allowed to have one here, unless you go and do that. Which we don't allow them in many of the, in all the residential districts, I believe. So if somebody called up and said, hey, there's a guy renting his house out on an Airbnb. How do we enforce it?

Yeah. It's a great question. So anything that's not listed in the code is not allowed. However, with enforcement, for us to enforce fines, to enforce violations, enforcing the code enforcement department, we we should prohibit them in the code that gives our professionals the ability to go up to the Airbnb operator and say, listen. This is in the code.

This is the this is the violation. You're going to be fined. If it happens on the weekends, and the sheriff's office comes in, you know, the sheriff's office works off laws and codes, and so it's it would be imperative if we if the sheriff's office is going to enforce shutting, Airbnb down, they really need to have some backing within our municipal code to say, excuse me, this is this is not allowed in Saratoga. It's prohibited. Shut it down. Close it up.

So it sounds like today there is no way to do that. Is it?

Can I just Yeah? I want to add, everything Brian just said is correct. And I agree that code enforcement would be a little easier. And I think community outreach would be easier with the ordinance explicitly prohibiting. But I will say that today, without a service like the service that scours the web, and without the data that the Short Term Rental Facilitator Act is supposed to provide us.

And it's unclear whether the companies will actually do what that law requires them to do. But without that data, it's very hard. We've done one code enforcement case, the person says, no, I'm not renting it. And so are we supposed to get a subpoena for their bank records and their credit card records? And they say, oh, no, that's my brother.

Oh, no, it's a friend of mine. It's my college buddy. So enforcing the even if we I just don't want the council's expectations to be high, even if you adopt the ordinance prohibiting them. We will still have a difficult time enforcing without spending either a lot of time to develop evidence, or if this new law works, it still will take time to get the information out of air b n b, process it, do it all. So it's not like we can just snap our fingers and get this.

Okay. I have a few other questions, but I'm going to hold them for the time being.

Okay.

If they don't come up during Okay. Other Any other questions? Nobody? Okay. We'll open it up to public comment. Britt, please explain the process and call our first speaker.

If you would like to address the City Council on this item, you're attending the meeting in person. Now is the time to approach the podium. If you're attending via Zoom, now is the time to raise your hand.

Thank you for waiting.

Thank you.

First, thanks. I didn't realize you guys are doing this out of effectively your passion for Saratoga. And it means a lot. I think you'd comment about the wealth, health, and safety of Saratoga. And I think this is a really important issue.

I live close by on Hilltop, and I can speak first hand about having renters, excuse me, people who were running Airbnb next to me. There's three primary issues. One is safety. We live on a street. It's a cul de sac that is resident maintained. It's 22 feet wide. Each car is about six and a half, seven feet wide. You cannot get a car up the street when cars are parked on both sides. Last year, there was a wedding when it was being run as an Airbnb. There were 17 cars.

17 cars. The street's maybe 75 feet, excuse me, 75 yards long. There's four houses on it. The other thing I would say is, maybe three years ago, our immediate neighbor, the house that was being rented, previous owners, had a fire, which I happened to see. I called the fire department. They made it up there. They put the fire out. And the fireman asked who called. And I said, I did. And he said, it's a good thing.

Five more minutes, this house would have been gone. Had this house been rented when that happened, the house would have been gone. We're talking about trees. We're talking about houses being burned down, right? Our house is next to it.

We have stones next to our house. So it's a real safety issue, especially for those streets that are narrow, that are private. If anything, I would ask the attorney to write language that says unanimous consent on any private streets, so that the residents have a voice in terms of how safe or unsafe it is. We live at the end of the street, and so we would be immediately blocked, as would two of our other neighbors. The other thing I would say is, I know some of the residents have had their driveways blocked.

They've not been able to get in or out of their driveways. These are one acre lots. And so, that's a hardship, especially if anybody be handicapped. Another person had somebody come in, a renter, maybe 11:00 at night, banging on their door, looking for, quote, the party house. It's not safe, it's not conducive to, I think, the way you want Saratoga to be thought of. Thank you. Thank

you.

Hi, my name's Debbie Manser, and I wrote a letter, an email to each of you to tell you what it was like living next door to an Airbnb for eight months. And that informs my decision. I won't go over all that again. I think your the proposed income relies on homeowners signing up voluntarily, getting the business license, and letting you know each time they rent the house so that you get taxes. I don't see people doing that. Our neighbor didn't do that. So I don't see people voluntarily going,

oh, want

to rent my house out as an Airbnb. I need to go to the city first. I think that is wishful thinking on the city's part. So that concerns me. It also concerns me that if I sold my house today, I would have to put in there as a disclosure that I live next to an Airbnb, which would be considered a nuisance, which would lower my property values, which then in turn lowers the city's, what their take would be on property taxes.

So I think it's a financial thing. It's also a quality of life thing. To me, Saratoga is all the things that we love about it. And when you start turning it into a short term rental place, you lose a lot of that. And you have a lot of people coming in from the outside. We saw all kinds of out of state licenses. There would sometimes be five and six renters at a time. Not at a time, but in a week's time. And so the trash would pile up and overflow. And the homeowners were out of the country.

So there was nobody keeping an eye. Airbnb doesn't come and check on it after it's rented, after each rental. So I think it's problematic. I'd hate to see you adopt the first one that was proposed. I hope you'll continue to keep it as a prohibition in Saratoga for a number of reasons.

So, and I want to thank you all for dedicating yourselves to the city, because I know it takes a lot of your time and you all probably have other jobs. So thank you. And I'd like to thank the Planning Commission too for, we live next to the old vineyard at Chester and Allendale. And I really was delighted to see that that development has been downsized from two thirty one units to 60 something. So thank you.

Thank you very much.

-Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor, counsel. My name is Paul Hernandez.

I'm with the Saratoga Oaks Lodge. My concern had been getting equal footing before the law. And I was happy to hear that this ordinance included a transient occupancy tax be collected. I'm also a homeowner and concerned, as are other people, with having party houses or whatever else occurs at bed and breakfast not sorry, bed and breakfast, but overnight rentals. And I was heartened to hear Brian state, I think, that we could get a list of bed and breakfast activity from the various agencies, which would greatly help enforcement of trouble calls, as well as collection of the transient occupancy tax.

And so a concern about enforcement is, yeah, are we going to come out on the top end of, are we hiring somebody to do this if we're not going to do it ourselves? Or maybe have a vigilante do the collection activity. But, you know, the attorney has raised the concern of the individual, not that's my brother or, you know, I didn't didn't have anybody renting this, but the prime directive of this ordinance is to ensure the city continues to be a place we all want to live. And so, regardless of whatever evidence has to be collected, I think there'd be an immense amount of it by the citizens surrounding a troublesome bed and breakfast I'm sorry. Bed yeah, short term rental.

So I appreciate your concern about taking up this ordinance, and hope you approve it if you do allow short term rentals in the city of Saratoga. Thank you.

Thanks, Paul.

Okay. Let's see. Anna.

Hello, everyone. My name is Anna Osniz. I live on Hilltop Way and I experienced living to next to legal Airbnb last year. So we had a lot of problems with the with the neighbors who did that. A lot of parties. It's a big house. It was very noisy. We have people showing up at 11:00, knocking on the door, looking for that house. We have people loitering in our backyards. We have big properties that are not fully fenced in for the wildlife to pass through.

So people guests didn't know. They were just, you know, wandering around our backyards. So what else was happening? I mean, it was just not not a good thing to live next to an Airbnb on a private street. I have the same concerns as Debbie and Steve has have because they experience the same things. And I would like to add that Airbnb has benefit benefit the owners of the rented property, the Airbnb itself. It benefits the city maybe when they collect taxes, and they benefit the guests, but that they do not benefit anyone else who lives around that property. So around anyone who lives nearby will not benefit anyhow from this. It's a nuisance. So and we have big houses in Saratoga.

Like, I look the average size of a house is 2,500 square feet, and it's, like, three bedroom, two bath at least. So if we allow short term rentals in Saratoga, it's gonna be big party houses. It's not gonna be couple couple of people coming over, you know, reading books on the deck. No. It's gonna be it's gonna be a party. Wedding, birthdays, whatever. So I don't think that's a good thing to have in Saratoga, and I hope you will adopt a new ordinance that will prohibit them explicitly, and I will have severe fines for that. And just wanna keep the Saratoga the way it is right now. No short term rentals. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mayor, that looks like the last speaker.

Okay. So I'd like to open it up to council discussion. Let's see where that goes. How about somebody other than the handsome guy at the end? Alright, Yan. Thank you. So

I actually have concerns with short term rental. And we all know Saratoga is a bedroom community. We are mostly single family neighborhood residents and for long term living. And to me, the financial gain of, you know, in term of if we can get, you know, half of a 60 k, which is, you know, estimating, gaining about 30 k revenue for the city. But think about the the other issues that the short term rental will cause, safety issues, noise concerns, quality of life.

And also, think, you know, if we allow short term rental, we will some property owner will give it in, you know, incentive to property owners to convert long term housing into short term lodging. So that actually is not good for our housing, addressing the short term housing, short yeah, the short term it's actually it's going to make the housing issue more worse. And also, think this is going to make homeowners or property owners, they would rather do this for investment than occupancy. Another thing I am concerned with, you know, people just talk about, you know, traffic and and also, you know, the enforcement. And we're complaint driven city, you know, now if we allow short term rental, we almost need to have a, you know, I don't know, agency or someone is gonna be monitor the compliance responding to complaints, also identifying illegal rentals.

I think all this are actually creating more issues for our city than bring, you know, benefits to our residents. So for all that reasons, I will be against short term rental in our city.

Thank you. Tina?

Thank you. I'll keep it short. I don't believe the short term rentals are worth considering. They are going to impact neighborhoods, impact the quality of life. And Saratoga's have consistently held that viewpoint, in my humble opinion. That's how I see it. And I don't support having short term rentals. Thanks. And the Planning Commission also came back. That, to me, is very important. I respect the Planning Commission's viewpoint on this one. They have come out very strong. And, again, Brian, thank you for elaborating on their arguments.

Cookie?

So on the two paths that we can take, either to prohibit short term rentals or allow them. I am at the moment leaning towards prohibiting them. My only concern about taking that path right now is, I think Richard was alluding to it, concerns about difficulty of enforcement of it. So that's the drawback I see on prohibiting. But I'm open to the and the 30 ks net revenue is not an incentive.

It's, for me it's not even a I don't even consider that. So I'm kind of wondering if, you know, the scenario that was brought up, which path we took would be more effective, right? So if we take the path to prohibit short term rentals and we've got it all laid out, but we can't enforce it, what good is it? But if we take the path of allowing short term rentals with restrictions that we can enforce, would the end result for the neighbors be better? And I don't know the answer to that.

So where my head is at right now is part of me wants to try to the path of prohibit short term rentals, See how it goes for a given amount of time. And then if we need to revisit it, we revisit it. And maybe there'll be another alternative. But at the moment, on this night right now, I'm leaning towards prohibiting. Thanks.

Thank you. Belong.

Thanks everyone for your comments, safety pick, and thank you to everyone who wrote in and for coming out. I think we should regulate this. I think we should go with the original ordinance that went to the planning commission. And that's because these are not allowed in Saratoga today, and they're still happening. And so I do think that I understand the tension you're referring to, Cookie, around like what is the most effective way to actually protect the quality of life of residents here when it comes to these things which are already happening.

And so that's where I'm back and forth in it. So I'm not supportive of prohibiting short term rentals. I think we should regulate it, especially if and I don't think the revenue is the main driver here. I think we like, the situation has changed. Right? And the situation has changed in that the state has passed a law that allows us to get reporting and visibility. Right now, I can't tell you all the short term rentals in Saratoga. But we will now have access to that data because of a state law that will now allow us to actually see who all of the short term rental owners who's putting short term rentals on in Saratoga. I pulled up Airbnb and VRBO in this meeting, and I'm seeing, yeah, maybe no more than 10, you know? But I could be wrong on that.

It depends on the date and the availability. So I do think that we should be mindful of that. I think there are ways that we can think about this. So, for example, banning it in cul de sacs, thinking about having a car limit as well. I do agree that this levels the playing field for local hotel owners that pay have a transient tax.

I think Airbnb owners should absolutely pay that tax, right, to level the playing field in terms of expenses and make that equal. I think it would also be interesting to have a noticing requirement to neighbors as well. Right? And I think that as part of the process would just help put the resident on notice that's putting this in their home to do that. I recognize there's probably not support in the council right now to proceed with an ordinance that would allow for this, but what I would ask us to consider in lieu of what we're talking about tonight is allowing short term rentals in instances where the owner of the home is present, either one of their bedrooms or in an ADU.

The reason I share that is I think, a couple of things. We have a loneliness problem with an aging population in Saratoga, and if someone wants to invite someone into their home to let them experience what Saratoga is like I've had some incredible Airbnb experiences around the world. And if someone wants to invite someone into their home and take that on, one, I think that's on them. Obviously we should regulate it to make sure that they're not doing it every night of the year, but there is the opportunity for them to fill that loneliness gap. But also we have a lot of seniors on fixed income and a lot of people aging in place, in homes, that are largely going empty because their kids have grown up, they've moved out.

And I don't buy the argument for a second that this is going to become like massive like, everyone's buying homes in Saratoga rented out via Airbnb. That makes no economic sense to me whatsoever. The median cost of a home is $4,000,000 in Saratoga. So for the math, it would not cover a barely I mean, I can't even imagine that getting anywhere close to covering a mortgage. In cities like in parts of Europe, like in Barcelona or, you know, in other tourist cities where the cost of real estate has historically been cheap, you do see a massive effect of Airbnbs pushing out local homeowners.

That is not a problem we have in the West Valley. Just and and if anyone has any questions, I'm happy to show you, build a spreadsheet with you and show you the math. But I don't think that's going to happen here. And if someone is doing that, they're probably a really, really bad investor. Right? And this is a business model in a lot of places, right? Where you purchase up a lot of properties and you rent out the Airbnb, have a different cleaning staff. It's sort of a full operation. Don't see that happening here. But I do think we should if a homeowner wants to invite someone into their home, they're going to probably do it anyway and just say it's their brother. But I think we should give that opportunity to folks. And so I recognize I'm in the minority here, but I just want to share those thoughts and thank everybody for their feedback.

Thank you. So I've been on the Planning Commission, I've been on the City Council, and I've always been one of the people, many of us, against short term rentals. We don't want to see an influx of people that we don't know in our neighborhood and parking on our streets. The reason that I asked to discuss this was number one, because the state did pass a law saying we could get a list of anybody that did rent their place out as a short term rental. We would know the dates that it was rented out.

Now we get this after the fact. So if they rented it in January, February, March, we wouldn't get the report until April or May, I would imagine. But then we could take some action on the person if we had some kind of an ordinance. The implicit way we have today, we can't police it at all. We can't put in a rule that says you, no visitor to your home, no short term renter can park in the street. We can't do that today. If we passed an ordinance allowing it, we could say that. If we passed an ordinance saying, no short term rentals, here's the fine structure. Well, we could get those reports and we could find those people. That's a start.

We can't say, you can't park in the street because it's a public street, if it is a public street. And unless you go to the Traffic Safety Commission, get it red tagged on one side of the road, red striped, there's going to be parking there. And anybody can park there. But if it was a short term rental that we had a law about, we could limit that. We still probably couldn't affect the garbage issue.

I mean, people are going to stuff the garbage where they're going to stuff it. But if we put rules in place say when this is what we allow in a short term rental, we would define the rules of the short term rental. And if those rules aren't followed, the person who registered for it, and again, we're going to find out who had it because we're going to get these reports from the short term rental companies. We would then be able to take action against them. So I'm torn because on one hand I still have my same belief.

I don't want a bunch of people coming into town that I don't know. Some of the, like the property on Hilltop, I really would like to know if they were rented through Craigslist or Airbnb or Vrbo or something else. Airbnb. Airbnb, if we complain to them directly, they have some rules. And they've enhanced them over the years. So I don't know how long ago it was. And thank you for letting me know it was Airbnb. We could enforce it through them, do more enforcement through them. They claim they're willing to work with us. Whether they are or not is, I don't know.

I haven't experienced it because I haven't been involved in it. So I'm really torn because I would really love to see us have the rules in place to be able to, you know, hey, if somebody's registered for an Airbnb and suddenly there's six cars parked on your street that nobody, you know, none of the neighbors have, the police department, our sheriff's department, which is our police force, could take action on them. But today, they can't. And if we say no to it, they still can't. So we're not doing anything to resolve the problem.

And we're certainly not giving it a chance to, hey, if we did enforce it, how would it look? Could we manage and control it? You know, anything that we put in place, we can take back. And it doesn't have to be a year. It can be six months. It can be whenever we decide that it's not working. We can yank it back. So I'm really torn. I'd love to hear emotion. I think that I like the don't have it, you know, ban the whole thing.

And here's the fines if you do it. And we will get those reports to be able to find those people. They probably won't ever pay the bill, so we'll end up trying to put it on their property tax bill. That's the only way we'd collect that money, I suspect. But if we truly want to help our neighbors, then we would put a law in place that would have certain provisions and rules and regulations up front to prevent certain kinds of activities. And that would be, you know, my sister comes out from New Jersey. She's done this for the last three years. They rent a place, her and her husband rent a place in California. First it was Healdsburg, and now it's the last couple of years have been in Santa Barbara. And they stay there for the month of January.

Because anybody who's been in New Jersey down the Jersey Shore in January, you don't really want to be there. So they come out here. I hope it warms up for them, actually, right now. But they do that and they go through BRBO or one of the executive home places. And they have a nice place to stay. Now they're there for a month. So they wouldn't actually fall under our ordinance because they're usually there for thirty one days. So they, it's not a short term rental. But the same concept. But there's rules. I mean, last year when we went down to visit them, we could not park in the street. We, in fact, they only allowed one other guest vehicle on the property. So that was, you know, at most two people. They wanted to know the names of the people that were visiting. So they did all kinds of, there's all kinds of restrictions if it's done the right way.

So I've seen both sides. And I know that if we don't pass a law that allows us to put the rules in place, the issues that you brought up will continue. Anytime, in any neighborhood, and we never know. Now, Brian, I've got a question. If we did the banning of the things, could we also include in there, if you violate the code and you do have a short term rental, and we get the report from the short term rental companies, so we'll know, in addition to the fine, could we charge them TOT? I mean, that's more of a question

for I

believe so. We have the ability to

That's in our ordinance.

Yeah. It's already in our ordinance. Right.

If you're doing, if you have an Airbnb, and we have this ordinance that prohibits, we can go to them to say, hey, give us the TOT you illegally created. And here's a fine.

Okay. So we could do both. So there's, so to me there's two options. You know, well there's three. One, leave it alone and suffer the consequences. And oh, by the way, the companies, the short term rental companies that I did speak to, one of them said that they look back through their history and at most they've had 75 listings in Saratoga. So if there are three or four of these companies, maybe you've had a couple 100 and they're not all at the same time. So that's the beauty. And I agree, thank you Bilal for saying it. I believe we're not creating an environment where all of sudden people are going to buy a house to rent it out.

We had that happen in town. And it took quite a while, as Richard mentioned before. There was a home on Harriman that was, they actually subdivided bedrooms to have two engineers or whomever was in there. And it was quite a mess. And we finally got it done and the house has since been rebuilt.

So, it's a beautiful thing. So, the three options are leave it alone and suffer the consequences of whatever happens. Outlaw them totally, which again puts no controls in place for any of the protection of our neighbors or the safety or the streets, the parking, etcetera. Or, we pass an ordinance that allows some with a bunch of rules that we can put in place to require these people or we find the heck out of them. So to me those are the three options I would welcome a motion.

I think when you mentioned when we explicitly prohibiting short term rental, so our compliance officers, code enforcement will have something on hand to do that. I think that we will definitely will address all those illegal short term rentals. So I think, you know, if we do that explicitly, we'll help our residents.

But we won't because we won't know that they were rented out until up to People report three it. Months

No. I think people, if neighbors know that and they

The can report sheriff will not go up to somebody and say, hey, are you a short term renter?

No. I mean, the neighbors, they can report it, right? If they are impacted, that's we are we are we are kind of a complaint driven community. So, I mean, I'm ready to make a motion. If there's no further discussion, I would like to make a motion that provide direction to staff on, I guess this is proposed ordinance concerning short term rental. I would say we're explicitly prohibiting short term rental in our city.

And any changes to the way it's written? You're okay with that?

Well, there's not nothing, no resolution to adopt. Right? So how do you want me to make that motion? Because we don't want to adopt the resolution because that's allowing.

Yeah.

So I want to say, give the direction, it's explicitly to staff, prohibiting short term rental.

We have an ordinance. We have an ordinance prohibiting.

I asked for two to be created rather than just bringing us back the first one.

Okay.

I asked to have another ordinance created which is the ordinance expressly, or explicitly prohibiting them with certain conditions and things in there.

Okay. Adopt. What's the resolution number? I have to Prohibiting. Adopting resolution number, there's no number, which is prohibiting short term rental.

I would like a clarification. Jan, when you look at that language, it also has enforcement. This is Attachment A. And it says a fine of maximum $1,500 for a first violation and $5,000 for the

I'm good with that. Just

wanted to make sure.

Yes, I'm good with that.

Okay. I second your motion.

Any discussion or subsequent motions? Okay, seeing none. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Oh, nay.

Nay.

I thought you going sue all in favor. They would do all against.

Oh, oh, yes. All against. I'm sorry. Yeah, yeah. Any opposed?

Opposed.

Opposed. Any abstentions? I didn't hear any. We got all votes. So are we good? It's four-one, with Council Member Oftaban opposed. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And let's see where we go. Thank you.

Okay. Next up we have council assignments. Let's start with Council Member Aftab.

I had one meeting, the Saratoga Sibrol Foundation Board of Directors, and I have nothing to report.

Okay. Yan?

Yes. I have two meetings to report. One is West Valley Sanitation District Board meeting, held today and we elected the chairperson and vice chair and I'm currently serving as elected as the chairperson serving this year 2026 vice chair is council member Dan Ferdado from Campbell. We also had a closed session and nothing to report there. Another meeting I attended is VTA, policy advisory committee.

Again, also, there's an election of chair and vice chair. The chair is council member from Campbell Elliott. I can't really say his last name. Can't

Scozzola. Scozzola.

Scozzola. Skozola. Okay. Vice chair, Maria Ristow from the town of Los Gatos. Oh, actually, one more. And, also, I attended Silicon Valley RIA interoperability. Again, it's mostly this is the first meeting of this year. As always, the election of chair and vice chair for the as we Silicon Valley RIA, the chair is Tom Klein, council member from Gilroy. And, the vice chair is who is the vice chair? Dan, also. It's Dan Fardado from Campbell. That's all from me.

Okay. Cookie?

Thanks. I have a Hakone update. The Koi Pond renovation is a multi step complex process that is ongoing. The contractor will complete work on the backwash collection tanks no later than March 6, so that the finished concrete slab area can be used for the hanami parking, within approximately 20 additional spaces. We're working to preserve more of the original pond footprint and historic plants, which will reduce the cost of the Koi Pond renovation.

For the end of year campaign, over 130,000 in donations were received from October 15 to early January. And the new online membership form is ready for implementation, so that the membership system is more automated and efficient. That's it.

Excellent. I've to renew mine. Tina.

Tina you. Firstly, Jan, congratulations. Good to have representation as chair. I attended only one meeting, which is City's Association of Santa Clara County, the executive committee with nothing to report.

Okay. And I had the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Board meeting and they approved a few things. It was a nice introductory meeting. The board approved 6,500,000 to do interior build out of a building they bought last year for their headquarters in Sunnyvale. And they also approved, it was interesting, they approved a conceptual project to create energy.

I guess it's been tested in small scale. But what they do is they basically use compressed air that they compress and they force underground. And then they use the energy that's created when it comes back up and there's water involved. It's very complex situation, but it's really, really interesting. And we're one of the early investors.

Actually, nine, whatever they call them, CCPs or CCAs or whatever they are, are all investors in it. It's very interesting, a very interesting concept, we'll see what happens. And we also discussed new electric vehicle programs to help encourage people to charge their vehicle during the day versus night because energy is a lot cheaper during the day with all the solar power now. And so they're trying to move people to do that. So interesting to see what will happen, but they've got some really neat programs and it's really cool to see that go forward.

That's all I've got. Any council items? Alright, I've got one. We have two jobs jobs in in terms terms of of hiring. Hiring. We We hire hire a a city city attorney, attorney, which I don't think we're looking at doing right now. We'll talk about that later. And a city manager. So I know that staff is going to reach out to you all about our process and how we're going to go forward. I would encourage and ask and beg you all to find the time to do this very high priority thing that we've got to do.

It's our number one thing. I mean, obviously protecting the people, it's our number one task in terms of hiring is to do that. So I would encourage and ask and again beg you to find the time to meet when staff reaches out. So thank you. Okay. So where's my agenda? Alright. So thank you for the council items. Is there any city council communications you all want to spread? Okay. Do we have a city manager's report?

Thank you, mayor. As I move along in my career, wanted to take the opportunity to thank the council from the bottom of my heart for the opportunity to work with you. It's been a great pleasure and equally as important to all of the team and the staff that deliver projects and service to the city of Saratoga on a regular basis. They've been an amazing team to work with.

Thank you. And we wish you the very best, Matt. City attorney's report?

I've enjoyed working with the city manager. Nothing else to report.

And you're going to still continue to enjoy working with us. Right?

I love working with you, and I will be here to help you with all the changes that occur and not going anywhere.