Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. All right. Commission and staff, are we ready?

We're ready on this side.

All right. Thank you, Francis. Okay. Now, welcome. I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting to order and ask that we rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I will now ask staff to explain the meeting process. We'll then proceed with the roll call.

Pursuant to Saratoga City Council's remote public participation policy, members of the public may participate in the 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. Commissioner Couser. Yes. Sheeran? Yes. Hassan? Yes. Brownlee? Here. Zane?

Present.

Vice Chair Germerod?

Present.

Chair Lee?

Present.

All present.

Now, oral communication on non-agenda items. Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding the oral communications. AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-GENERALIZED ITEMS. STAFF, CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS AND ANNOUNCE THE FIRST SPEAKER? FRANCIS?

YES, THANK YOU. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS WHEN YOU'RE ALLOWED TO EITHER IN THE THEATER PRESENT A SPEAKER SLIP TO STAFF AND SPEAK AT THE PODIUM OR ONLINE. Raise your hand using the tool in Zoom. There are no raised hands online. Chair Lee.

Okay, thank you. And one audience here as well. All right, this concludes oral communications on non-agendized items. Next is approval of minutes. Commissioners, any additions or corrections to the minutes? No. Anyone want to make a motion?

I'll move that we accept the minutes as submitted.

I'll second the motion, please.

All right. We need a roll call.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.

Okay. Thank you. just to make a clarification about a report on appeal rights. Any interested person objecting to any decision on this agenda may file an appeal application with the city clerk within 15 calendar days of the date of the decision. Okay. Okay. Now let's begin public hearing. The number one item is application APTR 26-0001. OK. And so let me explain the public hearing process. Applicants and or their representatives have a total of 10 minutes maximum for opening the statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court, members of the public may be limited to reason only issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at or prior to the close of the public hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants or their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statement. All right, now let's start with our application process. So I announced this is the first item. All right, now can we have a staff report?

Hello, Chair Lee and Commissioners. I'm here to present Tree Appeal APTR 26-1. The property owner of 12991 Pierce Road is appealing an administrative determination that tree permit application TRP 2681 is incomplete due to a lack of property owner signature on the permit application. The permit request is to remove one coast live oak tree located on the property line shared with a neighboring property. The tree is jointly owned and the required co-owner's signature was not provided. A tree pruning application was required for the removal or pruning of more than 25% of the canopy of the protected tree. Per Saratoga City Code Section 155050, Code Section 155070 states the application must be signed by the owner of the property where the tree is located, or a statement that the owner consents to the activity must be included. In this particular case, the tree is equally owned by two parties, and they must both be represented on the tree permit application. There are three instances where a tree may be exempt from the city's permitting process, and they're listed in Saratoga City Code section 155060. The first is emergencies. An imminent hazard tree is one that is actively failing, with signs like visible soil heaving, fresh wood showing from cracking, making it a critical safety concern. I've seen no signs of active failure from this tree. The second is public utilities. Public utility companies such as PG&E are exempt from the city tree permitting process when maintaining their equipment. And the third is project approval. For some development projects, the building permit acts as the tree removal permit. An additional tree removal permit is not needed. The appellant has not submitted the required signatures to process the application, and the tree is not exempt from the tree permitting process. The staff report contains a timeline of events for the tree permit application, and the staff recommendation is to adopt Resolution 2612, denying the appeal. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? Actually, I do have one. So here we're talking about cutting the trees. What if when the tree grows in the borderline between two neighborhoods, I mean two residents, and if they just want to trim The tree is on their side. Can they do that? Do they still need the permission of the neighbor?

They wouldn't need the permission as long as the health of the tree is not compromised. The city of Saratoga brings into effect that 25% limit on pruning every two-year cycle. And so pruning excess of that would require a permit and may have an effect on the health of the tree.

Okay. So as long as it's within 25%, And they can trim the tree without asking for permission.

As long as they're trimming portions of the tree that are, in fact, over their property, they don't necessarily have the right to enter their neighbor's property without permission. OK.

Thank you.

I do have a question.

I do have a follow-up that just came to mind. So the reason we are here is because per policy, you cannot issue a permit because of both neighbors not signing the application. And there is no emergency as such that you can act on it, correct? That's correct. Okay. Thank you.

All right. So now... Let's start hearing. If no further questions, now applicant now have 10 minutes for opening remarks.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS KAYUR SHAH. WITH ME REMOTELY IS JESSE DEVOSE. HE'S AN ISA BOARD CERTIFIED MASTER ARBORIST, THE HIGHEST CREDENTIAL IN THE INDUSTRY. held by less than 2% arborists worldwide. So he's the best expert we can get. We are here today to request you to approve removal of a decaying, dying live oak tree that is a public safety hazard. This tree straddles our property line on Foothill Lane, over which we have full easement rights as well as legal exposure. Three independent experts, as well as a city arborist, say that this tree will fall before it dies and must be removed. There are zero opinions otherwise. Hence, we submitted a permit for approval. But it was denied by the city for one reason, and one reason only, which is that the neighbor will not sign the form. Nothing to do with the safety, nothing to do with the condition, nothing to do with the status of the tree. The emergency determination that the city arborist made was made in December prior to three reports that were submitted later than that, which have not been reviewed by the city because of the technicality. The neighbor has literally ignored eight months of requests, and that is why we are here today to discuss the step forward. So let's review some facts. The tree is a 50-foot live coast oak with two dominant stems, sitting 95% on our property and 5% on Foothill Lane, which is the neighbor's side. Both stems are seriously compromised. As you can see in photo two, the northern stem which is on the roadside and has decayed from the base to over 8 feet, there's nothing left to save. The southern stem, which is on our side, is actually the dominant side, carrying most of the tree's mass, and that also has an escalating 35% structural decay that is confirmed by scientific reports. Here in photo 3, you will see the tree leaning over the entire width of Foothill Lane. If this drops... It's going to cause catastrophic damage. The canopy is green, but green leaves do not mean that the tree is safe in sight. Before the science, here is what we are asking the commission to do today. There are two options. Both options are in your legal code. Option one is to approve the removal today for public safety, no further delay. And option two is really to direct staff to process removal with the development application under Code Section 1550.060C, which we heard earlier. There is no co-owner signature required under that process. Either of those options resolves this issue. With that, I'm going to call on our expert, Jesse, who is on Zoom to take over. Jesse, are you online? I think Zoom is muted by default, right?

He is allowed to speak. He just needs to unmute himself. Okay.

We've got it now. Can you hear me?

Yeah, we can hear you.

Go ahead. So I was brought in to assess this, the structural integrity of this tree and general health. The left side, if you're viewing this photo, be the northern stem. There's a large decay column that you can clearly see on the left. Stems are about eight feet tall. Bark loss and that's progressing around the tree. On the right there's a at about eight feet off the ground you can see a cavity. We investigated that cavity further. This would be the southern stem through what we use as resist graph testing.

which is a tool we can use to create a picture of the structural integrity of the inside of the tree through a small drill that will show us the resistance and voids there, as well as there was follow-up testing done with sonic tomography where we can take a photo using a sonogram of a slight of a cross-section and see what our structural integrity is with that.

If we move to the next slide here, our resistograph testing, essentially what this shows is that we've lost structural integrity of the inside extensively. It was about 30% to 35% at that A foot, which would be our primary fulcrum point on the large southern stem.

The left stem obviously is quite

So focusing on the interior non-visible section. The critical finding here is not as much as the volume of decay. 35% is our threshold. What we say is about 33 a third at that point. That's kind of our rule of thumb of what is structurally viable to sustain the weight of the tree depending on other factors, the lean and everything else that we have compounding that. But as I was saying, more importantly in this situation, we're not seeing a defined precipitous drop where we hit our decay from our healthy wood to our decay. So the slight transition line tells us that the tree is not compartmentalizing, which is the term we use for a tree's ability to wall off and contain the decay from spreading.

So the decay is actively moving through the tree.

what the key finding on the resist graph was if we go to the next slide. This is the sonic tomography that was done. Again, the blue would be your void and cavity, and then the transition between the two is what we're seeing progress. As this progresses, obviously, there's a tipping point. No pun intended. We're going to get breakage. We fully expect this tree to before it dies physiologically, thereby giving a false sense of security that there's a hazard tree that appears healthy to the untrained eye from the exterior.

Thank you, Jesse.

So we have three arborists, three independent opinions, three separate visits across four months, all with the same conclusion. that this tree could fall any time. Both stems are compromised. Cabling is not an option. It's not possible to save this tree. And lastly, probable fracture under normal conditions, right? So what we did or why we're here today is before we brought this to the commission, we tried to resolve this privately with the neighbor, obviously, right? We don't want to bring it out here. We wrote personal letters. I knocked on the door, called, left several messages. In January 26, we even offered to pay 100% of the price to remove the tree. We also offered to replace the tree on the neighbor's site. We offered them money. We did everything possible. We've been practically trying since eight months now. We have a chart of every single contact we have made with the neighbor here. The neighbor, Long, is actually a licensed real estate broker in the state of California. He's well aware of the laws and the surrounding public safety entries. Still, he ignored all our pleas. So safety along that road is actually a shared responsibility. It's not just mine or theirs, but I'm happy to take on the burden, and I want this issue resolved sooner rather than later. So the neighbors have written a public letter, and I want to take a moment to respond to the public letter to the commission. The letter actually makes three claims for their refusal to sign, but the record clearly disagrees with all three. The first claim is privacy. As you can see in the picture here, that the tree actually faces the foothill lane. There is no structures between the tree and the road, so there is really no privacy concern here. The second claim, which is actually the most important fact, which is that in June of 2025, exactly a year from now, here before, Long and Wang removed three protected trees of significant environmental value, which were in healthy condition from their own property, citing safety. There was no arborist report submitted along with this application. In our case, all that was required to approve the removal of three healthy trees was a single site visit by the city arborist. These trees were not safe. In our case, we have three arborists recommending removal, saying that these trees are unsafe. So why are the same safety standards applied differently by city staff to different sites? That's because... The staff was working with only one tool. The commission actually has broader authority. The commission has more tools in its toolbox. The staff, as you will see in their pre-drafted denial recommendation you have in front of you, they have quoted LU 6.4. It reads, the way the staff read it is to protect the tree. The way it should be read, in our opinion, is to protect the public and the tree altogether.

This brings... Time is up. Sorry.

We lost some time with technicality, but that's fine.

How much time? I think our time is up. Yeah, we didn't stop. Only when you're all done, I start the clock.

Okay, that's fine.

Okay. All right. But thank you for the report. Yeah, you still have five minutes at the end for the closing remark. All right, commissioners, any questions?

We have some questions for the applicant. I guess you mentioned that the staff didn't look at your three author reports for some technical reason. What was that?

So I clarified this with staff earlier this week, whether they have actually reviewed the reports. And they said that they have not reviewed the reports because for them to review the report, they have to first accept the application itself. And they did not accept the application because the other party has not signed the application.

Gotcha. Thank you. And then the other thing is that your statement about the tree falling, you've stated it very clearly that the tree will fall before it dies. Correct. Okay. My real question, I guess, to the arborist is when will the limbs fall, likely? Because I've seen trees in that state last for decades. So when, I mean, I agree that it's going to fall before it dies, but how far away is that event?

It's really a question of liability for the city and for me as an owner of the tree also, but I'll let Jesse answer that.

Well, again, I think, you know, we have no crystal ball. A lot of factors are environmental. But what we do know is that we've reached what we say is the inflection point of structural integrity versus the stress on the tree, that the tree no longer, from our professional opinion, can support us on the way it sits now.

So once we hit that 30% to 35% structural integrity loss, all factors equal, that would be a

But we can't say for certain.

I realize you couldn't say for certain. What's your 90% confidence limit? What's the minimum time it will take to fall and the maximum time it will take to fall with 90% certainty?

I appreciate the question. I just can't answer that with any certainty. There's way too much variability there. As an industry, we just can't give those predictions. I can give a re-inspection interval that I would recommend. caveat that we've already crossed what we feel is a comfortable threshold for keeping a tree in an urban environment where there's a potential impact.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I have a couple of questions. The first one is from the picture.

The first one showed a lean onto Foothill Avenue. What is city policy regarding this? Does the city actively manage trees that are leaning into city roads?

The city doesn't actively manage trees that are leaning over city roads. It's the responsibility of the homeowner. However, this tree is not leaning over a foothill lane. It's leaning over an easement to driveway to two properties.

Got it. And my second question, I think the presentation showed like a structural defect on the tree on both the stems, I think. But then the... The report says there's no imminent hazard finding or there's no structural defect on the tree. Can you help me reconcile the two? Because they seem to be in conflict with each other.

The tree does have significant decay, but there's no sign that it's failing. As to date, it's holding itself up. There's no cracking. There's no soil heaving. There's no sign that the tree is changing in any way as far as failure happens. In order to qualify for the emergency, your tree would need to be failing. So the soil would need to be heaving out of the ground. There would have to be visible cracks in the trunk. There would have to be an active emergency.

Thank you.

Just a follow-up question to that. So let's say if we have those storms that we had a couple years ago where the winds blow so hard that even the trees that did not seem like they were failing, so in something like that, it could fail.

It could, yeah.

Even though it doesn't show the signs of all the signs that you just discussed, correct?

I mean, any trail could fail. We had 90 mile an hour winds two years ago, three years ago.

And actually, we had some happen just a couple weeks ago also. So it's very, I know we all live in the tree country, but it's challenging sometimes. Thank you.

I have a question, one question for you. And I saw a staff report about a, the timeline about when the first appeal happened. And then just in March, you have a modification plan that's submitted, and then you withdraw, and what are the reasons?

I'm not following the question.

Yeah, so I think, Christine, it's in your report. talking about the timeline when the applicant has been, can we show that?

Someone had asked a question whether the tree removal was blocking the project moving forward, and I just wanted to clarify that it was not blocking the project moving forward.

Oh, it's not. Okay. Sorry. Yeah, I think that question got answered. All right. Are we all good? All right.

The only other question I guess I have for the applicant is, you'd made a recommendation to either approve it tonight or, and then there was something else, and I'm not sure I understood the something else. Could you explain that?

So the first option was approve it today as is. Right, right. And the second option is direct staff to approve it as part of the development application, which is also part of the city code, in which case there is no neighbor sign-off required.

Staff care to comment on that is that accurate?

Oh As far as approving the tree removal as part of the project Yeah It does require a neighbor signature it then arborist review is actually a much more in-depth review than just a tree permit And if a neighbor's tree is involved to it to a level that may affect the health the neighbor is involved in that approval Correct

Our legal interpretation from our land use attorney is opposite, is contrary. Gotcha. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you. All right. Hearing no further questions from the commission, I would like to open public comment on this agenda. And I do have a slip here before we go online. Bharati Agrawal.

Hi, my name is Bharati Agarwal, and my property shares a boundary with Mr. Shah's property. And we are here today to discuss tree number 38, which Mr. Shah claims is dying, poses significant risks, and should be removed in the interest of public safety. He also insists that his request to remove the tree has nothing to do with his development project. Based on my interactions with him, I find that somewhat hard to believe. Mr. Shahar first reached out to me on March 18, 2025, requesting a meeting to discuss the trees which he described as fire hazards. I have lived on my property for over 12 years, and these trees have been nothing but a source of beauty for my home. I politely disagreed with that conclusion, and told him that I did not share his concerns. At our next meeting, he dropped that argument and instead requested that I agree to the removal of a healthy, protected oak tree that is entirely on my property in order to facilitate his development project. I refused and explained that these trees are extremely important to my family and that I could not support his request. A few months later, Mr. Shah contacted me again and informed me that he has changed his construction plans and has moved four feet away from my tree trunk. He also mentioned that he intended to remove major limbs extending over his property to make room for the new structure. We hired our own arborist to understand the impact of the proposed development on our tree. Both his arborist and ours agree that aggressive pruning combined with the construction of a three-story building only four feet from the tree would create significant risks to the tree's health. His own arborist report dated October 31, 2025 estimates a canopy loss of 36 to 40 percent and a root loss of approximately 50 percent. The report states that heavy pruning together with significant root loss would place the tree under considerable stress, making it more vulnerable to disease, shortening its lifespan. The remaining branches would also be prone to failure. The tree would become asymmetrical and unstable and would lean heavily towards my property. If the tree were to fail, which is a likely outcome under these circumstances, my family, my property and our neighbours would be at risk. These concerns have been communicated repeatedly, yet Mr Shah has shown no indication that he is willing to modify his plans and move the proposed construction further away from the tree. I find it paradoxical that while Mr. Shah has been so concerned about public safety associated with tree number 38, he has no concerns about the risks that he's going to create for us by building so close to the tree. If Mr. Shah is truly concerned about public safety, I would strongly urge him to build his homes at least 20 feet away from both the trees. Doing so would help preserve the health and stability of the trees along with the safety of the residents. Thank you.

Thank you. We have the next speaker, Glenn Hendrick.

My name is Glenn Hendrick. I appreciate that staff started with what are the reasons or actions that you can take And it's based on if you find active failure, utility, or if it's needed for a project approval. Well, this hearing has nothing to do with a project approval. So even if you wanted to do that, you can't do it in this meeting. The applicant here, in one of his writings, said what we're asking the commission do is acknowledge the tree as documented safety hazard. I don't think you guys are qualified to do that. The city can do that. but the city can't do it because you don't have a signed document that says go ahead and look at it. They said find the eight months of bad faith refusal. I don't think you guys have the authority to say how a party is, you know, trying to force their decision to say they have to sign the piece of paper and then direct the city to find a path forward. Again, I don't think that's what your guys' authority is. To me, this is a process question. And the applicant has said they don't like the process because they're not getting the answer that they want. So they're asking you to go around, what is the city-defined process? And the city defines processes so that everybody gets treated the same over time. And I think that you guys should go ahead and stay with that. It seems to me the simple question is, the application requires two parties to sign it. Only one party has signed it. I'm not sure what there's left to appeal about that. Thank you.

Thank you. Now no one else is in the audience. Frances, is there anybody online who wish to speak?

Now is the time, if you're online, to raise your hand in Zoom if you'd like to speak on this item. There are no hands raised. Chair Lee?

All right. Thank you, Frances. This concludes the public comment on this agenda item. Now, applicant, you have five minutes for the closing remark.

Thank you for the time, commissioners. If I can go back to the slides. Actually. We don't need to go back. My last concluding slide, we already talked about it. There are actually two options. And if we need to, we can go further into the actual codes. But they are available to you in the legal brief I provided. But I do want to address the first comment here from the public. It is my understanding that the Commission is only allowed to deliberate on topics on the agenda and in front of them. Whatever was discussed has no bearing or no relevance on the tree number 38 in front of us. So the entire discussion is probably left for another day when we have the project in front of the Planning Commission for discussion. Second, I didn't catch the gentleman's last name, but what Mr. Glenn said, I definitely agree with him. that whatever the city does with one, they need to do the same with the other. Just like our neighbors were allowed to take out three healthy trees in the name of safety, we are actually asking to remove one tree actually in the name of safety.

We have expert reports qualifying that.

There was another question I think from Badri about why the why the city staff had not looked at the reports. I just wanted to support the staff here and mention that when they actually denied the permit back in December, they did not have the data from the two experts, from Bartlett or from Jesse, to make that finding. Again, at that time it was just procedural. And it is still procedural. But now there is new data, which again, the city cannot look at until they are asked to look at. And that's all I'm asking the commission to do here today is make a common sense decision in everybody's safety. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So now that concludes the public comment on this agenda items. Any member of commission that would like to discuss?

Do we have any legal opinion from the city? Because we've heard two right now, one from Mr. Shah and one from, I think, Glenn, regarding what the city purview is. But do we have anything from the city?

Francis, I think Gabe is a participant.

I am, yes. I think that the The neighbors, as they've been called in this proceeding, they are part owners of the tree. And without their signature on the application, with their consent to the application, the city can't move forward. We can't give someone permission to remove a tree that someone else partly owns. That's essentially where we're at in terms of the application. We just can't do that by our code, and I think by... by the underlying property law, two parties own this tree, two parties have to agree to have it removed. So that's on the removal side. And on the emergency side, the city arborist stated that perfectly. Our code provides for emergency removals, and it has to be an imminent hazard. It has to be about to cause harm. to survive, nothing says that it is literally about to cause harm to life or property. And without that imminent threat, the city does not have the emergency

I have a follow-up question for you. So am I understanding it correctly? The reason we are here today, this is on our agenda, is because by policy, the city staff does not have authority to even look at the reports because there is no permit in place or application is not accepted. So if that's the reason, so then if the commission says, okay, let's accept the application, and then the city arborist is able to review all the reports that are done and then make the determination whether a permit should be issued or not. Is that a fair statement?

It's not, I'm afraid, because it's not a matter of policy whether we can accept the application. It's in our code. Our code says that the application shall be signed by the owner of the property upon which the tree is located. And the tree is located on two properties. So our code says that we need both signatures for the application to be complete. So this isn't just a policy decision by city staff not to accept the application. It's part of our code.

So nobody can overwrite that code, is what you're saying, even if it comes to commission, to give the city arborist an opportunity to review the application and just to see if, sorry, to review all the reports that were done by the applicant. Because at this point, if I'm understanding it correctly, the city arborist has not reviewed all the studies that were done by the applicant because of that code in place.

There's nothing that the arborist or the city could do with those reports because we can't process the application. We don't have So there's a stack of paper or maybe some PDF files on the arborist's desk. She can look at them, but she doesn't have the authority to do anything with them.

I don't know if I am getting... Yeah, can I just ask a question?

Yeah, please. Yeah, just my understanding is without both sides' signature, so city operatives like Christina, you cannot actually go there to estimate or do some kind of assessment, see how healthy the tree is. If the tree is really post-public hazard or has some kind of issue, we need to cut them immediately, right? You don't have that authority, right? Is that correct? Without both signatures?

Without both signatures, I don't have the authority to make an assessment on the health of the tree. I do have the authority to view the tree from the applicant's property and determine if there is, in fact, signs of active failure, and I have the authority to review photos to see if there's signs of active failure. I did review the reports that were submitted for signs of active failure to see if anything had changed since my December visit, but nothing had changed since that time that I saw in the reports.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, Paul.

Yeah, first off, it's a shame we're having to resolve a neighbor dispute this way. But I agree with the city attorney. We don't have the authority to get involved in this. My own feeling is to support our own arborist and our own attorney. I gave the applicant an opportunity, his arborist, to give us 90% confidence of failure. He was unable to do so. That being said, then the only criteria that we have are the city's criteria. So at this point, my thought is we support the city arborist, and we go ahead and adopt the resolution 26012, denying the appeal.

Anybody second it?

I'd second it.

Is there any other motion? No? Okay.

I would just say I agree with Paul's reasoning.

Yes.

So I'm going to take a roll call on this one. Yes. Commissioner Couser.

Even though I think it's a difficult thing, because I'm still very confused, to be honest with you, with the city attorneys about the code. But I do see that we, I just still don't know what the authority and why this came over here, why it was brought to us if we didn't have the authority to do anything, except to just accept the arborist report, so. recommendation. So I would really urge that please be mindful of the commission time if it is something that we can't do. So I would say I would just accept the report as presented. Yes.

I'll just quickly answer. The appellant does have their due process for appeals, so that's why we're here this evening, but I appreciate the comment. Commissioner Sridharan?

Yeah, I co-commissioner causes comments, but I also have to agree and say aye.

Commissioner Harshal?

Yes.

Commissioner Brownlee? Yes. Commissioner Zeng?

Yes. I respect our city arborist decision.

Vice Chair Germerod?

Yes.

Chair Lee?

Yes. Motion passes. I respect our arborist and our city attorneys.

Thank you, Chair. Motion passes unanimously to deny the appeal.

All right. So now let's move on to item 3.2, application PDR23-0009. Sure. We'll give a moment for our staff to set it up. So Chris, you can start when you're ready.

Hey, good evening. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO A REVISED RESOLUTION FOR THIS PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS. A COPY HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO EACH COMMISSIONER. THE PROJECT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S OBJECTIVE GENERAL PLAN, ZONING, AND DESIGN STANDARDS, EXCEPT FOR WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS PERMITTED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA DENSITY BONUS LAW AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT. NONE OF THE FINDINGS TO REJECT THE CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS HAVE BEEN FOUND. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.66 ASSEMBLY BILL 130 AND NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY HAS BEEN FOUND. Housing Accountability Act limits government's ability to disapprove, condition, or reduce the density of housing development projects that are consistent with local objective development standards and contribute to meeting housing need, unless the jurisdiction finds that the proposed development will have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety. Housing Accountability Act consider such impacts to arise infrequently. A jurisdiction that violates the Housing Accountability Act can be subject to both an order compelling it to take action to come into compliance and fines if it fails to comply with the court's order. Furthermore, the California Department of Housing Community Development, also known as HCD, could decertify the city's housing element unless subject THE CITY TO BUILDERS REMEDY PROJECTS. THE 1.02 ACRE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 12230 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD IN THE C.V. ZONING DISTRICT. EXISTING USES ON SITE INCLUDE A ONE STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR SARATOGA STAR AQUATICS WITH VEHICLE PARKING LOCATED BOTH IN FRONT AND AT THE BEAR OF THE SITE. SURROUNDING LAND USES INCLUDE THE GROWING TREE LEARNING CENTER AND TOWN HOMES TO THE NORTH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON KIRKDALE DRIVE TO THE EAST, TOWN HOMES ON MARGINY PLACE TO THE SOUTH, AND IF SO, SUNNYVILLE ROAD TO THE WEST. THIS IS THE PROJECT SITE PLAN. THE PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF 32 MILLION UNITS and 2,660 square feet of commercial space located in two three-story buildings located front to back on the site. Building 1 will be located adjacent to the street. It will be 30 feet tall with a floor area of 32,940 square feet. Building 1 will contain 17 three-bedroom residential units on floors 1 through 3 with ground floor commercial space located at the front of the buildings. BUILDING 2, LOCATED BEHIND BUILDING 1, WILL BE 30 FEET TALL WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 28,496 SQUARE FEET. BUILDING 2 WILL BE EXCLUSIVELY RESIDENTIAL AND WILL CONTAIN 10 THREE-BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THREE FOUR-BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON FLOORS 1 THROUGH 3. THE CITY CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF TWO ON-SITE PARKING SPACES FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND NINE SPACES FOR THE COMMERCIAL USE FOR A TOTAL OF 69 spaces. 75 parking spaces will be provided on site. Presidential parking will be provided in a below-grade parking garage which spans the length of both buildings and will contain space for 64 vehicles. Parking for the commercial use will be in a parking area located at the front of the site and will contain a total of 11 spaces. A drive will be located adjacent to the northern property line and will provide vehicle access to both the front parking lot and the basement parking area via ramp at the northeast corner of Building 2. An emergency vehicle turnaround will be located between both buildings. These are the left and right elevations of Building 1. The buildings will be 3 stories and 30 feet tall, which is 5 feet shorter than allowed by city regulations. The proposed architectural style will feature a contemporary urban aesthetic. The buildings will have a three-story linear massing with a long rectangular footprint and articulated corners reduce visual bulk. The ground floor of building one will be partially open with structural columns which overhang a portion of the parking lot, thereby providing a tuck-under parking area, pedestrian circulation beneath the upper stories, and sheltered space to the commercial space. These are the front and back elevations of Building 1. The contemporary architectural style is reinforced by exterior materials, which include a vertical mix of zinc metal and smooth panel systems, featuring both light-colored limestone, dark-colored granite, marble and glass, storefront window systems, and accent materials such as dark-colored metal window trims. THESE ARE THE LEFT AND RIGHT ELEVATIONS OF BUILDING TWO. BUILDING MATERIALS WILL INCLUDE VERTICAL WESTERN RED SEAT UP PANELING AND CUSTOM RUST-COLORED ALUMINUM HAND RAILS. THESE ARE THE FRONT RENOVATIONS OF BUILDING TWO. SOLAR PANELS AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT WILL BE LOCATED ON THE ROOF OF BOTH BUILDINGS AND WILL BE SCREENED BY FIVE-FOOT TALL METAL SCREENING. THIS IS THE FLOOR PLANT OF THE BASEMENT PARKING AREA. Vehicle's access will be from a ramp at the back of Building 2. The garage spans the length of both buildings. The garage will have 64 parking spaces, which include 58 standard spaces, two compact spaces, and four ADA spaces. Two elevators and two stairwells will provide access from the garage to the upper floors. The City Code requires two parking spaces per tomorrow unit for a total of 60 spaces, and the project conforms to this standard. THOUGH NOT BEING REQUESTED BY THE PROJECT APPLICANT, STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW WOULD ALLOW REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED PARKING TO 1.5 SPACES PER UNIT OR 45 SPACES. 64 SPACES PROVIDED IN THE PARKING GARAGE SUPPORT THE REQUESTED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF 30 UNITS. THESE ARE THE FLOOR PLANS FOR THE THREE FLOORS OF BUILDING ONE. TOTAL FLOOR AREA WILL BE 32,000 970 square feet. Uses include 2,606 square feet of commercial space on the ground and 17 dwelling units and floors one through three. All the buildings in building one will have three bedrooms and at least 2.5 bathrooms. These are the floor plans for the three floors of building two. Total floor area will be 28,496 square feet. Uses include 13 dwelling units and floors one through three. ALL THE UNITS WILL HAVE THREE BEDROOMS AND AT LEAST 2.5 BATHS, WITH EXCEPTION THAT THREE UNITS ON THE THIRD FLOOR WILL HAVE FOUR BEDROOMS AND 3.5 BATHS. THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THEIR PROJECT SITE. LANDSCAPE AREA ADJACENT TO THE SIDEWALK WILL INCLUDE BUSHES, A CRATE MERTLE TREE, AND THE CREATION OF A LANDSCAPE BIO-TREATMENT AREA. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING WILL INCLUDE A LANDSCAPE STRIP ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE landscaping between the two buildings, a bio-treatment area on the south side of both buildings, and a new landscaped area adjacent to the rear property line, which will include an existing coach redwood-like oak tree, five specific wax myrtle trees, and shrubbery. The project is subject to the state density donors law, like I mentioned. The project includes a base density of 20 dwell units, CONSISTENT WITH THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR MIXED SHOES DEVELOPMENT IN THE CV ZONING DISTRICT. THREE OF THE DRAWING UNITS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, WHICH UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW ENTITLES THE APPLICANT TO A 50% INCREASE TO THE BASED DENSITY OR 10 UNITS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A TOTAL OF 30 DRAWING UNITS. A project is subject to the State Density Bonus Law entitled to certain concessions and waivers. Three of the units will be available to very low-income households, qualifying the project for three concessions and unlimited waivers. A concession allows a project to deviate from design standards when enforcement of the regulation could potentially make the project economically infeasible. The three requested concessions include exceptions from design standards for building articulation, ground floor ceiling height, and facade design. Details of each concession are included in the staff report. The product includes a request for waivers. A waiver is reduction or modification of a development standard when enforcement could make the construction of the project physically infeasible. THERE'S NO LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF WAIVERS AN APPLICANT CAN REQUEST. ALL MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED USE PROJECTS ARE TO COMPLY WITH THE C.V. DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND THE MIXED USE AND MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CANDID ARTICLE 1558 OF THE CODE. THE PROJECT APPLICANT IS REQUESTING WAIVERS TO NOT COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS. SIDE SETBACKS, REAR SETBACKS, LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, BUILDING PLACEMENT, BUILDING ENTRANCES, PARKING LOCATION. DETAILS OF EACH WAIVER IS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. UNDER THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, A QUALIFYING PROJECT IS ENTITLED TO CERTAIN CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS. REQUESTED INCENTIVES ARE TO BE GRANTED BY THE CITY UNLESS THE CITY MAKES A WRITTEN FINDING BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THESE FINDINGS. NONE OF THESE FINDINGS CAN BE MADE Therefore, under Government Code Section 65915, proposed a project qualifies for the requested concessions and waivers. These are the design review findings the Commission must make to approve the project. DAP was able to make all the findings to recommend approval. Mixed-use development as a conditionally permitted use in the CV zoning district is subject to an approved conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. These are the findings the Commission must make to approve the conditional use permit. The staff was able to make all the findings recommend approval. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a revised resolution at your desk, number 26-014, approving the project and find the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 and the applicable provision of the Public Resources Code. Thank you. Concludes my report.

Thank you, Chris.

Is there any questions? I have two questions. The first one is, the very low income households, how is the city going to track as to who's managing those, or how is it going to work?

So the property owner will need to sign an agreement And it'll outline how incomes are derived. And in the case of rental units, those incomes would need to be reviewed annually. If it were an ownership, it would be a different mechanism. But that's the way it works for rental units. So they're reviewed annually.

Some cities have a third party that manages. Do we have something like that too?

That is correct. Because we have such a small inventory at this moment in time, we don't have an administrator. Once our portfolio increases and it's beyond staff's capability, then we would need to hire someone to help us with that.

Okay.

Thank you.

I GUESS IN PHRASING IT AS A QUESTION BUT JUST FROM YOUR STARTING SLIDE AND THEN YOUR CONCLUDING SLIDE, JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY. THE PROJECT CONFORMS TO ALL OF OUR CITY CODE GUIDELINES FOR SUCH A PROJECT SUCH THAT YOU CAN MAKE THE DESIGN AND REVIEW FINDINGS AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS AND THE WAYS IN WHICH THAT WE'RE Exempting from those are concessions and waivers that are required by the Housing Accountability Act Density Bonus Law and AB 130. Is that your interpretation of what you were trying to convey?

Yes, that's correct. I wouldn't say they're required. They're allowed to be asked for.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

Chris, I'll just check your last statement. You said they're allowed to be asked for. It's my understanding that under the way the law is written, we're required to award those. Is it up to the Planning Commission tonight to decide whether to award them or not?

No. The law says that the accession waivers must be granted. But as Commissioner Brownlee said, we have to, the applicant needs to request them. So based on the number of affordable units of three, they get three incentives, and they also get an unlimited waiver. So the three incentives are in the report. They could have used just one, but they used all three.

Thank you. Thank you.

All right. So let's move on. Can I just do a follow-up? Sorry. Can I ask a follow-up question? Oh, yes. You said three incentives and unlimited waivers. Correct. And the three incentives are based because there's three very low-income homes.

Correct. It qualifies for three incentives due to 15% of the base units, 20, gives them three incentives.

Okay, so 15%.

Is three of 20.

Is three units of 20, okay. And that have to be very low income, not just low income.

Very low income, that's correct. Okay. Hold on.

So it depends. So there's a table that says, you know, if you do very low or low, it's based on the affordability level, how many concessions you get. So they chose very low income because it assists them with what they needed for their concessions.

A quick question. Can I ask a question? Yes, of course. What is defined as very low income? Is there any table there that define very low and low and whatever?

So low income is considered 80% of area median income. And very low income is 50% of area median income. The Department of Housing and Urban Development each year updates the median income for each county. Santa Clara County has a very high median income, as you can imagine, and the numbers did just come out, I think, this week. I haven't looked at the new numbers, but we would go off the latest numbers that come out annually to determine the income level.

Do you think it's over $100,000?

So it's based on how many of the household size. Given the size, you know, the number of bedrooms in these units, it will be fairly high.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Sorry, just to keep going with that very low, the income determination. So does that change once the project is complete? So would that keep changing? And that's why the administrator or the city staff overlooks that?

Yeah, so each year we would send out a letter to all the tenants and say, we need your income, and there are certain documents that they have to provide. And then we look at the new income limits for that year to calculate what the rent would be.

And if it's a sole, they haven't decided yet if it's apartments or condos, right? So if it's going to be for sale, then it's going to be a different way to look at it?

So my understanding, and Chris can correct me if I'm wrong, it's not condo mapped, so it would need to be apartments.

It's not condo mapped yet.

Yet, okay.

It could be.

Thank you.

One more question. This is a mixed-use development with some commercial space, right? Does the commercial space have any bearing on the three low-income areas? on any of the incentives that they want?

No, the commercial space allows them to go in as the mixed use. So it's mixed use development, which needs a combination of commercial and residential. So that's what allows that to move forward.

So what's the incentive to be commercial?

Mixed use is the, it's a commercial zone. And in order to do development in that zone, it must be mixed use. I see.

So existing zoning for that site is commercial?

Correct.

I see. Thank you.

And I do have a follow-up question. So for the commercial use, is there a minimum requirement for you to leverage the square footage?

The code doesn't specify minimum size of commercial.

So there's... No. No. As long as there's one.

So those two buildings, one is mixed commercial, the other one is not. Correct.

The front building is a combination of the ground floor of the commercial and residential, and the back building is all residential.

Okay.

So that's the decision by developer, the applicant, or by city? That's the program that the applicant submitted.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no further questions, let's move on. Now we'll have... The applicant now have 10 minutes for opening remarks.

Thank you. Commissioners, thank you very much for your attention this evening. I'm not going to take up 10 minutes. Christopher did such an amazing job of describing the project. I'm just going to go over a few items from more of the architectural standpoint. As you can see on the screen, we have an image of the building. I want to add that in addition to the 30-foot limit, which we actually at the EVE line were below that limit, we pushed the building 10 inches into the ground. so that it would be even less tall for the neighborhood. So part of it was the fire access. We wanted to avoid having a large aerial access truck come onto the site. But part of it also was just this drive to make it as low as possible. All the materials are of much finer grade than we typically use on a project. And some of that has to do with the type of project it is, the type of of units that are in the project, but also its recognition of what's really required for this neighborhood. So it's all very high-end. We rarely use stone. We'll be using stone. We rarely use that Cortan aluminum. We're going to be using that just to add a level of finish and detail to the project. You're all familiar with where it is, so I'm not going to spend any time on this at all. You saw the site plan, two buildings. The project is mixed use by virtue of the commercial in the front. There's parking for the commercial. Actually, the most extensive part of the planning process to date has been our interaction with the fire department, just to make sure that we met all of their criteria for how to keep the building safe. We went through three or four cycles of coming to the criteria that they needed to sign off. And again, Chris did such a great job on how to do anything. This shows the lobby or the commercial space that's fronting on Saratoga Sunnyvale. You can see the lobbies for both buildings right off of the central turnaround space that will be used for the fire truck access. No parking allowed there. We'll have signs that say no parking. It is strictly for fire access. And that applies for the lane as well. The entire lane will have signs saying no parking, and that will be enforced. You've seen the elevations. I will just add that, again, at the EVE line, so the thing that's closest to the perimeter of the building, we're actually at around 29.8, I believe. I forget the exact figure. So even lower than the 30 feet for the fire department and significantly lower than the 35 that's allowed under zoning. Same for the back building. And then just going back to the point of the The details and the materials are very fine-grade, and I think that we're actually, as architects, we're always pleased to have that in our palette. Typically, we're looking for economy, but here we're really looking for a certain look that is appropriate to this area. Just a couple more views. This is an aerial that is on the Saratoga-Sunnyvale side from the northwest. And you can see in the front there's the corner element signifying the commercial that has a slightly higher texture. And then the smooth stone honed finish for the balance of the building. And then there's an expression of the base you can see that helps to break up the apparent height of the building even more. You have a base and then only a two-story cap there. then we have introduced these trellis-like elements to help break up the skyline and also to provide some shade and shadow and give some texture to the building. And I think that that's all that we have to talk about and happy to entertain any questions.

Thank you. Now, commissioners, go ahead.

You mentioned the 30-foot height limit that the fire department wanted. They don't count the, I guess it's air conditioning and stuff that's up there?

The mechanical screen is exempt.

Yeah, so that's excluded. Just the eave height that they look at?

It is actually the highest point of the roof itself. The mechanical screen is not considered part of the roof.

Thank you.

Quick question for you. You mentioned the commercial space. I can't tell where that is in this. Can you give us more insight?

Sure. Whoops. Wrong. So in this view, it is the entire ground floor that's facing us. So where you see those cars pulled in underneath the overhang, all the glazing that you see there leads into the commercial space. We can go back to the plan if that's helpful. So it is the salmon-colored area there on the left. Saratoga Sunnyvale is further out to the left there. And so what we're seeing in that view is we're looking from the left towards the right into the face of the commercial space.

It's further in from the car space.

It is. It is, actually. The storefront itself is about 22 feet away from the face of the building. You can kind of see it here. that very glassy area where the guy in the blue shirt is standing. That's the story.

So is that where the second car is? Is it kind of a turnaround there? Is that what that is? It's still part of your property?

Which car? Which color?

The silver car?

No, that's the neighbor. The neighbor property, right?

So your property is the one on the other side of the landscape.

We're everywhere beyond the flowers.

And another question we were asking staff about whether it's apartments or condos, and they said you had not decided yet. Do you have a decision as to will you be doing a condo map?

Yes.

So all of them would be condos?

That's right. And I know that I was wondering where you were going to go with the affordability thing because I know it is different under sales. But there is a process. The state has a process for that.

For the very low-income homes, that would be sold?

That's right. Typically, I'm not a real estate attorney, so this is all based on things that I've heard in passing. But typically what they do is that they have a limit on the sales price that is calibrated to the income level, and there's a deed restriction that when that person decides to sell, the amount that they can sell it for is limited by the income level at the time of sale. And I think as an investment, the hope is that the area median income keeps going up, which apparently it does. And so that's how they would make their profit.

So is it also possible to those three units to be apartments? Would the applicant be due partial, or that doesn't happen?

You know, I have, again, not a real estate attorney, but I've heard that if an entity were to come in and purchase the properties, they can manage them as rentals, but that is way beyond my field of knowledge. Thank you.

Yeah, quick question. Is this an empty lot, or is it a structure on it?

There is currently a pool center.

I'm sorry?

Here, there's... there is an aquatic center. I think it shows in that over there on the right, that's the existing structure.

I have some questions for you. So if you can go back to the building when you look at Yeah, here. So just tell us the difference between when you design the balcony facing north, you have a pretty prominent balcony, and then facing south?

Oh, that would be on building two, then. This is building one, so this is the one closer to the street. This is building two, and I think the balcony you're referring to is the one on the upper left of the lower right illustrations.

Right, so the difference between the two, because I only see a visual picture from the top ones that it's kind of extended out, but in the middle, in the middle buildings, is that a balcony or is this decoration?

No, those are all balconies.

It is a balcony, and yeah, because we can't see the side views.

Oh, yeah, I think, let me go to one of the rendered views here. There you can see the ones in the middle.

This is facing north.

This is facing north, and so all of the balconies are configured the same way in terms of you can see that they're partially embedded in the building, and then the surface of the balcony is large enough to meet the open space requirement, but only a portion of it extends beyond the face of the building.

I see. And on the south facing is the same? Same.

Okay.

Oops. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah, this does not count. The question we have, we have time to ask more questions. And so I think there's a picture between the two buildings, between the two, building one, between the building one and building two.

We don't have a rendering of that area. At least we only developed the rendering sort of from the street side.

Okay. And then the space between the south side to the neighboring fence, what is the space used for? Is that a garden? I mean, is it a yard?

So there's a walkway that would be primarily used for firefighting, and then our stormwater retention is all along the south side.

I see.

So it'll be landscaped with a certain landscape palette as is required for stormwater. It's a little bit different than a typical planting.

I see. So it's not a private yard on the first floor.

No. There are private spaces, but you can see that I misspoke. These ones are pulled into the building at the ground level.

Okay. And I have another question. I know a lot of neighbors are here. They will speak next. And I have read a lot of their complaints. And I'm sure we're going to hear about it. And so I'm curious, since you're here, have there been any meetings, discussions with the neighbors?

We, the architect, have not participated in any community meetings for this project.

Okay. How about the project other people participated?

Well, for projects where public lands or public funding is involved, we always conduct community meetings. For projects that are privately funded, we almost never do.

So this is privately funded? Privately funded. All right.

Yeah. So we'll talk about it later with the staff.

Okay. So thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Okay, now we will move on to public comments. And you will have three minutes for everyone. I have about ten slip here and maybe some more people online. And I will call the speaker, the first speaker, and I will also name the second speaker so you'll get ready. Okay, the first one is Frank Chen. Frank Chen.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Frank Chen. I'm a nine-year resident of Merrimack Mead Place, directly south of the proposed Times Bay Saratoga Development Project. Tonight, several of my neighbors will be stepping up to address distinct, specific data omissions and gaps within the applicant's submittal and the underlying project record, ranging from transit miscalculations to unverified environmental histories. The proposed Assembly Bill 130 statutory exemption for this site fails to meet mandatory environmental criteria and cannot be legally sustained. Under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, a project must demonstrate that its specific environmental and operational baseline can be safely introduced without unmitigated site impacts. This application fails on three distinct fronts. First, an unstudied baseline shift. Saratoga mandates 50% commercial use in this commercial visitor zone. This project slashes it to under 8%. This replaces transient daytime visitors with a permanent 24-7 residential population, fundamentally altering the physical environmental baseline. The applicant provides zero data analyzing how this round-the-clock operational intensity impacts the local setting. failing a core requirement of the AB 130 checklist. Second, hidden chemical hazards. State databases like GeoTracker and EnviroStor show zero phase one environmental site assessments available for public review. Yet, this site operated for decades as Saratoga Star Aquatics, as you've heard, storing industrial volumes of commercial pool chemicals. Bypassing a public environmental audit on a heavy commercial site violates state law. Third, an unverified tribal check. Because tribal records are confidential, we formally like to request the city attorney verify tonight that all statutory notification windows have fully closed. Voting to approve without documented tribal clearance creates a defective record. Public due process compels this commission to uphold the statutory checklist, protect our neighborhood safety, and deny the AB 130 exemption tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Derek Kuo. And the next one waiting in line is Joyce. Go ahead.

Thank you very much. Good evening, Chair and the Commissioners. My name is Derek. I live at 20068 Murray Garden Place, directly adjacent to this project. So I'm speaking for Exhibition Infra and the Transit and Environment Record. So my concern is whether the recur support approval from specific project tonight. So first, this is not a minor construction, right? The projects include a 64 space below grade garage and around 8,400 cubic yards of earthwork, right? this excavation will occur very, very close to the existing homes on the south side. While the project also requests a south side setback reduction from 26 feet to only 10 feet. So they don't even show the picture on the south side. It's very, very close. So more importantly, the developers own sheet C550 here. So there's one note saying, structural to verify that existing wall can handle the new retainage. The note is very critical. It means the product's own plan identifies a structural verification that still needs to be completed. That verification is not shown in the public record. So the Commission should not approve this product tonight while this safety review remains deferred. So second, this site has operated for years as a commercial swimming pool and pool facility, involving water treatment, chemicals, and related equipment. So given the proposed application and a below-grid garage, the commission should require a Phase 1 environmental set assessment or equivalent hazard material review before relying on this exemption. So third, on transit, so if the staff report or exemption determination relies on the transit proximity or high-quality transit corridor assumptions. So that, you know, funding must be supported by actual data, right? So I'm actually having this, you know, official VTA schedule. It's, you know, Route 51 schedule. So I'm going to submit this for record. So the relevant, you know, stops near this, you know, site does not provide a 15-minute peak-hour service. They show roughly around 50, 60 minutes at peak hours. Folding this in 15 minutes peak headway requirement and the public resource code section 21064.3. So for these reasons, the total absence of the verified transit, utility, geotechnical, structural, and environmental documentation means this product completely fails the baseline criteria for a bad price. So I respectfully request the Planning Commission deny this AB 130 exemption tonight and protect our community from this risk. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Joyce. After that is Ravi Kumar.

Hi, good evening. Chair and commissioners, my name is Joyce. I'm a resident on the Marigny Place. I've been living in this neighborhood for seven years. My presentation will be focusing squarely on the requested structural waivers and site planning failures. The applicant wants to erect two 30-foot tall structures front to back with a discrepancy stating 37-foot tall structures on the AB 130 exemption document. destroying five protected mature trees and erasing our residential privacy. Under government code section 65915, structural waivers to slash our standard 30-foot residential buffer down to 10 feet can only be legally granted if local zoning physically precludes the project. The developer bears the strict burden of proof to provide this evidence. Yet across the full official application exhibit tonight, there is no standalone waiver exhibit, no developable envelope study, and no architectural narrative. Instead, on sheet G1. G0.1 reviews their entire technical justification consists of exactly three words stamped on the blueprint. Reason, narrow sight. This is unsupported conclusion, not architectural data. Furthermore, sheet on G0.1's own revision log documents a highly flexible three-year history of design manipulation from October 2024 to February 2026. This layout is an iterative choice to maximize internal profit margins, not a physical necessity. An administrative record completely lacking objective data cannot legally support a massive 10-foot setback waiver next to 12 existing homes. Because the developer has provided zero substantial evidence of physical preclusion, you must deny the AB 130 exemption tonight and reject this unlawful structural waivers. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair Lee, I'd like to mention something that was brought up real quick. So one of the speakers did bring up the tribal noticing. So the city does have the list of local tribes that was provided by the state. And we did send all letters to local tribes on July 24 of last year. We had two tribes that did request consultation. They were the Muwekma tribe and the Tamee Nation tribe. We consulted with the Muwekma tribe on 8-7-25, and the Tamian Nation on 10-2-25. And both those tribes' comments and conditions are included in the resolution.

Thank you. Since you, okay, wait, I'll follow up later. Okay, thank you. Let's continue with the public's comments. Next is Ravi Kumar, and after that is Meng Shi.

Good evening, Commissioner Sanjaya. My name is Ravi Kumar, and I'm residing on Marigny Place. As a final speaker for our nine-page board panel, I'm here to synthesize our legal findings and address the city's severe exposure to liability. We recognize the immense pressure Saratoga is under to meet its state housing board goals, and no net loss obligations. We know the city needs housing units, but rushing to approve legally defective application out of the desire to satisfy state quota is a dangerous gamble and that will backfire. By recommending a blanket AB-130 exemption for the project that utilizes extreme structural waviness without any data providing a physical precaution, the staff report walked the city directly into a legal trap. Furthermore, ignoring the unverified 60-day statutory tribal consultation clock and bypassing the mandatory environmental audit for a decade-old commercial chemical pool facilitated to create a legally indefensible administrative record. If you vote to approve Resolution No. 26014 tonight, you are not securing the housing unit for the Saratoga State Goals. You are establishing a procedurally defective administrative record that cannot withstand a judicial review under a rate of mandate. Do not cut the structural and environmental corners for the developer's convenience. Approving this legally flawed application tonight leaves our neighbourhood with no choice but to immediately exhaust our administrative remedies by filing a renovo appeal to city council. and staying this entitlement and forcing the competency public audit to audit of this missing physical preclusion data and environmental shortcuts. To protect city from severe legal exposure, we urge you to deny this defective AB 130 exemption tonight or take the legally imprudent path and grant the formal continuance to allow the staff to cure these violations. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Meng Shi. After that is Kathy.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Meng Shi. I'm a nine-year resident of Marigny Place. I'm here tonight to strongly oppose this project because it threatens our neighborhood's safety and will trigger severe traffic gridlock. This design poses a severe and predictable safety risk. The developer wants to squeeze 75 vehicles from a single driveway directly onto Saratoga-Seneville Road, right at our worst local bottleneck. This stretch of road is already jammed during rush hour, and it's difficult for emergency vehicle to even navigate. Worse yet, this bottleneck sits right in the path of a nearby elementary school, Blue Hill Elementary School. And during the morning rush, our school traffic will be trapped into two equally dangerous scenarios. Parents trying to drop off their children must either turn left, waiting in the center median island to merge with the traffic, and their left turn into Seagull Way. or they turn right onto the Saratoga-Seneville Road. If they turn right, they will immediately collide with a heavy stream of traffic pouring out of this new development. If they turn left, they face an existing conflict point where vehicles from across the street also fight for that exact same narrow median. Pouring dozens of additional cars into this bottleneck precisely when young children were walking, biking, or being driven to school is a recipe for tragedy.

Yet.

The developer has no data. Instead, they are attempting to use an AB 130 exemption to completely skip the required traffic impact assessment. Having no data is not proof of safety. It's simply turning a blind eye. Our commission cannot grant a safety shortcut based on an empty envelope. We have submitted a formal written objection and a petition signed by 29 of our local neighbors. I urge the commission to put public safety first, follow the law, and deny the AB 130 exemption tonight. Thank you.

Thank you.

OK, our next speaker is Cathy.

After that is Hannah.

Good evening, Chair and commissioners. My name is Kathy, and I'm one of the original homeowners of Merrigly Place. With the experience of living one decade in the neighborhood, I was shocked by the mail that dropped in a week ago before this hearing. Our home is a middle unit with zero east or west facing windows. We depend 100% on the north and the south facing elevations for natural light and ventilations. Our north-facing rail windows and door serve our main living area and look directly toward the development site. The applicant proposed a continuous three-story wall blanking the entire rail of our existing residential row. The developer's south elevation blueprints show multiple intensive windows, balconies, and light pollution facing directly into our yard and bedrooms. completely replacing our current open sky and low scale setting. This is not a matter of neighborhood preference. It is a matter of strict regulation compliance. Under California's density bonus law, I hope that this commission has a clear application to deny a physical waiver if the developer fails to provide substantial evidence to justify it. This applicant's file completely fails to meet the evidential burden proving zero spatial data to justify stripping our existing homes of basic light, air, and cross privacy. Because this unmitigated mass inflicts a severe permanent impact on our primary living spaces, the developer has simply failed to earn this extreme design concession. I urge the Commission to protect Saratoga's residential character, reject this unwarranted structural waivers, and deny the AB 130 exemption tonight. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Hannah Zhang.

Good evening, my name is Hannah and I'm the resident of Marigny Place. Many speakers before me have already raised the important concerns about this project. I would like to focus on one key issue, compliance. We fully understand that the city must comply with California housing laws. We are not asking the city to ignore state law or reject housing. However, the applicant must also comply with all other applicable engineering, environmental, safety, and planning standards. State housing law is a mandate for compliance, not a shortcut to bypass proper review. My core concern is that the applicant appears to be requesting significant waivers, exceptions, or special considerations without providing sufficient objective data to justify them. Without repeating the detailed technical evidence my neighbors may have already presented, in my view, the record still appears to contain serious gaps regarding traffic, environmental conditions, subsurface conditions, structural impacts, and neighborhood safety. This area has already absorbed a significant amount of high density housing, including townhouses. The neighborhood is already experiencing traffic, parking, and congestion pressure. Any additional density at this location should therefore be evaluated based on the cumulative impact, infrastructure capacity, emergency access, pediatrician safety, and the site suitability. We are simply asking the city to require the developer to do the work to bridge the gap between state housing compliance and neighborhood safety. We respectfully urge this commission to continue this item tonight and condition any further approval on minimum safeguards. State law matters. and the city must comply with it. But the purpose of state law is to serve the public interest. It should not be used to excuse incomplete analysis, avoid safety review, or dismiss legitimate community concerns. Public safety, infrastructure capacity, environmental protection, and responsible planning matter too. Please require the applicant to provide a full compliant data supported project before this proposal move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Man Wang.

OK, so good evening, chair and the commissioners. My name is . I live at 12239 Circle, just close to that project site. I'm here today as a resident directly affected by this issue to express my strong opposition to this project. My objection is not based on urban development. itself but on the non-negotiable principle of public safety. The project plans to densely park 64 vehicles in an underground parking garage, above which sits a 30-foot-high residential building surrounded by extremely already densely populated buildings. As EV, electrical vehicle, is taking higher percentage of all the new car sales shares in California this day, EV fires in closed underground space are considered as extra hazard. According to the California fire code and the National Fire Protection Association standards, electrical car fires. In the case of this project, EV fires are much harder, much, much more harder than to extinguish and could be catastrophic. Due to electrical vehicle battery pack are enclosed under the vehicle chassis and have a heavily waterproof casing, make it difficult for water spray from above to directly reach the battery. Secondly, fire in fully enclosed underground garage produce extremely dense toxic smoke, which will severely hinder firefighters from carrying hoses and entering the underground garage on the floor for an interior attack. Thirdly, once the EV is spontaneously combusted in such an underground parking garage, even when not charging, the on-fire electrical vehicle will instantly ignite adjacent vehicles, causing chain explosions and serious casualties. Therefore, the EV fire risk is a long-lasting hazard. The 30 new residential units above and surrounding communities would be in long-term danger of sitting on the volcano. Based on what was said above, this project constitutes an unacceptable risk to public safety. Hereby, I urge Commission to first reject the current application for this project until developer submits a UV-involved fire risk assessment report issued by independent third party. Give me a few more seconds. Secondly, an amended increase in service parking space and a significant reduction of company elimination and ground parking space. In any matter and any time, safety must come first. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Our last speaker here, here at the audience, is Vival Vadawaj.

Good evening, members of the Commission. My name is Vivek Bhardwaj. I live right next to the site on Atrium Circle. My address is 12233 Atrium Circle. I'm going to raise very commonsensical points. The speakers before me, they have raised pretty much most of the points I was planning to speak on. But, I mean, just talking plain common sense, if you look at the map, there's townhome community to the north, townhome community to the south, And then you are basically creating a structure which is housing 30 families in just one acre area. I think that's the most densely located community that would ever exist in Saratoga. I have not seen it anywhere else at all. This obviously raises a lot of public safety related issues which have already been spoken about by other speakers before me. There's going to be increased traffic, increased noise pollution, increased light pollution. It completely changes the character of the neighborhood. There's going to be 30 feet tall building. My home is just not to the site. What am I supposed to do as a resident over there? There are balconies, there are windows, which can see right through my house. Both the bedrooms, my living rooms, are completely exposed to all those balconies and windows. What options do I have? I create a visual screen, but then the result of that would be I'll be losing out on a lot of natural light, a lot of openness in my backyard. I wouldn't be able to enjoy my home as I do right now. So it's not just an invasion of privacy, but I'll basically stop enjoying the way I do my property. Other common sense points are about, I've already talked about noise, congestion, light pollution challenges. Yeah, I think those were my key points. I think the rest, everything has already been spoken about. I don't think this construction is going to be a good fit for the neighborhood. It's just going to make the whole neighborhood more densely populated. It will add up to the challenges relating to public safety, relating to traffic, pollution, and everything. And I think the commission should seriously consider before approving this project. Thank you.

Thank you. So now, Francis, is there anyone online who wish to speak?

If you're listening online, now is the time to raise your hand in Zoom if you wish to speak on this item. No hands raised, Charlie.

Thank you, Frances. So this concludes public comment on this agenda. Now we invite the applicant to come back. Oh, is there one more? Do I have a slip?

Hi, good evening, my name's Linlin Li. I'm a resident at the Atrium Circle, so I'm right next to this lot, so I can literally hear people speaking in the aquatic center. I'm also an employee from the county public health department, so health is my main concern. I just realized today, so that the people who propose this plan and people who support this plan, don't care about our current residents' health and life at all. So you can imagine. I mean, people who propose this, you may just live in a nice, quiet neighborhood, right, with beautiful Saratoga trees. So you won't imagine, you know, building this two-tall, 30-foot building could destroy our surrounding residents' health and life. Let me tell you. You know, this means a huge construction sites, right? Two tall, 30-foot buildings. They will generate a lot of noise pollution, air pollution, dust. That means what? That means we cannot open our window at all, right? We cannot work from home because, you know, the enormous noise. We cannot take a nap during the day at home. So that means what? That means that many of us, our surrounding residents, we may suffer from chronic disease, many kinds of chronic disease, COPD, lung cancer due to the air pollution, also sleep disorder, right? And also then anxiety, depression, other mental health problems. So that's all possible. Yeah, just before I came here today, my high school daughter told me, oh, mom, that's horrible. I have to wear earplugs every day at home before I go to college. So it's horrible. Who cares about our current residence house, right? Also, I want to bring some interesting facts about this current Aquatic Center facility. You may or may not know, many elite swimmers from the Bay Area, they started their first swim lesson at this facility. Some of them you may know, like the current Saratoga High School star, who is a current national junior team representing Team USA. started her first lesson here, and also the Harcourt school record holder, Lanebrook High School record holder, they are both Atrium Circle residents. Their window right facing this facility, so this, you know, they are still using this facility. So basically, I just want to let you know that this facility has nurtured a lot of elite swimmers in this area. I also contribute significantly to this community's water safety. Last thing I want to mention, sorry.

Sorry, sorry, your time is up. Your time is up.

Just to be fair to other speakers. County of Santa Clara, they funded $400 million to repair their swim center. Well, now we are discussing to destroy the swim center. Okay, so yeah, we hear you. Thank you, thank you. Thank you.

Okay, do we have one more speaker?

Good evening, Commissioners. I agree with all the points that my neighbors have brought up. I live on Marigny Place. I live in one of the center units, so I'm also adversely affected by having no light. Our first floor living room, all the light basically comes from those windows on that side of the home. But the one point that I wanted to bring up is a safety concern. So recently, I noticed that some of the trim on my car melted. And when I brought it to the dealership, they said, well, that could be from the reflection of a window when the sun reflects down. And when the intense sun reflects down, it could actually melt the trim. So now I parked my car in between the buildings on Marigny Place, and those windows were installed by the same developer, Timespace, that's proposing this development. So with that kind of safety risk, if you have those same or similar windows, it could actually start a fire. So I think that has to be looked at. And again, for all the reasons my neighbors said, I would encourage you to reject this application. Thank you.

Thank you. I think now we do conclude our public comments. Now, applicants, you have five minutes for closing remarks.

Good evening, Planning Commissioner. Can you hear? Hello? Can you hear? Good evening, Planning Commissioner. So I'm the owner for this development, for this project. So I'm happy here to answer the questions and also some questions concerns raised from neighbors. I actually understand what the concerns are, so I try to clarify several points here. Number one, regarding building mass. Actually, if you look at the building mass measured by, mainly for our zoning, measured by one, building height, and second, site coverage ratio. Because for normal building, our code, It is 35 feet for this zoning. And also, site coverage ratio is 60%. It's allowed. So our proposed project building height is 30 feet below requirement. And also, it is a 43 point something percentage of a site coverage ratio. Significant less than... required or permitted. So meaning we are not trying to maximize whatever building mass and try to build a big here. So of course, if you compare with what existing surrounding, can be a little bit bigger feeling, but that build 10 years ago, 20 years ago, or 50 years ago. That's understandable. Little bit bigger, but it's allowed, we never require any concession or waiver about height and site coverage ratio. That's number one. And the second point I want to address, it is traffic concern and noise concern. As you can see, currently it is a swimming school at the site. It's several hundred of students come here weekly, daily, whatever, in and out with whatever numbers of traffic here, in and out. Now, we would propose 30 units here. It is significantly less, the traffic, considerable as compared to current use. So that's why we think it's the best use for this site. It is a residential use, because all around the neighborhood are residential. So third one, we require, because this is a zoning allowed 20 unit per acre. So we know our state is on the housing crisis. So we try to build a little bit more by law allowed. And that's 10 unit more. It's not big more. And it's just 10 unit more. So We contacted about SQL exemption. SQL exemption included traffic study and other related studies being for six months. So we have there. So that's why as a traffic concern, noise concern, it is considered should be less. It is by common sense. So... Last one I want to tell, several neighbor concerns about Sumi School operation has chemicals on more than 10 years on the site. Because actually we contacted Phase One. This project staff report didn't mention. We did a Phase One last year for this project application. So we have on record Phase One showing the conclusion. Everything is there. So that's why I want to just clarify those points. Architectures here can clarify about the light issue, sunlight concern, if we have this concern or not. Maybe Mark, you can mention something or something.

Oh, I think... It's always interesting to hear from the community because it helps us to really localize what's on people's minds. Many of the things that you heard mentioned tonight, I will just say, those are things that we're required by the code to do. We don't do them during the entitlement process. For instance, we don't do structural shoring calculations during entitlement. But before we can get our building permit, all of those things have to be taken care of. Mitigation of dust, of construction debris, all those things have to be in the plan. I think that's it.

Thank you. Is it possible to ask a question of the applicant? Please. Would you happen to know how tall is the existing, the other townhomes that are the newer ones?

So south side, you talk about south side. Yeah. I cannot remember exactly. Probably around, if between 25 to 28. Okay, so they're very similar height? Yeah, between 25 to 28. Chris knows.

Yeah, both those structures, those projects side by side are 26 feet tall.

26 feet. So this is going to be 30 feet tall?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks. Okay, question for the applicant?

Yeah, I'd like the applicant to, there were a number of legal points raised by those people speaking in opposition to your project. I wonder if you could go through those points and tell me why they're applicable or not.

Applicants?

I mean, the answer is fairly short. None of the articles that were brought up constitute danger to safety as defined by the state. It's just plain and simple. More traffic, neighbors being able to see into your yard, those are not things that are considered by the state under the density bonus law and so can't be considered. So then the other things I think I addressed partially, things like the structural shoring for the basement. That is absolutely going to be under the supervision of a qualified structural engineer. And so we cannot proceed with the permits without having a verified structural plan that is safe. Some of the other points. Let's see here. I think some of them are planning questions. I'll leave those alone. The phase one, as we said, has already been done. The tribal consultation has taken place. Yeah, the height is by zoning. Swimming pool chemicals, phase one has been done. Transit proximity is covered under the CEQA, the AB 130.

There was a statement on the percentage of commercial versus noncommercial.

That's a planning question.

I can't answer that. Yeah, they mentioned a general plan policy conflict. And so it's supposed to be a 50% commercial mandate according to what the people speaking about the project stated. and that's inconsistent with the 1558 mixed-use standards. So how do you address that?

I do not. I would defer to the planning department.

I can address it. Okay. Okay. So it's true that the – my hearing aids out. It is true that the code does say that 50% is the maximum of the residential space. However, it does allow, with a ministerial approval, for projects to exceed that 50% exclusive parking if there's two findings that are made. And one is that the proposed location of the mixed use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not cause a significant quantifiable direct or unavoidable impact based on objective identifiable written public health or safety standards, so if it's unsafe. And that the proposed mixed use will comply with all applicable provisions of this chapter. So as long as those two can be met, it's ministerial approval to exceed the 50%.

Thank you for the answer to my question.

You have a question? So we're talking about noise and the traffic here. So basically, you said that this project is eligible for the statutory CEQA exemption, right? Correct. So according to AB 130. So from the city's point of view, is that all those is that the CEQA exemption is applied to all those kind of high density project or only those virus remedy project has eligible or everything is eligible? I just want to know that.

So each project would be looked at individually. Some projects are going to be eligible for the 130 exemptions, and some projects will not.

So why this project is eligible for that?

Because it met all of the criteria. There was an attachment in your packet that went through each of the criteria. There was a table there. So they submitted that information. We did have it peer reviewed by the city's consultant, and they agreed with the findings.

So city reviewed, and also you have a third-party review that they all passed this? Yes.

Okay, thank you. Maybe it's a staff question. Everyone keeps mentioning Phase 1. Can you tell us what that is?

Yeah, Phase 1 is an environmental report to see if there's any environmental contamination on the site. They do some... investigation on the site and also do some research on what was on the site in the past. There was a phase one done September 11th of last year by Global, excuse me, Gabriel Environmental Group, and they found no issues with any contamination.

So it's like soil testing or something?

There's some soil testing, correct. It's soil testing and research on previous uses.

Thank you.

I do have a question. Hearing from the neighbors, I actually went there and drive around the neighborhood on both sides and back. Having a three-story building and suddenly in your backyard or in your front yard is a huge, huge impact to anyone. If you think about ourselves, if you live somewhere and suddenly in your face you get a three-story building building and I have asked earlier have have the developer have you talked to the neighbors and hear their concerns and and it seems like it hasn't happened and so normally for our Planning Commission we would look at that although I know we we don't call it like objective yet, but I think just for good faith, have you thought about, hey, planting some trees and then protect your neighbors' privacy? It's not just your neighbors, but your residents as well, because they will see those houses in front of their face as well. Has that been considered?

Yes, it was considered. The only place that we were able to do it by virtue of the other conditions of the site is on the east, and we've planted several trees on the east to protect the single family. Along the south, it's going to be a challenge just because it's stormwater and then it's a walkway, and so there's not much of an opportunity to have full-grown trees in that location.

I see. How about the north side?

Same. It's mostly driveway, but... There we have a 24-foot-wide drive lane that separates the building from the fence line, and so that is a natural buffer.

Gotcha. So you just got limited by the space.

There's a two-foot planter on the north, and we will plant it, and we will have probably crawling vines, something to soften it, but there's no space for tree wells.

So I just want to bring some ideas. This is all for good faith. That neighbors, I mean, in the past, we do recommend if your neighbor has rooms and they could plant trees, will there be options to provide a tree fund or something for the neighbors to plant their trees on their yard? And if they have room, this is about privacy.

So anything having to do with spending money? Would there be a tree fund to help the neighbors plant trees as a privacy barrier rather than our property?

Yes. The other side of the fence. That's an interesting request, but we haven't thought yet. If you have some kind of... let us think about it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Just another question. I know quite a few neighbors talked about disruption of life. And I can understand it's very difficult to live in a construction zone. And I totally appreciate those comments that came. But just how long do you think your construction would last?

For this one, possibly around 18 months to 20 months. Around. It cannot be fixed, but around there.

Thank you.

Any further questions? All right. Well, thank you for answering our questions. All right. I think now let's have a commission discussion. THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED, I'M SORRY.

THERE'S NO MORE COMMENTS.

YES, WE MOVED ON NOW. CAN I MAKE A COMMENT?

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Sorry, I just wanted to confirm with staff that they had done due diligence by reviewing the A, because a lot of residents brought up AB 130 and found all sorts of challenges with it. I just want confirmation from the staff that all those things do not impact this project, and we can with confidence accept what the staff is presenting.

Yes, that's correct. The AB-130 exemption has been made.

I have the same concern. This is a very big project, like two buildings. The access to the public road is only one. So two buildings, all the traffic will come out to the Saratoga-Sunny Bay Avenue. Oh, I'm sorry.

And all the traffic and noise, everything.

So I cannot find another place in Saratoga which has this kind of... So far, I don't see any... kind of density like this, okay, so crowded. So I'm just curious how this statutory exemption can be, you know, from the CEQA can be, you know, really fun, everything's okay. So Citi is really went through all this exercise to make sure everything's fine, right?

Right, like Cindy mentioned, there's the AB 130 checklist completed in the staff report. We did have our consultant prepare that with cooperation with staff. We reviewed it, of course. And all the AB 130 requirements have been met. So we feel confident that the project is exempt from CEQA under AB 130.

I'll just add, and the city attorney can weigh in, that the state legislature is trying to make it easier to build housing. And so they are carving out these exemptions, and they're making the exemptions easier to obtain.

Okay, thank you. Paul?

Yeah, this is a tough one. First off, I want to thank the staff for the diligence and for providing us the background that we need. Clearly, there were a lot of legal issues raised here, and I appreciate knowing that you've checked those out and cleared those. The other thing I want to say is that I completely understand and agree with everything that I heard tonight from the residents. And what you have to realize that I'll speak for myself as a commissioner. For myself, I'm going to be able to make all the findings needed to pass this project. And the reason for that is thanks to our state government. They specifically say that we have to approve this project unless findings can be made with respect to very, and this is real specific here, specific objective written health and safety standards. And everything that you brought forward today that is by way of complaints is absolutely spot on to me as a person, but unfortunately, We do not have objective health and safety standards written that comply with state law as a basis for me as a commissioner to not make the finding. And that's just a statement of fact from my perspective. So because that's the case, I personally agree with everything with you. As a human, I think I would really feel differently than I do now, but as a commissioner, all of the findings that were brought forward for me can be made, and I'm going to be able to make all the findings.

Okay, like I mentioned earlier, so let me just follow up on what I suggested. Will the commissioner willing, I mean, given the huge impact on people's privacy and their current quality of life, will we be willing to make that suggestion to city council or to the developer?

I don't know if we have the authority to do that. Do we?

What's the best way for us to do it?

Can you repeat the question?

The question is, can we make suggestions like, hey, providing tree funds, for example, because they do not have room for them to provide the shade or... barrier between the neighborhood. Could we suggest to the developer if they're willing to consider?

So there was the conversation earlier with the developer about that, the tree fund. So for example, however, the commission cannot condition the approval on such recommendations.

Okay, but we can make recommendations?

You're essentially letting the developer know that you are making these requests. However, the project cannot be conditioned on such requests.

Any other comments?

I just wanted to reiterate Commissioner Grimerod's comments that, I really appreciate everybody coming out and providing so much feedback about the project. And as he mentioned, as a fellow resident neighbor, as a human being, all of your comments resonated with me. But similarly, as he mentioned, we have to abide by specific regulation that we're trying to make findings for and like him I can make all the findings for approval of the project as is so thank you very much for letting us know that they were all well articulated some of them did have to do with health and safety very specifically and then staff and others address those points and said that they've been taken care of So thank you very much for letting us know, and I just have to agree with Commissioner Grimrod's findings on making this decision.

Thank you, Clinton. I think you both are well said. I mean, this is a hard decision for us to make, but our staff has made all the findings.

Is there any comments or anybody want to bring a motion? After echoing what my fellow commissioners have said, I would say thank you all for being here. We understand your concern and what it could mean to be living in a construction zone. But under the circumstances, I can also make all the findings, and I'd like to make a motion to move as presented by staff.

Could you also mention the revised resolution in your motion? Sure.

Do you want me to mention the number?

No, just mention it. You can.

I am making the motion with the revised resolution number 26014. Thank you.

I second.

Thank you.

Roll call. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you. Let's move on to our next director items.

Good evening. Thank you so much, Planning Commission. Another great meeting. Appreciate all you do. I'd like to thank the public for coming here this evening. We appreciate your time and everything that you've said tonight. Cindy, Chris, thank you for all your work. Francis, thanks for holding us down virtually. A couple things under the director's report to talk about, but first I'd like Vice Chair Gemrod, you did have a couple things you'd like to discuss tonight?

Yeah. and they kind of relate to this. One of the things I brought up at the last Planning Commission meeting was for the Planning Commission to work on objective health and safety standards that could be applied. And subsequent to that meeting, I had the opportunity to chat with some people, including our mayor. And the recommendation is that to carry this forward, I will have his support to go talk to the local fire district and start working on the objective standards with them as a private citizen, not as a planning commissioner. I can mention that I am a planning commissioner, but I will need to do it as a private citizen to get those standards moved along. And after meeting with them, I will bring it back to the planning commission and staff how that goes. As part of that, being aware of the Brown Act limitations, I can take two other people to the meetings that I hold with them. So if anybody wishes to participate in those meetings, let me know. We could have two people other than myself come if they so choose. So just let me know. Thank you. Thank you.

I think I'd probably like to be part of it.

Certainly.

I feel like it's also related to our tree ordinance study on our work plan.

Certainly.

Thank you. I think I forgot Gabe Ross, too. Thanks, Gabe, for joining virtually. Always appreciate your time that you that you give us in your advice. So I don't like to use the term, the M word too much, but I need to bring up the word mandatory. So next month, we have a very big planning commission meeting. We have two builder's remedy projects on that agenda. And I would like to have mandatory one-on-ones with each of the planning commissioners that will be there that night. in addition to our staff and our legal counsel. And so I just ask that you please make sure you make the meetings with us. Francis will be reaching out to you all to schedule times. It'll be one hour. We will make the time, whatever time you need, if it's early morning, After work, we'll make it happen. We feel it's going to be a busy meeting and two very big projects. We have the Mason Estates Project, which is one of the first Builders Remedy projects that was submitted to the city, and Oak Place. So Oak Place is a small project, but it's equally as important as it's a Builders Remedy project. So please help us and meet with us. towards the end of the month here. And Chris, you wanted to talk about the EIR for Masonic States?

Yes, thanks, Brian. So the Masonic States, like Brian mentioned, is scheduled for next month's planning Christian meeting. It does have an EIR. The EIR public review draft is already available for the Christianers TO REVIEW, IT'S ON THE CITY WEBSITE. IT'S A FAIRLY THICK DOCUMENT, SO I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO REVIEW IT BEFORE THE MEETING. IT WILL TAKE A WHILE TO GO THROUGH IT ALL. WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON NOW IS THE PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE EIR, AND THAT WILL BE COMING OUT IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO. BUT THAT IS A FAIRLY SMALL DOCUMENT IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE BIG DOCUMENT. SO AGAIN, IN PREPARATION FOR THE MEETING AND THE MEETINGS, BRIAN IS SUGGESTING WITH THE City staff, we encourage you to start reviewing that public review draft as soon as possible. Thank you.

Can I make a request? Could you please send us a link to that so we are not searching the whole website trying to find exactly which one you want us to review?

Do that tomorrow.

Thank you.

That's a good suggestion. Other than that, again, thank you so much for all you do for the community. Very meaningful positions, and we're grateful to work with you.

Actually, Brian, I have a question or thoughts. So this project, as we can see, have a very big community, I mean, neighborhood impact. And there will be more such project coming in, like Builders Remedy. They are all lining up. So I'm wondering, I mean, I feel like the community probably need, we have in our work plan, we talk about communications and transparencies. for the size of this project. I wonder what's guiding us about workshop or public discussion for them to answer, I mean to ask questions because not everybody understand the state law and how does it work. And if we can explain it to our neighbors and give them a platform to ask questions and have a dialogue, will that help with the project? And also help our neighbors to have a peace of mind, because... Yeah, I agree, really.

I think most of those neighbors...

I don't know if we can really discuss something like this, because it's not on the agenda. I understand it's part of the work plan.

Is this the commission item or direct item? Direct. Okay, we can talk about it.

No, but if we start all talking about it, it's a discussion on communication, right?

Oh, I think this is something for Brian. If staff help us to think about how can we improve this process?

Yeah, it's a great question. I appreciate it. If you've been to the Community Development Department's website, it has been constantly transformed almost on a monthly basis with information, with outreach. But we can't force people to go to the website. We do have a quarterly now community development newsletter in which gets sent out to everyone in the city. And we focus on staff spotlights, projects, upcoming issues. Not issues, but it's upcoming things that we have to work on. We do want to work with our community engagement officer on maybe doing more mailings. Because I would say all of you folks know about the housing element. Maybe 1% of our community knows about the housing element. But for the most part, our neighborhood groups, they don't know about it. They don't know about land use until it comes to their backyard. And that's something we want to improve in terms of just, we don't want to focus on specific projects. But just to kind of tell people, hey, Please be aware of these housing element programs and policies, state laws. Look at our website. Look at our pending projects lists. Unfortunately, with both projects that are going in July, we are on a trajectory where we have to bring these projects to the Planning Commission. I would encourage, you know, each of you are somewhat spokespeople for the community in your own different ways. You have the right to talk to your neighbors, to tell them to contact us if they have any questions of projects. We'll make time to meet with them one-on-one. In regards to your question about communications, that's something we can look at in terms of how workshops work, listening sessions. The Saratoga Retirement Community, we had a number of workshops, but it was also built into the the project plan, the EIR for that project. And remember, these are builder's remedy projects, and so it's, you know, we don't get to think and add additional requirements to the projects. We receive the project, we have to process it. I do appreciate the question but we have to look at how do we communicate better to the community and how do we bring them to our offices to talk to us and virtually but what you all know now and what I hope our community knows is that we have two big builders remedy projects going next month and so let's let's have them come and talk to us let's have them come to the meeting but I don't know if that answers your question but it's something that we have to think about and and look into more for the future.

When is your next quarterly newsletter going?

It's going to be, I think, in two weeks.

So that's another place.

Yeah, two weeks. Did everyone get the first quarterly newsletter? You did. Good. Good. So it's working. Don't throw it away. Just keep it for a little bit. Read it.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, that concludes the director items, and next is the commission items. Anyone? Okay, well, then that's the last item, and that means we are adjourned.