The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-02-2015 AGENDA PACKET AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 SPECIAL MEETING – 5:00 P.M. – ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION – 5:00 P.M. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov’t Code 54957.6) Agency Designated Representatives: City Manager James Lindsay, City Attorney Richard Taylor, Human Resources Manager Monica LaBossiere Employee Organizations: Saratoga Management Organization CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Khanna v. City of Monte Sereno et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 115CV282766) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Graham v. Saratoga et al. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 115CV282466) CALL STUDY SESSION TO ORDER – 6:00 P.M. 1. Study session on FPPC requirements. Recommended Action: Informational Only ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the 1 posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Debbie Bretschneider, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council was posted and available for public review on August 27, 2015 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 27th day of August 2015 at Saratoga, California Debbie Bretschneider, Deputy City Clerk 704922.1 2 Table of Contents Agenda 3 City Council Meeting Minutes Staff Report 8 Attachment A - Minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on August 19, 2015 9 Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Staff Report 19 08/18/2015 Check Register 20 08/25/2015 Check Register 25 Adoption of Rules of Procedure for Administrative Appeal Hearings Before the Hearing Officer Staff Report 30 Attachment A - Resolution Adopting Rules of Procedure for Administrative Appeal Hearings Before the Hearing Officer 31 Attachment B - Rules of Procedure for Administrative Appeal Hearings Before the Hearing Officer 32 Budget Adjustment Resolution – Santa Clara County Public Health Department Grant Staff Report 35 Attachment A – Budget Adjustment Resolution 36 Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Tree Regulations (Article 15-50 of the Zoning Code) staff report 37 Att A - Tree Regulations Ordinance 38 Appeal of Design Review and Variance applications for a new two-story residence at 21794 Heber Way. Staff Report - 21794 Heber Way 41 Att 1 Resolution for Denial 44 Att 2 PC Staff Report 46 Att 3 Appeal Application 51 Att 4 PC Resolution DENIAL 72 Att 5 PC Minutes for 52715 meeting 74 Att 6 Additional Letters 77 Att 7 - Reduced Plan Set Exhibit A 105 General Plan Annual Progress Report and HCD Annual Report Staff Report 116 Att A - 2014 General Plan Annual Progress Report 118 Att B - Resolution 129 Village Specific Plan Update – Phase 1 Staff Report 130 Att A - CIP Project Page 134 Att B - Los Altos 2014/15 Downtown Planning Survey 136 Att C - Village Specific Plan 147 1 Report on Flavored Tobacco Regulations Staff Report 248 Attachment A - U.S. Food and Drug Administration Fact Sheet on Flavored Tobacco Products 251 Attachment B - Santa Clara County Flavored Tobacco Ban Enforcement Policy Staff Report November 4, 2014 253 2015 League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions Staff Report 255 Attachment A – 2015 League of California Cities Resolutions Packet 257 2 Page 1 of 5 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 27, 2015. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. Communications from Boards and Commissions Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards & Commissions. ANNOUNCEMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended action: Approve the City Council minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on August 19, 2015. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 3 Page 2 of 5 2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 8/18/2015: Period 2 8/25/2015: Period 2 3. Adoption of Rules of Procedure for Administrative Appeal Hearings Before the Hearing Officer Recommended action: Approve the attached resolution adopting Rules of Procedure for Administrative Appeal Hearings Before the Hearing Officer. 4. Budget Adjustment Resolution – Santa Clara County Public Health Department Grant Recommended action: Approve budget adjustment resolution. 5. Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Tree Regulations (Article 15-50 of the Zoning Code) Recommended action: Waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance to revise the Tree Regulations ordinance (Article 15-50). PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to Council’s approval at the Council meeting. 6. Appeal of Design Review and Variance applications for a new two-story residence at 21794 Heber Way. Recommended action: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 7. General Plan Annual Progress Report and HCD Annual Report Recommended action: Adopt a resolution accepting the 2014 General Plan Annual Progress Report and direct staff to file the report with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 8. Village Specific Plan Update – Phase 1 Recommended action: Approve the work plan for Phase I of the process to consider updates to the Village Specific Plan 9. Report on Flavored Tobacco Regulations Recommended action: 4 Page 3 of 5 Accept report. 10. 2015 League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions Recommended action: Provide input to the City’s voting delegate (Council Member Bernald) and alternate voting delegates (Council Member Lo and Council Member Kumar) on the resolutions to be considered at the 2015 League of California Cities Annual Conference. CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Howard Miller Cities Association of Santa Clara County Council Finance Committee Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee VTA Board West Valley Cities Alternate West Valley Mayors and Managers Association West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority Vice Mayor Manny Cappello Architecture 101 Ad Hoc Committee Council Finance Committee Hakone Foundation Board Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Council Committee Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) West Valley Sanitation District Council Member Emily Lo Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee KSAR Community Access TV Board Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald Architecture 101 Ad Hoc Committee Association of Bay Area Governments Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Selection Committee Saratoga Historical Foundation Saratoga Sister City Organization Council Member Rishi Kumar Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission Saratoga Chamber of Commerce & Destination Saratoga Saratoga Ministerial Association CITY COUNCIL ITEMS CITY MANAGER’S REPORT ADJOURNMENT 5 Page 4 of 5 In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Debbie Bretschneider, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council for the City of Saratoga was posted on AUGUST 27, 2015, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 27th day of AUGUST 2015 at Saratoga, California. Debbie Bretschneider, Deputy City Clerk NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 6 Page 5 of 5 09/02 Regular Meeting – Study Session on FPPC Requirements 09/16 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Youth Commission 10/07 Regular Meeting – 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Saratoga School Districts in Senior Center, Saunders Room 10/21 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Historical Foundation 11/04 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with West Valley – Mission Community College Board of Trustees 11/18 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Senator Beall Jr. 12/02 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Representative Evan Low 12/16 Regular Meeting – Council Norms Study Session Unless otherwise stated, Joint Meetings and Study Sessions begin at 6:00 p.m. in the Administrative Conference Room at Saratoga City Hall at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2015 7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 2, 2015 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY: Crystal Bothelio SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the City Council minutes for the 19, 2015. BACKGROUND: Draft City Council minutes for each Council Meeting are taken to the City Council to be reviewed for accuracy and approval. Following City Council approval, minutes are retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. The draft minutes are attached to this report for Council review and approval. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Minutes will be retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Minutes for the Special SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL September 2, 2015 City Manager’s Office Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk City Council Meeting Minutes Approve the City Council minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on Draft City Council minutes for each Council Meeting are taken to the City Council to be reviewed for accuracy and approval. Following City Council approval, minutes are retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. The draft minutes are attached to this report for Council review and approval. Minutes will be retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website Minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on August 19, 2015 on August Draft City Council minutes for each Council Meeting are taken to the City Council to be reviewed for accuracy and approval. Following City Council approval, minutes are retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. The draft minutes are attached to Minutes will be retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. August 19, 2015 8 Page 1 of 10 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2015 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING At 5:00 p.m., the Saratoga City Council called the Special Meeting to order in the Administrative Conference Room at Saratoga City Hall at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue and adjourned to Closed Session. At 6:00 p.m., the City Council called to order a Joint Meeting with the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce and Destination Saratoga. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Miller called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT Mayor Howard Miller, Vice Mayor Manny Cappello, Council Members Emily Lo, Mary-Lynne Bernald, Rishi Kumar ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager John Cherbone, Public Works Director Mary Furey, Finance & Administrative Services Director Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Michael Taylor, Recreation & Facilities Director Brian Babcock, Administrative Analyst Michael Fossati, Planner II Kate Bear, City Arborist REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA City Clerk Crystal Bothelio reported that the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 13, 2015. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION Mayor Miller announced that the City Council held a Closed Session prior to the Regular Meeting and had nothing to report. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Genya Muradyan addressed the City Council regarding the El Quito Community garden and requested a change to the garden policy. Yurik Muradyan addressed the City Council regarding the El Quito Community garden and requested a change to the garden policy. 9 Page 2 of 10 Roza Grossman addressed the City Council regarding the El Quito Community garden and requested a change to the garden policy. Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff None Communications from Boards and Commissions Mayor Miller noted that prior to the Regular Meeting, the Council held a Joint Meeting with the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce and Destination Saratoga. The recent Chamber car show in July was very successful and there is a video of the event on YouTube. Council Direction to Staff None ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Member Kumar announced the Saratoga Has Talent competition on Saturday, August 22, 2015 at the Joan Pisani Community Center from 6:00 p.m. till 10:00 p.m. Tickets are available at the door. The first annual Silicon Valley Tech Day will be on September 12, 2015 at the Joan Pisani Community Center. The event will include a variety of fun, interactive learning experiences for youth. Information is available at http://www.siliconvalleycoders.org/. Additionally, Saratoga City Hall will soon become a distribution point for Drought Gear from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Drought gear will include buckets and other water saving items, like aerators. Lastly, Friday, August 21 is the City’s last movie night event of the summer. The movie, Big Hero 6, will be shown. Council Member Bernald shared that she attended the August Cities Association Meeting with Mayor Miller. Jason Baker, Campbell Vice Mayor, was appointed to the Santa Clara County Emergency Operations Council. Council Member Lo shared information about the Saratoga Library’s new Tech Tool Bar. The public can visit the Tech Tool Bar to learn more about their electronic devices and services available on these devices or to check out a device. Mayor Miller shared that the Saratoga Quarry Park Grand Opening will be on October 31, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. The City is also accepting applications for two Commissions – the Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Commission. Applications are due September 9, 2015. Additionally, this year the City participated in the America in Bloom competition. Awards will be presented in Michigan on September 26 and there is speculation that Saratoga will win a significant award. CEREMONIAL ITEMS None 10 Page 3 of 10 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended action: Approve the City Council minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on July 1, 2015. CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JULY 1, 2015. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 6/30/2015 Period 12; 07/14/15 Period 1; 07/28/2015 Period 1; 08/11/2015 Period 2; 7/7/2015 Period 13; 07/21/15 Period 13; 08/04/2015 Period 13; 7/7/2015 Period 1; 07/21/15 Period 1; 08/04/2015 Period 2; 7/14/2015 Period 13; 07/28/15 Period 13; and 08/11/2015 Period 13. CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 6/30/2015 PERIOD 12; 07/14/15 PERIOD 1; 07/28/2015 PERIOD 1; 08/11/2015 PERIOD 2; 7/7/2015 PERIOD 13; 07/21/15 PERIOD 13; 08/04/2015 PERIOD 13; 7/7/2015 PERIOD 1; 07/21/15 PERIOD 1; 08/04/2015 PERIOD 2; 7/14/2015 PERIOD 13; 07/28/15 PERIOD 13; AND 08/11/2015 PERIOD 13. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 3. Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Tree Regulations (Article 15-50 of the Zoning Code) Recommended action: Waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance to revise the Tree Regulations ordinance (Article 15-50). Council Member Bernald removed this item from the Consent Calendar to request changes to the ordinance, as shown in the supplemental attachment provided during the City Council Meeting. Mayor Miller invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. 11 Page 4 of 10 BERNALD/CAPPELLO MOVED TO REINTRODUCE THE AMENDED ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING AND DIRECT STAFF TO PLACE THE ITEM ON THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 4. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Ground Movement Regulations of the Saratoga City Code Recommended action: Waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance for amendments to Article 15-45 (Design Review - Single Family Dwelling) and Article 16-65 (Ground Movement Potential Map) of the Saratoga City Code. Kevin Tsai spoke in favor of this item. RESOLUTION NO. 15-051 AND ORDINANCE NO. 329 CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO ADOPT THE ATTACHED ORDINANCE FOR AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 15-45 (DESIGN REVIEW - SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING) AND ARTICLE 16-65 (GROUND MOVEMENT POTENTIAL MAP) OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 5. Second Reading of a Zoning Amendment to Add a Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to an Existing Site at 19550 Prospect Road Recommended action: Waive the second reading to add the Planned-Combined Zoning District (P-C) to an existing site at 19550 Prospect Road (Church of the Ascension Parish). ORDINANCE NO. 330 CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE TO ADD THE PLANNED- COMBINED ZONING DISTRICT (P-C) TO AN EXISTING SITE AT 19550 PROSPECT ROAD (CHURCH OF THE ASCENSION PARISH). MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 6. Park Restroom Janitorial Service Contract Recommended action: Approve a two-year contract with Sunnyvale Building Maintenance for weekend and holiday park restroom facility services in the amount of $49,920 per year and authorize City Manager to execute the same. CAPPELLO/LO MOVED APPROVE A TWO-YEAR CONTRACT WITH SUNNYVALE BUILDING MAINTENANCE FOR WEEKEND AND HOLIDAY PARK RESTROOM FACILITY SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $49,920 PER YEAR AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 12 Page 5 of 10 7. Comcast Ethernet Private Line Service Agreement Recommended action: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a five-year service agreement with Comcast to provide an Ethernet private line (EPL) for remote access between City Hall and the Prospect Center. CAPPELLO/LO MOVED AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A FIVE-YEAR SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH COMCAST TO PROVIDE AN ETHERNET PRIVATE LINE (EPL) FOR REMOTE ACCESS BETWEEN CITY HALL AND THE PROSPECT CENTER. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 8. Motor Vehicle Resolution Restricting Parking at Carniel Avenue between Blue Meadow Court and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Recommended action: Adopt Motor Vehicle Resolution restricting parking at Carniel Avenue in between Blue Meadow Court and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. MV-RESOLUTION 311 CAPPELLO/LO MOVED ADOPT MOTOR VEHICLE RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING AT CARNIEL AVENUE IN BETWEEN BLUE MEADOW COURT AND SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Appeal of PDR15-0004 - Wireless Antenna and Associated Equipment Installation near 19848 Prospect Road (Saratoga Prospect Center) Recommended action: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal. Michael Fossati, Planner II in the Community Development Department, presented the staff report. Jerry Gao provided opening remarks on behalf of the appellants. Bob Gundermann and Paul Albritton provided opening remarks on behalf of the applicant. Mayor Miller invited public comment on the item. The following people requested to speak: - Ling Shao spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Ray Muzzy spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Victor Zhang spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Jenny Yuan spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. 13 Page 6 of 10 - Yong Zheng spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Ester Chan spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Qiushuang Zhang spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Stephen Chan spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Jianjie Ma spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Suspn Comn spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Mei Juan spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Ming Won spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Bruce Barnes spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Pete Godbole spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Arun Narayan spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Ying Ding spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Dr. Blank spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Zhihong Huang spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Sujatha Badapat spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Grace Ge spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Sue Cown spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Frank Bracken spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Melinda spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. Paul Albritton and Bill Hammett provided closing remarks on behalf of the applicant. Ying Ding provided closing remarks on behalf of the appellant. Mayor Miller closed the public hearing for this item. CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEMS 10 AND 11. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. The City Council took a break at 9:43 p.m. and returned at 9:58 p.m. After the break, the City Council proceeded to item 10. After conducting the public hearings for items 10 and 11, the City Council returned to this item. RESOLUTION NO. 15-047 CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD. NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 14 Page 7 of 10 10. Appeal of PDR15-0006 - Wireless Antenna and Associated Equipment Installation near 19700 Prospect Road (Congregation Beth David/Church of the Ascension) Recommended action: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal. Michael Fossati, Planner II in the Community Development Department, presented the staff report. Jerry Gao provided opening remarks on behalf of the appellants. Paul Albritton and Bill Hammett provided opening remarks on behalf of the applicant. Mayor Miller announced that public comment would be reduced to 90 seconds per speaker and invited public comment on the item. The following people requested to speak: - Yong Zheng spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Victor Zhang spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Jianjie Ma spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Dr. Blank spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Bruce Barnes spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Zhihong Huang spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Ying Ding spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Sujatha Badapat spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Ester Chang spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. Paul Albritton provided closing remarks on behalf of the applicant. Ying Ding provided closing remarks on behalf of the appellant. CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 11 AND COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON ITEM 9. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. After the public hearing on item 11 and City Council deliberation and decision on item 9, the City Council returned to item 10. RESOLUTION NO. 15-048 CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD. NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 15 Page 8 of 10 11. Appeal of PDR15-0005 - Wireless Antenna and Associated Equipment Installation near Prospect Road and Kristy Lane Recommended action: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal. Michael Fossati, Planner II in the Community Development Department, presented the staff report. Jerry Gao provided opening remarks on behalf of the appellants. Paul Albritton and Bill Hammett provided opening remarks on behalf of the applicant. Mayor Miller announced that public comment would be reduced to 90 seconds per speaker and invited public comment on the item. The following people requested to speak: - Bruce Barnes spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Victor Zhang spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Jianjie Ma spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Wiefang Xie spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Zhihong Huang spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Ying Ding spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Sujatha Badapat spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Don Lee spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. - Shawn spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. Paul Albritton provided closing remarks on behalf of the applicant. Ying Ding provided closing remarks on behalf of the appellant. CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL AFTER COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON ITEM 10. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. After City Council deliberation on items 9 and 10, the City Council returned to item 11. RESOLUTION NO. 15-049 CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD. NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. OLD BUSINESS 12. VTP 2040 - Envision Silicon Valley Call for Projects Recommended action: Receive report and direct staff accordingly. 16 Page 9 of 10 Public Works Director John Cherbone provided the staff report on this item. Mayor Miller invited public comment on this item. No one requested to speak. Council Direction: The City Council provided direction to City staff to include the following projects in the City of Saratoga’s call for VTP 2040 projects: - Prospect Road Median Project - Blue Hills School RR Crossing Safety Project - Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase 1 - Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase 2 - Saratoga Ave Sidewalk Improvements - Joe’s Trail: Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to Prospect Road - Herriman Avenue/Saratoga Avenue Traffic Signal - Verde Vista Lane Traffic Signal - Citywide Accessible Pedestrian - SR 9 Pedestrian Safety Improvements (Phase 5) - Saratoga-to the-Sea Trail - State Route 85 Corridor Noise Reduction Measures - Hwy 85 On/off Ramp Landscaping - Dedicated Bicycle Lanes - Senior Transportation Program - Foothill Expressway/280 Interchange Congestion Relief - Quito Road Sidewalk Project - Lit Pedestrian Crossing at Quito and McCoy - Lit Pedestrian Crossing at Cox and Miller BERNALD/KUMAR MOVED TO SUPPORT THE LETTER DRAFTED BY THE MAYORS OF THE WEST VALLEY AND NORTH COUNTY CITIES CALLING FOR VTA TO DEVELOP A SYSTEM-WIDE PLAN THAT INTEGRATES FUTURE MASS TRANSIT INVESTMENTS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY WITH CONNECTIONS TO OTHER COUNTIES, AS WELL AS COMMUNITY-LEVEL SYSTEMS AND FIRST/LAST MILE STRATEGIES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. NEW BUSINESS 13. State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board Council Assignment Recommended action: 1. Appoint Mayor Miller and an alternate to the State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board. 2. Approve resolution amending City Council assignments. City Clerk Crystal Bothelio presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Miller invited public comment. 17 Page 10 of 10 No one requested to speak. RESOLUTION NO. 15-050 CAPPELLO/LO MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS BY APPOINTING MAYOR MILLER TO THE STATE ROUTE 85 CORRIDOR POLICY ADVISORY BOARD AND COUNCIL MEMBER BERNALD AS THE ALTERNATE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Howard Miller No report Vice Mayor Manny Cappello No report Council Member Emily Lo Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee – the Consul General of Japan will be visiting Hakone Gardens on August 20, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald No report Council Member Rishi Kumar No report CITY COUNCIL ITEMS None CITY MANAGER’S REPORT No report ADJOURNMENT CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 12:26 A.M. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, CAPPELLO, LO, BERNALD, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Minutes respectfully submitted: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk City of Saratoga 18 Gina Scott, Accounting Technician SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 8/25/2015: Period 2 BACKGROUND: The information listed below provides detail for weekly City check runs. Checks issued for $20,000 or greater are listed separately as well as any checks that were void during the time period. Fund information, by check run, is also provided in this report. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are Check Registers for: Date Ending Check # 8/18/15 128784 128835 52 524,961.24 08/18/15 08/11/15 128783 8/25/15 128836 128895 60 235,393.24 08/25/15 08/18/15 128835 Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater: Date Check # Issued to Dept.Amount 08/18/15 128798 PW 23,448.67 08/18/15 128812 SCC Office of the Sheriff General PS 414,423.33 08/25/15 128852 PW 77,533.72 08/25/15 128858 PW 23,547.00 08/25/15 128874 PW 33,896.15 08/25/15 128878 FAC 45,955.78 Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period: AP Date Check #Amount 06/09/15 128171 Re-Issue 300.00 05/26/15 12087 Re-Issue 54.00 ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format 8/18/2015: Period 2 Joson Fence Portico, Inc. Sanchez Electric, Inc. Granite Rock Gas Tax Fund Never Received Check Prior Check Register Checks Released Total Checks Amount Reason Status Issued to Ice Center of Cupertino Amy Obenour/Saratoga High School Never Received Check Ending Check #Type of Checks Date Starting Check # Accounts Payable Accounts Payable SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September 2, 2015 DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services George Bianchi Construction Fund Purpose Hakone Master Plan Park In Lieu Fees CIP Parks Project CIP Facility Project Phase II Electrical McFarland Curb Law Enforcement Pavement Mgmnt PREPARED BY: CIP Streets Project Quarry Fence 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 2, 2015 DEPARTMENT: City Attorney PREPARED BY: Richard Taylor, City Attorney SUBJECT: Adoption of Rules of Procedure for Administrative Appeal Hearings Before the Hearing Officer RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the attached resolution adopting Rules o Hearings Before the Hearing Officer. BACKGROUND: On July 1, 2015 the City Council approved amendments to the City Code process for administrative citations and other code enforcement proceedings. One of those amendments authorizes the City Council to adopt procedures for the Council officer’s conduct of appeals hearings. The attached resolution would adopt procedures similar to those currently used by the City’s hearing officer. The hearing officer has reviewed the procedures and confirms that they are generally comparable to those used in other jurisdictions. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may revise elements of the attached procedures provided that the revisions to not interfere with the due process rights of ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Resolution Adopting Rules o Before the Hearing Officer Attachment B - Rules of Procedure for Administrative Appeal Hearings Before Officer SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL , 2015 Richard Taylor, City Attorney Rules of Procedure for Administrative Appeal Hearings Before the Approve the attached resolution adopting Rules of Procedure for Administrative Appeal On July 1, 2015 the City Council approved amendments to the City Code concerning the appeals ss for administrative citations and other code enforcement proceedings. One of those amendments authorizes the City Council to adopt procedures for the Council-appointed hearing rocedures similar to those currently used by the City’s hearing officer. The hearing officer has reviewed the procedures and confirms that they are generally comparable to those used in other jurisdictions. se elements of the attached procedures provided that the revisions to not interfere with the due process rights of appellants. Rules of Procedure for Administrative Appeal Hearings Officer or Administrative Appeal Hearings Before the Hearing Rules of Procedure for Administrative Appeal Hearings Before the or Administrative Appeal concerning the appeals ss for administrative citations and other code enforcement proceedings. One of those appointed hearing rocedures similar to those currently used by the City’s hearing officer. The hearing officer has reviewed the procedures and confirms that they are se elements of the attached procedures provided that the revisions to or Administrative Appeal Hearings Hearing 30 RESOLUTION NO. 15-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADOPTING RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER The City of Saratoga City Council finds and determines as follows: 1. Section 3-15.070 of the Saratoga Municipal Code establishes a Hearing Officer to hear appeals of various code enforcement matters in the City of Saratoga. 2. The same section further provides that rules of procedure regarding the powers of a Hearing Officer and governing all hearings by a Hearing Officer shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council and may be amended in the same manner from time to time. 3. The City Council wishes to adopt rules of procedure for hearings conducted by the Hearing Officer that provide fair and adequate opportunity for consideration of all relevant issues on appeals. 4. Therefore, upon careful consideration, the City Council hereby adopts the Rules of Procedure for Hearings Before the Hearing Officer attached as Attachment A to take effect immediately. Attachments: A - RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, this 2nd day of September 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Howard A. Miller, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk 699643.2 31 CITY OF SARATOGA RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER The following rules of procedure have been adopted by the City Council for all hearings conducted by a Hearing Officer acting pursuant to Section 3-15.070 of the City Code. 1. Purpose The purpose of these rules of procedure is to provide consistent, fair procedures for any review by a Hearing Officer of an appeal or other matter heard by a Hearing Officer by reference to City Code Section 3-15.070. In addition to these rules of procedure, the appeal or other matter heard by the Hearing Officer shall be conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of the City Code, which provisions shall prevail in the event of any conflict with these hearing procedures. 2. Powers of Hearing Officer. (a) On the Hearing Officer’s own motion or on the motion of any party, the Hearing Officer may continue a scheduled or ongoing hearing for good cause, provided that notice of the date, time and location of the continued hearing is served on each party by mail or to an e-mail address if a party has authorized e-mail delivery. (b) The Hearing Officer, at the request of any party to a hearing, may request the City Council to subpoena witnesses, documents and other evidence where the attendance of the witness or the admission of evidence is deemed necessary by the Hearing Officer to decide the issues at the hearing. All costs related to the subpoena, including witness and mileage fees shall be borne by the party requesting the subpoena. (c) The Hearing Officer shall retain jurisdiction over the subject matter of a hearing for the purposes of granting a continuance, ensuring compliance with the Hearing Officer’s Decision, modifying such Decision, or where extraordinary circumstances exist, granting a new hearing. 3. Procedures at Hearing. (a) Hearings before a Hearing Officer are intended to be informal in nature. Formal rules of evidence and discovery do not apply. The Hearing Officer shall only consider evidence that is relevant to the determination(s) the Hearing Officer is required to make. (b) The burden of proof of regulatory compliance is on the party requesting the hearing unless the City is seeking abatement by repair, removal, or demolition, in which case the burden of proof of regulatory noncompliance is on the City. (c) The standard of proof to be used by the Hearing Officer in deciding the factual issues at a hearing is the preponderance of the evidence standard. 32 Hearing Procedures - 2 (d) Hearings shall be open to the public, absent a determination by the Hearing Officer to close the hearing to the public and/or exclude potential witnesses based on a showing of good cause. No public notice of hearings is required unless otherwise specified in the City Code. (e) Hearings shall be recorded in audio or audio/video format by the City Clerk who shall keep and maintain each recording for no less than three years from the date of the Hearing Officer’s service of the Hearing Officer’s Decision on the parties. Copies of audio recordings shall be at the requestor’s expense. (f) The Hearing Officer shall hear and consider all relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, applicable staff reports, oral testimony, physical evidence, photographs, correspondence between the parties, and any other type of record relevant to the matter before the Hearing Officer. (g) At least seven calendar days prior to the hearing, the parties shall serve one another and the Hearing Officer with a written summary, no more than five pages in length, explaining the facts and law in support of their respective positions. The summary may additionally include photographs or other documentary evidence. The summary may be personally delivered or sent by email if a party has authorized e-mail delivery. By written request served on the parties, the Hearing Officer may require the parties to serve one another by personal delivery or by email if a party has authorized e-mail delivery with a written rebuttal (to the other party’s written summary) of a specified page limit by a specified date no later than 5:00 p.m. two business days prior to the hearing, and by that same date to exchange all (or a specified portion) of the then known evidence a party intends to present at the hearing. If no one is present to accept personal delivery at the address specified in the notice of appeal said delivery may be accomplished by leaving a copy with the City Clerk and providing telephone notice that the materials delivered are available at that office. The Hearing Officer may establish alternate deadlines to those specified herein upon the consent of the parties. (h) Each hearing shall proceed in the following order, unless the Hearing Officer directs otherwise: i. Each witness who intends to testify shall be sworn by the Hearing Officer. ii. The City shall present its case including the evidence supporting its position. iii. The party requesting the hearing shall present his/her/its case including the evidence supporting his/her/its position. iv. The parties may then, in order, respectively present rebutting evidence and argument, with the party having the burden of proof having the last opportunity 33 Hearing Procedures - 3 for rebuttal. (i) The Hearing Officer may ask questions of any witness at any time. (j) Each party shall have the opportunity to cross-examine any witness. (k) The Hearing Officer has the authority to control the hearing and may limit the time allotted for each party’s presentation to 60 minutes absent good cause for allowing additional time as determined by the Hearing Officer. 4. Hearing Officer’s Decision (a) After considering all of the relevant testimony, other evidence and argument submitted prior to and at the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall, within 30 days or such shorter period of time as may be required by the City Code, render a written “Hearing Officer’s Decision” and serve copies thereof to the parties. The Hearing Officer’s Decision shall uphold, modify, or cancel the decision which is the subject of the hearing. The Hearing Officer’s Decision shall list the findings in support of such decision, including a finding as to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 3-15.100 of the Saratoga City Code if appropriate. The Hearing Officer shall not award attorney’s fees unless the party requesting the hearing was timely notified in writing that attorney’s fees may be assessed. (b) The Hearing Officer’s Decision shall be served on all parties by regular mail or acknowledged email. (c) The Hearing Officer’s Decision is final on the date of service of the order and may not be appealed to the City Council. 5. Judicial Review. Judicial review of a Hearing Officer’s Decision may be sought pursuant to a timely petition for writ of administrative mandamus. Once a Hearing Officer’s Decision becomes final, the time in which judicial review of the Decision must be sought shall be governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. SARATOG.1-S140 699147.4 34 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 9, 2015 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY: Crystal Bothelio SUBJECT: Budget Adjustment Resolution Grant RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve budget adjustment resolution. BACKGROUND: In August 2015, the City of Saratoga and County of Santa Clara Public Health Department executed a grant agreement in the amount of $12,042 to cover costs associated with preparation of the Tobacco Retailer License ordinance, as well as expenses to purchase and install new signage in City parks and parking lots to inform the public that use of tobacco products including electronic smoking devices – to this report will account for the inflow and outflow of these grant funds. The County of Santa Clara Public Health Department was awarded $1.9 million from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention to fund efforts that address chronic dis factors, including tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke, poor nutrition, lack of physical activity, and limited access to chronic disease prevention, risk reduction, and management opportunities. Of the $1.9 million, $250,000 cities working towards increasing access to tobacco beverages, and opportunities for physical activity. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Budget Adjustment Resolution SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL September 9, 2015 City Manager’s Office Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk Budget Adjustment Resolution – Santa Clara County Public Health Department Approve budget adjustment resolution. In August 2015, the City of Saratoga and County of Santa Clara Public Health Department executed a grant agreement in the amount of $12,042 to cover costs associated with preparation cco Retailer License ordinance, as well as expenses to purchase and install new signage in City parks and parking lots to inform the public that use of tobacco products – – is prohibited. The budget adjustment resolution attached to this report will account for the inflow and outflow of these grant funds. The County of Santa Clara Public Health Department was awarded $1.9 million from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention to fund efforts that address chronic disease and related risk factors, including tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke, poor nutrition, lack of physical activity, and limited access to chronic disease prevention, risk reduction, and management opportunities. Of the $1.9 million, $250,000 was made available to fund at least 6 cities working towards increasing access to tobacco-free environments, healthy food and beverages, and opportunities for physical activity. Budget Adjustment Resolution Santa Clara County Public Health Department In August 2015, the City of Saratoga and County of Santa Clara Public Health Department executed a grant agreement in the amount of $12,042 to cover costs associated with preparation cco Retailer License ordinance, as well as expenses to purchase and install new – n attached The County of Santa Clara Public Health Department was awarded $1.9 million from the Centers ease and related risk factors, including tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke, poor nutrition, lack of was made available to fund at least 6 free environments, healthy food and 35 RESOLUTION 15-___ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015/16 TO ACCOUNT FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT GRANT WHEREAS, Santa Clara County was awarded grant funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to address chronic disease and related risk factors, including tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke, poor nutrition, lack of physical activity, and limited access to chronic disease prevention, risk reduction, and management opportunities; and WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara set aside $250,000 for at least 6 cities working towards increasing access to tobacco-free environments, healthy food and beverages, and opportunities for physical activity; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga was awarded a grant of $12,042 to cover costs associated with preparing a tobacco retailer license ordinance and to purchase and install signage in City parks and recreational areas to inform the public that use of tobacco, including electronic smoking devices, is prohibited; and WHEREAS, adoption of the budget adjustment resolution will amend the Fiscal Year 2015/16 City of Saratoga Operating Budget to account for the receipt and allocation of the grant funds as follows: Account Description Account # Amount To budget revenue appropriation for grant from Santa Clara County Public Health Department for preparation of tobacco retailer license ordinance and to purchase/install signage in City parks and recreational areas. Santa Clara County Public Health Department Tobacco Grant - Budget Increase 1115301-42814 1115301-61141 $12,042 $12,042 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby approves the above adjustment to the Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budget. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 2nd day of September 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Howard A. Miller, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Debbie Bretschneider, Acting City Clerk 36 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 2, 2015 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Kate Bear, City Arborist SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance Amending Zoning Code) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Waive the second reading and adopt ordinance (Article 15-50). BACKGROUND: On July 1, 2015, the City Council introduced and waived the first reading of revising the Tree Regulations (Article an expedited process. The revised ordinance would no longer require that neighbors within 150 feet be notified of the removal of a dead tree, and residents would no longer removal of a dead tree. The Council directed staff to schedule the second reading for the August 19, 2015 City Council meeting. After publication of the agenda packet for the August 19 Member Mary-Lynne Bernald observed that additional language was needed, and City Attorney Richard Taylor identified text cleanups. The Tree Regulations ordinance was re August 19, 2015 meeting so that the proposed changes could be incorporated into the City Code, and the second reading was scheduled for September 2, 2015. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga wit ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Ordinance SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL , 2015 Community Development Kate Bear, City Arborist Ordinance Amending Tree Regulations (Article 15-50 of the Waive the second reading and adopt the attached ordinance to revise the Tree Regulations On July 1, 2015, the City Council introduced and waived the first reading of an ordinance (Article 15-50) that would allow the removal of dead trees through an expedited process. The revised ordinance would no longer require that neighbors within 150 feet be notified of the removal of a dead tree, and residents would no longer be able to appeal the The Council directed staff to schedule the second reading for the August After publication of the agenda packet for the August 19, 2015, Council meeting, Council nne Bernald observed that additional language was needed, and City Attorney Richard Taylor identified text cleanups. The Tree Regulations ordinance was reintroduced so that the proposed changes could be incorporated into the amended , and the second reading was scheduled for September 2, 2015. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within 15 days after its adoption. 50 of the Tree Regulations an ordinance 50) that would allow the removal of dead trees through an expedited process. The revised ordinance would no longer require that neighbors within 150 be able to appeal the The Council directed staff to schedule the second reading for the August Council meeting, Council nne Bernald observed that additional language was needed, and City Attorney introduced at the amended This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of 37 Attachment A 1 ORDINANCE __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15-50.070 OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Findings 1. The City of Saratoga wishes to amend Article 15-50.070 of the City Code to expedite the time to process an application for a permit to remove a dead tree. 2. The changes in this ordinance affect provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations in Chapter 15 of the Code. These amendments were considered by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga and the Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing on June 24, 2015, recommended adoption of the amendments to Chapter 15. 3. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on July 1, 2015, and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance on that date and re-introduced the ordinance with clarifications on August 19, 2015. Therefore, the City Council hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Adoption. The Saratoga City Code is amended as set forth below. Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g., strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged by this ordinance. Section 15-50.070 of the Tree Regulations of the Saratoga City Code is amended as follows: Amendment to Application for a Permit 15-50.070 - Application for permit. (a) Application. Application for a tree removal, pruning, or encroachment permit shall be made to the Community Development Director on such form as he or she may prescribe. The application shall contain the number and location of each tree to be removed, pruned, or encroached upon, the type and approximate size of the tree, the reason for removal, pruning or encroachment and such additional information as the Director may require. The application shall be signed by the owner of the property upon which the tree is located and if the applicant is not the owner of said property shall include a statement that the owner consents to the activity described on the permit application. (b) Notice. After making a determination on an application for tree removal, the Community Development Director shall provide notification of the determination to the applicant and residents within one hundred fifty feet of the boundaries of applicant's property, in accordance with paragraph 15-50.100. If the Community Development Director determines that the tree is a Dead tree as defined in Section 15-50.020(i), the Community Development Director 38 Attachment A 2 may waive notification of neighbors and may issue a permit without any right of appeal or any appeal period prior to the exercise of the permit. (c) Pruning Permit. (1) A permit is required for structural pruning in excess of twenty-five percent (25%) of the canopy of any protected tree within a two year period. ISA Standard. s (the 2001 Edition of which is hereby adopted by reference) any given growth period. or year of any protected tree. ( The 2001 Edition of the ISA Pruning Standards, known as ANSI A300 (Part 1) – 2001 Pruning is adopted for reference.) Pruning shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the canopy. No permit is required for structural pruning, which complies with ISA Pruning Standards, or for the pruning of productive agricultural trees. (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, either written p (2) Permission in writing from the owner of the tree or a permit is required for prior to the pruning of a protected tree the trunk of which is at least partially located on a neighboring property. If the trunk of a tree is located on a property line, written permission is required from the property owners on both sides of the property line prior to pruning, as it is a tree owned by both property owners. (3) No permit is required for structural pruning of less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the canopy of trees on an owner’s own property which complies with ISA Pruning Standards., or No permit is required for the pruning of productive agricultural trees. (d) Encroachment Permit. Where no Planning Division or Building Division permit is needed for work near a tree, but a protected tree will be encroached upon, a Tree Encroachment Permit is required from the Community Development Department. (e) Application Fee. Fees shall be charged as set forth in the City’s Fee Schedule. No fee shall be required for a permit to remove a Fallen or Dead tree and the permit fee for removal of a Dead tree shall be refunded to the applicant upon issuance of the permit. provided that tree replacement requirements as a condition of the tree removal permit are met. Section 2. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub- section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. 39 Attachment A 3 Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act The proposed amendments to the City Code are Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that there is no project and the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061, a change in the City Code does not constitute a project, and pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15304(b) and 15304(i), the Code changes will result in minor alterations to landscaping and management of fuel. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. Following a duly noticed public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 19th day of August, 2015, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the 2d day of September, 2015. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________ HOWARD A. MILLER CRYSTAL BOTHELIO MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________________ RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY 703382.3 40 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 2, 2015 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Michael Fossati, Community Development Department SUBJECT: APPC15-0002 - Appeal of Design Review and Variance applications for a new two-story residence at 21794 Heber Way – RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution denying the appeal. BACKGROUND: On May 27, 2015, the Planning Commission (PC) denied an application submitted by Steve Sheng for Design Review (PDR11-0003) approval for a new 4,989 sq. ft. two-story residence and Variance (VAR11-0001) approval that includes a 99 foot front setback (131 foot setback required), a 22 foot side setback (43 foot setback required) along the southeast property line, and a 35 foot side setback (43 foot setback required) along the eastern property line located at 21794 Heber Way. The Planning Commission denied both applications on a 6-1 vote. The PC staff report (with attachments) has been included as Attachment 3 and summary action minutes are included as Attachment 6. On June 8, 2015, Steve Sheng submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission denial. The completed appeal form is included as Attachment 4. The Appellant’s stated reasons for submitting the appeal are itemized within that attachment and summarized below: • Standard setbacks will result in a smaller home than typically found in the neighborhood. • The proposed home design and size are comparable with the character and typical house size of the neighborhood. • Strict enforcement of these regulations and special circumstances would deprive the applicant of other privileges enjoyed by other owners in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. • Granting of the variance is not a granting of special privilege. • The design will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The site is located at the end of Heber Way and is surrounded by large developed lots with many two-story residences. The size of the site is 6.05 acre and is currently vacant. Over 80% of the land on the site cannot be built on, due to overlaying open space easements and geotechnical instability. Additionally, due to the slope, the floor area allowed on the site has been lessened in comparison to a typical six acre site. Lastly, due to setbacks being dictated by the gross lot size area which includes these easements, the potential building footprint for 21794 Heber Way has been reduced considerably. The project was originally submitted for development since 1999. In December 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed plans for a proposed 6,483 sq. ft. two-story residence with 93 foot front setback, 20 foot side yard setback, and a 25 foot side yard setback variance application. The project was continued by the PC and eventually withdrawn by the applicant. A new application was resubmitted in August 2011, once again to develop the site. The applicants continued to work with their designer and consultants to refine their project until 2014. In 2014, the project was modified to include a new 4,989 sq. ft. two-story residence with 99 foot front setback, 22 foot side yard setback, and a 35 foot side yard setback variance application. Details of the project can be found in the PC staff report (Attachment 2). Han Lin and Annie Lim of 21790 Heber Way, the adjacent neighbor to the south of the project site, have opposed the project since submission. Numerous meetings with the Mr. Lin, Mrs. Lim and the Shengs have not resulted in any consensus. Letters from Mr. Lin and Ms. Lim can be found also within PC staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 22, 2014. At that meeting the Planning Commission requested the applicant address the following design considerations: • Establish better consistency with architectural design • Propose a smaller structure • Decrease the mass of the residence by delineating the roof line The applicant revised the design, refined the roof lines, and decreased the floor area of the structure in their May 27, 2015 resubmittal to the Planning Commission. The applicants also presented a topographical model to show how the proposed house sits in context with the surrounding hillside. The Planning Commission did not reach a consensus regarding any additional specific revisions (i.e. minimum setbacks, number of variances required, acceptable floor area reduction, reduction of massing) that could be made to be able to approve the project, but a common theme of their comments was that the changes made by the applicant were not sufficient enough to warrant approval. As such, a majority of Planning Commissioners denied the project (6-1) d. The PC denial resolution can be found as Attachment 4. FISCAL STATEMENT: No fiscal impact is anticipated with this review. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Pursuant to City Code Section 15-90.010(c), the City Council may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Commission, and may refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for such further action as my be directed by the City Council. If the City Council approves the applications (granting the appeal) staff recommends including the conditions of approval that are attached to the May 27th Planning Commission staff report. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Direct staff accordingly. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: All notice requirements for the appeal have been satisfied. Notice of the public hearing to property owners and residents in the annexation area were mailed on August 24, 2015 and the hearing was advertised in the Saratoga News. Two letter regarding the project have been included as Attachment 7. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Resolution for Denial Attachment 2 – PC Staff Report for PDR11-0003/VAR11-0001, dated May 27, 2015 Attachment 3– Appeal application Attachment 4 – Resolution for Denial by PC, dated May 27, 2015 Attachment 5 – PC Minutes, dated May 27, 2015 Attachment 6 – Additional Written Communications, dated August 25, 2015 Attachment 7– Reduced Plan Set, Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO: XX-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING AN APPEAL, AND DENYING A DESIGN REVIEW (PDR11-0003), FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCE (VAR11-0001) REQUESTS FOR REDUCED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, LOCATED AT 21794 HEBER WAY (APN 503-31-067) WHEREAS, on February 3, 2011, an application was submitted by Eric Keng and Steve Sheng requesting Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new two story home located at 21794 Heber Way. The project has a total floor area of 4,989 square feet. The height of the proposed residence is approximately 25 feet. Variances approval is required because the project includes a 99 foot front setback (131 foot setback required), a 20 foot side setback (43 foot setback required) along the southeast property line, and a 35 foot side setback (43 foot setback required) along the eastern property line. The site is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District (APN 503-31-067). The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the City Council determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing agenda and continued the project at the request of the applicant to the meeting of October 22, 2014. WHEREAS, on October 22, 2014 and May 27, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties, and denied the application for the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2015, an appeal to the City Council was filed by Steve Sheng (“appellant”); and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2015, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject appeal, and considered the proposed project and the evidence presented by City Staff, the appellant, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, for the reasons set forth by the City Council following the public hearing, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby denies the appeal, affirms the decision of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga made on May 27, 2015 denying PDR11-0003 and VAR11-0001 located at 21794 Heber Way, and declares that the recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located in the City of Saratoga Department of Community Development and are maintained by the Director of that Department. 44 Resolution No. XX-XXX PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga on this 2nd day of September 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Howard Miller, Mayor Attest: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk 45 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: May 27, 2015 (Continued from Oct 22, 2014) Application: PDR11-0003 / VAR11-0001 Location / APN: 21794 Heber Way / 503-31-067 Owner / Applicant: Eric Keng / Steve Sheng Staff Planner: Michael Fossati 21794 Heber Way SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant previously submitted an application requesting design review approval to build a new 5,039 sq. ft. (including a 665 sq. ft. attached garage) two-story residence on a vacant lot and variance approval for the front and side yard setbacks. The variance requested approval of a 97 foot front setback (when 131 foot setback is required), a 20 foot side setback (when 43 foot setback is required) along the southeast property line, and a 30 foot side setback (when 43 foot setback is required) along the eastern property line. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on October 22, 2014 and continued the application to address the following design considerations and requests for information: • Establish consistency with architectural design • Smaller Structure • Decrease mass by delineating roof lines • Staff report for Subdivision, dated March 14, 1979. The applicant has revised the design and is now requesting design review approval to build a new 4,989 sq. ft. (that includes an attached 665 sq. ft. garage) two-story residence on a vacant lot and variance approval for the front and side yard setbacks. The variance requested is for a 99 foot front setback (131 foot setback required), a 20 foot side setback (43 foot setback required) along the southeast property line, and a 35 foot side setback (43 foot setback required) along the eastern property line. No protected trees are proposed for removal. Staff has also provided the Planning Commission the subdivision staff report (Attachment 2). Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required for any new multi-story main structure or multi-story accessory structure - City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1). Variance Approval by Planning Commission is required with respect to allowable setbacks for front and side areas within the Hillside-Residential Zoning district – City Code Section 15-70.020(a). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-044 approving Design Review PDR11-0003 and Variance 11- 0001 subject to conditions of approval. SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Project Description A full detailed analysis of the project can be found within the October 22, 2014 staff report (Attachment 3). The project was continued to a date uncertain in order for the applicant to address concerns made by the Planning Commission. The applicant has revised the project in order to address those concerns. The project was re-noticed to property owners within 500 feet of the project. The list below summarizes the design changes made by the applicant to the project: 2 • Increased the eastern side yard setback from 30 feet to 35 feet. • Increased the front yard setback from 97 feet to 99 feet. • Decreased the total floor area from 5,039 sq. ft. to 4,989 sq. ft. • Decreased the overall height to less than 25 feet. Along with the changes regarding setbacks, floor area and heights, the applicant has revised the design of the proposed home by incorporating the following items: • Simplified window fenestration and building forms by using more compatible shapes and form of proposed windows and building walls. • Changing proposed roof forms from gable roof elements to hipped roof elements to break up the mass and reduce the bulk of the structure. • Incorporating exterior exposed roof rafters to provide additional architectural interest and detailing along the eave line and building elevations • Deemphasized the 2nd floor north facing balcony by removing the exterior balusters and incorporating a solid guardrail wall into the proposed building façade and introducing a wraparound roof eave along the front elevation. • Added gable roofs to the single car garage and side east facing door. The roof changes, such as incorporating cascading roof forms, and simplifications, such as reducing the number of window and building form shapes has assisted in breaking up the overall massing of the project and creating a better overall design that is a better fit for the site contextually. Staff has provided a “before and after” attachment to assist in reviewing the new design changes (Attachment 4). Property Site Development Constraints As previously stated in the October 22, 2014 report, the site is heavily constrained by an existing open space easement that covers approximately 93% of the property. The gross lot size of the parcel is approximately 6.05 acres. Within the gross lot size, the open space easement covers 5.61 acres. This leaves the applicant an approximate buildable area of .44 acres (or 19,305 sq. ft.). Furthermore within the buildable area, there are additional geologic constraints that exist. Of the 19,305 sq. ft. of buildable area, approximately 7,738 sq. ft. are within an area that is geologically stable. If current setbacks were to be required, the 7,738 sq. ft. would reduce to 1,321 sq. ft. of allowable buildable area. Neighborhood Compatibility The proposed project consists of a 4,989 sq. ft. residence which is consistent with the setbacks and square footage of residences in the neighborhood as illustrated in the following table: 3 Address Lot size House Size Setbacks 21790 Heber Way 1.6 acres 6,190 sq. ft. Front: 87 ft Rear: 132 ft Right Side: 30 ft Left Side: 25 ft 21781 Heber Way 1.2 acres 3,683 sq. ft. Front: 58 ft. Rear: 132 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 90 ft. 21780 Heber Way 1.1 acres 4,498 sq. ft. Front: 42 ft. Rear: N/A Right Side: 25 ft. Left Side: 140 ft. 21771 Heber Way 1.18 acres 5,615 sq. ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 196 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 24 ft. 21770 Heber Way 1.43 acres 5,271 sq. ft. Front: 60 ft. Rear: 250 ft. Right Side: 50 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. 21760 Heber Way 1.40 acres 5,615 sq. ft. Front: 177 ft. Rear: 120 ft. Right Side: 45 ft. Left Side: 50 ft. 21791 Heber Way 6.63 acres 6,297 sq. ft. Front: 120 ft.* Rear: 550 ft. Right Side: 70 ft. Left Side: 213 ft. * 21791 Heber Way received a variance to build in the front setback in 1996. The required front setback was 147 feet. Vacant Lot vs. Existing Construction 21794 Heber Way is located in the Hillside-Residential (HR) zoning district. The table below demonstrates the allowable setback for properties in that district: Setback for all lots with the exception of vacant lots and lots created after May Setback for vacant lots and lots created after May 15, 1992. 4 15, 1992 Front Setback Area 30 feet 30 feet or 20% of lot depth, whichever is greater Side Setback Area 20 feet or 25 feet for exterior side setbacks 20 feet or 25 feet for exterior side setbacks, or 10% of the lit width, whichever is greater Rear Setback Area 50 feet for a single-story and 60 feet for a multi-story structure 50 feet for a single-story and 60 feet for a multi-story structure, or 25% of the lot depth, whichever is greater. The table above confirms that if an existing residence was currently located on the project property, the proposed residence would be in conformance with the HR setback requirements. Since the lot is vacant, it must follow the requirements associated with a vacant lot. The issue is that the requirement subjects the applicant into a very small footprint. The setbacks required do not take into consideration the size of the site and the open space easement and geologic restrictions placed upon the property. As previously stated, if all required setbacks, open space easements, and geologic restrictions were mandated for development of the property, the allowable building footprint would be approximately 1,321 sq. ft. These are the reasons why a variance may be warranted for the project site. Existing and Proposed Landscaping The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscape plan for the project. The nearest home to the property is located at 21790 Heber Way, which is located to the east of the project site. The landscape plan shows approximately 18 existing California Pepper and Australian Willow trees located on the shared property line. Currently, the existing trees demonstrate heavy screening between the project site and neighboring property. If approved, the applicant has proposed to plant an additional 31 photinia shrubs along the adjacent property line. Per staff research, photinia can reach a height of up to 15 feet at maturity. The photinia shrubs along with existing California Peppers and Australian Willows should provide sufficient privacy screening between both properties. Neighbor Correspondence Staff sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. The owners of 21790 Heber Way have seen the proposed changes, yet they still have expressed major concerns regarding the proposed project. Concerns include, but are not limited to, integrity of the geologic review, privacy impacts, view impacts, bad design, etc. Staff has also received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Kundtz (former owners of 21790 Heber Way), opposing the project. Both of their letters have been included in this staff report at 5 Attachment 5. A letter from the attorney representing Mr. Sheng has been included as Attachment 6. As stated in the previous staff report, the project has received Geotechnical Clearance from the City Geologist (Attachment 7). Staff has included an updated memo for Planning Commissions review. In the memo, the City Geologist concludes that the applicant’s consultant geologist has credibly addressed the concerns of the City. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property's natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed construction is within the most level portion of the site. The development steps up the hillside (via the stairwell midway through the first floor) so as to minimize grading and follow the natural contours of the site. (b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed construction would not require the removal of any protected trees. (c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the residence is significantly pushed back from the edge of the street. Privacy has been mitigated by the applicant relocating the second floor terrace away from the side facing the immediate neighbor, by altering the location of the high traffic areas on the first floor away, and having five foot sills for all windows on the second floor facing the eastern property line. Furthermore, additional measures to address privacy are a row of 31 new photinia that have been proposed for planting adjacent to the eastern property line. (d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence has been built into the hillside thereby reducing the bulk of the structure and integrating it into the natural environment. The varying, cascading rooflines and stone veneer break up the appearance of the front facade while adding character and interest to the structure. The proposed size is consistent with nearby structures thereby increasing compatibility with the neighborhood. 6 (e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that landscaping plan proposes a driveway in the front, surrounded by native trees, such as manzinita, California Live oak, and California bay trees. The applicant has also proposed to plant new photinia along the eastern property line to soften the elevation and provide a landscape buffer for the adjacent neighbor as well as perennial beds to soften the views from the end of the cul-de-sac. (f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project's proposed height and setback from the nearest adjacent structure (+/- 80 feet) would not unreasonably impair the adjoining property from utilizing solar energy. (g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates design techniques such as incorporating simple lines, appropriate setbacks, and a material selection which includes a natural color exterior that would complement the streetscape and neighborhood. The applicant has also incorporated front and side wall plan that are in scale with adjacent residences and incorporated cascading, hip roof forms to minimized large expanses of roof seen from the street. Lastly, the project has setback the second story in proportion to the size of the lot and proximity to the neighbors. (h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is not located on a ridgeline, significant hillside feature, nor community viewshed. VARIANCE FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the uniqueness of the site would restrict development to a relatively small portion of the lot due to steep slopes, a restrictive open space easement, and geological constraints. The lot is 6.05 acres in size and only one other lot in the neighborhood is of comparable size. Due to the 5.61 acre open space easements and geological constraints, the City Code requirement that the setbacks be based on a percentage of the lot width and depth would result in a building envelope of approximately 1,100 sq. ft. The small building envelope is not consistent with the larger size residences currently in the neighborhood. The strict enforcement of the setback regulations would result in the development of a residence that would not be in scale 7 with the neighborhood or the property. Furthermore, the proposed setbacks are consistent with the majority of residences within the area and will not look out of place, nor impact neighboring properties regarding views or privacy impacts. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique with special circumstances not typical of lots in the vicinity. Over 90% of the lot is covered by open space easement which is not taken into account when determining setback requirements. The existing easements and zoning regulations regarding determination of setback area heavily constricts the buildable area for the site. The granting of the setback variance would not constitute a special privilege because the proposed setbacks are similar to the majority of residences in the neighborhood. The granting of the variance would allow the project the same privileges enjoyed by the neighboring developed parcels. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed structure would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as it received Geotechnical Clearance from the City Geologist. The project, as conditioned, would either need meet or exceed building permit requirements when constructed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Teerlink Subdivision Staff Report, dated March 14, 1979. 3. 21794 Heber Way PC Staff Report with Attachments, dated Oct. 22, 2014. 4. “Before and After” exhibit. 5. Letters in Opposition, dated May 19, 2015 6. Letter in support, dated May 21, 2015 7. Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review, dated May 14, 2015. 8. Reduced Plan Set, Exhibit ‘A’ 8 RESOLUTION NO: 14-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (PDR11-0003) FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCE (VAR11-0001) REQUESTS FOR A REDUCED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, LOCATED AT 21794 HEBER WAY (APN 503-31-067) WHEREAS, on February 3, 2011, an application was submitted by Eric Keng and Steve Sheng requesting Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new two story home located at 21794 Heber Way. The project has a total floor area of 4,989 square feet. The height of the proposed residence is approximately 25 feet. Variances approval is required because the project includes a 99 foot front setback (131 foot setback required), a 20 foot side setback (43 foot setback required) along the southeast property line, and a 35 foot side setback (43 foot setback required) along the eastern property line. The site is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District (APN 503-31-067). The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the Planning Commissions opened the public hearing agenda and continued the project at the request of the applicant to the meeting of October 22, 2014. WHEREAS, on October 22, 2014 and May 27, 2015, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Smaller Structures”, of the Public Resources Code. The proposed project is one single-family residence in an urbanized area. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides Resolution No. 14-044 that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project’s site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property's natural constraints; all protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations) and if constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080; and the height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; and the overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; and the landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; and the development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and the design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055; and that if the project is a hillside lot, that the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100 of the City Code. Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the variance exception findings can be made in that because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; and that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; and that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR11-0003 and VAR11-0001, located at 21794 Heber Way, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 27th day of May 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission Resolution No. 14-044 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR11-0003 AND VAR11-0001 21794 HEBER WAY (APN 503-31-067) A. GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent of other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16- 05.035, as applicable. 4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review and Variance Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. Resolution No. 14-044 7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this Resolution. 8. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans received May 19, 2015 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition A.3, above. 10. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per habitable structure (e.g., main house or guest house). All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. 11. Fences. Fences and walls shall comply with City Code Chapter 15-29. 12. All building ex terior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the lights do not remain on during the evening when the building is not in use. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a final exterior lighting plan that complies with Section 15- 35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the plan shall indicate that no exterior lighting fixtures shall allow direct light rays to leave the project site, or allow direct light sources (incandescent, fluorescent, or other forms of electric illumination) to be directly visible from off-site locations. The plan shall also show that light levels will not exceed 100 foot lamberts anywhere on the property. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance Resolution No. 14-044 13. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 14. Landscape installation and replacement for screening or ornamentation. A landscaped area required as a condition of any Design Review Approval shall be planted with materials suitable for screening or ornamenting the site, whichever is appropriate, and plant materials shall be replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site. 15. Landscape maintenance. Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized, sprayed or otherwise maintained by the Owner as may be prescribed by the Community Development Department; 16. Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures or irrigation systems shall be water conserving and otherwise comply with City Code Section 16-75.030. 18 Noise limitations during construction. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and residential construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with the exception of that construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on site at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit. 19. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a construction, remodeling, or demolition project affecting more than two thousand five hundred square feet of floor space the Applicant is required to provide to the Building Official a construction and demolition debris recycling plan prior to the issuance of any Demolition, Grading or Building Permit. 20. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 21. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Detention Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise required Resolution No. 14-044 by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes. 22. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.1 above; b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval; c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; d. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and wet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a current license for the land surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled “Boundary Survey,” and the document shall not contain any disclaimers; e. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. C. PUBLIC WORKS 23. Broken Gutter and Curb – Applicant (owner) shall replace any and all broken section of concrete curb and gutter along the property frontage per City standard specifications prior to final occupancy approval. 24. Encroachment Permit – Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including curb and gutter replacement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. D. CITY GEOLOGIST 25. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant shall either review geotechnical aspects of supporting structural calculations to verify that appropriate CBC 2010 seismic design parameters have been utilized or prepare updated seismic design parameters. The consultant shall verify that the proposed project design is consistent with recommendations of all referenced AESC documents. The plan review shall be prepared and signed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist. Results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the Resolution No. 14-044 City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. The following items should be performed prior to final (as-built) project approval. 26. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant shall inspect final installed site drainage improvements for conformance with geotechnical recommendations. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. 27. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 28. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: October 22, 2014 Application: PDR11-0003 / VAR11-0001 Location / APN: 21794 Heber Way / 503-31-067 Owner / Applicant: Eric Keng / Steve Sheng Staff Planner: Michael Fossati 21794 Heber Way 2 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to build a new two-story residence on a vacant lot and a variance for the front and side yard setbacks. The proposed residence would have a total floor area of 5,039 sq. ft. which includes a 665 sq. ft. garage. The height of the structure would not exceed 25 feet. No protected trees are proposed for removal. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required for any new multi-story main structure or multi-story accessory structure - City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(1). Variance Approval by Planning Commission is required with respect to allowable setbacks for front and side areas within the Hillside-Residential Zoning district – City Code Section 15-70.020(a). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-044 approving Design Review PDR11-0003 and Variance 11- 0001 subject to conditions of approval. PROJECT DATA: Gross Site Area: 158,384 square feet Average Site Slope: 48% General Plan Designation: RHC (Hillside Conservation Single-Family) PROJECT DATA Net Lot Size: 158,384 sq. ft. Proposed Allowed Floor Area 1st floor: 2nd floor: Garage: Total 2,357 sq. ft. 2,017 sq. ft. 665 sq. ft. 5,039 sq. ft. 7,060 sq. ft. Site Coverage Building Footprint Patio / Walk Driveway Total 3,022 sq. ft. 2,358 sq. ft. 2,680 sq. ft. 8,060 sq. ft. (5%) 15,000 sq. ft. 3 Setbacks Front: Side (Left): Side (Right): Rear Proposed 97’ 20’ & 35’ 93’ 470’ Required 131’ 45’ 45’ 160’ Height Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: 741’ 759’ 749’ 772.5’ (23.5’) Maximum Building Height is 26 Feet (775’) SITE AND PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Site Description The existing 6.05 acre vacant site is located at 21794 Heber Way. Although the site is 6.05 acres in size, 60% of the site area has been deducted (to calculate buildable floor area) due to its steep average slope and geotechnical instability. The site is located at the end of Heber Way and is surrounded by large developed lots with many two story homes. The project was originally submitted in 1999. In December 2004 the Planning Commission reviewed plans for a proposed 6,483 square foot two-story residence for the site. The project was continued and eventually withdrawn. Minutes from the meeting are included as Attachment 2. The applicant resubmitted the project in February 2011. Building Design The proposed project is for a new two-story residence. Exterior materials would include smooth stucco and trim, precast concrete railings, Eldorado stone base veneer, lightweight concrete tile roofing, and a semi-custom wood garage door and louver vent. The proposed color scheme is earth-tone with varying shades of tans and browns. A color and sample board will be available at the public hearing. Detail Colors and Materials Building ext. ‘La Habra’ beige stucco Trim & Fascia ‘Western Pursuit’ brown trim and fascia Roofing ‘Bel Air, Nantucket Blend’ lightweight concrete tile roof Windows ‘Brown’ Anderson 400 Series Base ‘Eldorado Stone’ stone veneer Landscaping & Trees The project would not affect any protected trees. Any trees that would need to be removed would be no greater than 4 inches in diameter. The landscaping plan indicates that new trees would be planted (i.e. Live Oak, Bay) near the proposed driveway and near the front entrance. City Arborist review was not required. 4 Variance for Setbacks Setbacks in the Hillside-Residential District are different for developed and vacant lots as illustrated in the below table: Setback Requirements Developed Lots Vacant Lots Front 30 ft. 20% of Lot Depth Side 20 ft. 10% of Lot Width Rear (1st Floor) 50 ft. 25% of Lot Depth Rear (2nd Floor) 60 ft. 25% of Lot Depth As previously stated, the project site is vacant. Due to the size of the site the standard setbacks are larger than what are required for developed lots. The required front setback for the front is 131 feet when 30 feet is required for developed lots. The required side setback is 45 feet, when 20 feet is required for developed lots. The applicant has applied for a variance for an exception to the front and side yard setbacks due to the sites limited building envelope. The western portion of the 6.05 acre site is constrained by an open space easement and proximity to the Berrocal fault with anticipated strong seismic ground shaking and potential slope instability associated with steep slopes, per the City Geologist Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review Memorandum, dated June 18, 2013 (Attachment 2). To address the issues raised by the City Geologist, the applicant reduced the amount of proposed grading and located the residence along the northeastern portion of the site. The residence complies with zoning standards for the right side and rear setback, but does not comply with the front setback and two left side setbacks. The variances are for the following:  Front setback of 97 ft. when 131 ft. is required.  Side setback of 30 ft. when 45 ft. is required (along eastern property line)  Side setback of 20 ft. when 45 ft is required (along southeastern property line) If the applicant were to adhere to the required setbacks than the project would be located in an area with unstable soils and steep slopes and constructing the residence to conform to the 131 foot front yard setback would require a variance to build on a slope in excess of 30%. In lieu of requesting such a variance, the applicant is proposing to locate the project closer to the front and side yard setbacks in a level area with stable soil. 5 Existing Development Pattern The proposed project consists of a 5,039 sq. ft. residence which is consistent with the setbacks and square footage of residences in the neighborhood as illustrated in the following table: Address Lot size House Size Setbacks 21790 Heber Way 1.6 acres 6,190 sq. ft. Front: 87 ft Rear: 132 ft Right Side: 30 ft Left Side: 25 ft 21781 Heber Way 1.2 acres 3,683 sq. ft. Front: 58 ft. Rear: 132 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 90 ft. 21780 Heber Way 1.1 acres 4,498 sq. ft. Front: 42 ft. Rear: N/A Right Side: 25 ft. Left Side: 140 ft. 21771 Heber Way 1.18 acres 5,615 sq. ft. Front: 30 ft. Rear: 196 ft. Right Side: 20 ft. Left Side: 24 ft. 21770 Heber Way 1.43 acres 5,271 sq. ft. Front: 60 ft. Rear: 250 ft. Right Side: 50 ft. Left Side: 20 ft. 21760 Heber Way 1.40 acres 5,615 sq. ft. Front: 177 ft. Rear: 120 ft. Right Side: 45 ft. Left Side: 50 ft. 21791 Heber Way 6.63 acres 6,297 sq. ft. Front: 120 ft.* Rear: 550 ft. Right Side: 70 ft. Left Side: 213 ft. * 21791 Heber Way received a variance to build in the front setback in 1996. The required front setback was 147 feet. 6 Neighbor Correspondence The applicant submitted three neighbor notification forms from neighboring property owners (Attachment 3). Staff also sent a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. The owner's of 21790 Heber Way have submitted multiple letters (Attachment 5-7) specifying their concerns with the project which include the granting of a special privilege to the applicant, misleading noticing regarding the setbacks, violation of the rear open space easement, safety concerns, and violation of privacy. Staff’s responses to these concerns are located below. The applicant met with the neighbor on three occasions in an attempt to address their concerns and staff has included documents from the applicant demonstrating these efforts (Attachment 8). The applicant’s attorney has also prepared a letter addressing the neighbors’ concerns (Attachment 9 & 10). Staff has received one additional letter from the former owner of 21790 Heber Way regarding the project (Attachment 11). Comment #1 – Granting a Special Privilege. Variances are associated with the property, not with the owner. The applicant did receive a variance to construct a residence on a different property but this is not related to the current variance request. Comment #2 – Misleading Setback Information. The project was noticed for a second time. Staff included in the notice that the applicant has applied for a variance to build within the front setback and within the side setback along the eastern property line (30 feet when 45 feet is required) and southern property line (20 feet when 45 feet is required). Comment #3 – Granting Another Special Privilege. The applicant’s Geologist provided a detailed letter (see Attachment 11) addressing the neighbor’s concerns regarding the granting of special privilege. Comment #4 – Violation of Open Space Easement. A proposed retaining wall that was partially encroaching into a portion of the open space easement has been relocated outside of the easement. Comment #5 – Detrimental to Health, Safety and Welfare. This comment has been answered by the applicant’s Geologist (see Attachment 12). Comment #6 – Violation of Privacy – The proposed setback along the shared property line is 30 feet (not 20 feet as the letter states). The shared property line contains a row of existing California Pepper and Australian Willow trees. The applicant has proposed to increase the landscape screening by planting new photinia trees which could reach a height of 20 feet at maturity. Lastly, the property line would be separated by a 15 foot driveway between the project location and the property line of 21790 Heber Way. Revisions have been made by the applicant to minimize privacy impacts for the residence at 21790 Heber Way. These revisions include moving the garage from the left side to the right side of the site, relocation of the second floor terrace away from the shared property line, and proposing 7 to install windows with five foot sills along all areas of the second floor facing the neighboring property. DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property's natural constraints. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed construction is within the most level portion of the site. The development steps up the hillside (via the stairwell midway through the first floor) so as to minimize grading and follow the natural contours of the site. (b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed construction would not require the removal of any protected trees. (c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the residence is significantly pushed back from the edge of the street. Privacy has been mitigated by the applicant relocating the second floor terrace away from the side facing the immediate neighbor, by altering the location of the high traffic areas on the first floor away, and having five foot sills for all windows on the second floor facing the eastern property line. (d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed residence has been built into the hillside thereby reducing the bulk of the structure and integrating it into the natural environment. The varying rooflines and stone veneer break up the appearance of the front facade while adding character and interest to the structure. The proposed size is consistent with nearby structures thereby increasing compatibility with the neighborhood. (e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that landscaping plan proposes a driveway in the front, surrounded by native trees, such as manzinita, California Live oak, and California bay trees. The applicant has also proposed to plant new photinia along the eastern property line to soften the elevation and provide a landscape buffer for the adjacent neighbor as well as perennial beds to soften the views from the end of the cul-de-sac. 8 (f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project's proposed height and setback from the nearest adjacent structure (+/- 97 feet) would not unreasonably impair the adjoining property from utilizing solar energy. (g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates design techniques such as incorporating simple lines, appropriate setbacks, and a material selection which includes a natural color exterior that would complement the streetscape and neighborhood. (h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is not located on a ridgeline, significant hillside feature, nor community viewshed. VARIANCE FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.080 are set forth below and the applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: (a) That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the uniqueness of the site would restrict development to a relatively small portion of the lot due to steep slopes, a restrictive open space easement, and geological constraints. The lot is 3.6 acres in size and only one other lot in the neighborhood is of comparable size. Due to the lot size and geological constraints, the City Code requirement that the setbacks be based on a percentage of the lot width and depth would result in a building envelope of approximately 1,100 sq. ft. The relatively small building envelope is not consistent with the larger size residences currently in the neighborhood. The strict enforcement of the setback regulations would result in the development of a residence that would not be in scale with the neighborhood or the property. Furthermore, the proposed setbacks are consistent with the majority of residences within the area. (b) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the lot is unique with special circumstances not typical of lots in the vicinity. The granting of the setback variance would not constitute a special privilege because the proposed setbacks are similar to the majority of residences in the neighborhood. The granting of the variance 9 would allow the project the same privileges enjoyed by the neighboring developed parcels. (c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed structure would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare as it received Geotechnical Clearance from the City Geologist. The project, as conditioned, would either need meet or exceed building permit requirements when constructed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval 2. Minutes of Previous PC Meeting, dated December 8, 2004 3. Geotechnical Clearance, dated June 18, 2013 4. Neighbor Notification 5. Letter from Lin, dated February 24, 2011 6. Letter from Lin, dated September 13, 2014 7. Letter from Lin, dated October 14, 2014 8. Letters from DL Architecture, dated May 25, 2011, Sept. 12, 2012 & e-mail from Steve Sheng, dated Nov. 12, 2013. 9. Letter from Mattoni, dated September 16, 2014 10. Letter from Mattoni, dated October 14, 2014 11. Letter from Kundtz, dated October 14, 2014 12. Letter from Geologist Manzagol, dated September 18, 2014 13. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A.”, dated October 1, 2014 RESOLUTION NO: 14-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION (PDR11-0003) FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND VARIANCE (VAR11-0001) REQUESTS FOR A REDUCED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, LOCATED AT 21794 HEBER WAY (APN 503-31-067) WHEREAS, on February 3, 2011, an application was submitted by Eric Keng and Steve Sheng requesting Design Review and Variance approval to construct a new two story home located at 21794 Heber Way. The project has a total floor area of 5,039 square feet. The height of the proposed residence is approximately 25 feet. The site is located within the Hillside Residential Zoning District (APN 503-31-067). WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt. WHEREAS, on September 24, 2014, the Planning Commissions opened the public hearing agenda and continued the project at the request of the applicant to the meeting of October 22, 2014. WHEREAS, on October 22, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Smaller Structures”, of the Public Resources Code. The proposed project is one single-family residence in an urbanized area. Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a residence prior to issuance of permits; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Resolution No. 14-044 Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project’s site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property's natural constraints; all protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations) and if constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080; and the height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; and the overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; and the landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; and the development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and the design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055; and that if the project is a hillside lot, that the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100 of the City Code. Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the variance exception findings can be made in that because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, strict enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; and that the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning district; and that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR11-0003 and VAR11-0001, located at 21794 Heber Way, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 22nd day of October 2014 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Mary-Lynne Bernald C h a i r , P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n Resolution No. 14-044 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR11-0003 AND VAR11-0001 21794 HEBER WAY (APN 503-31-067) A. GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent of other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. 2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 3. Conditions may be modified only by the Planning Commission unless modification is expressly otherwise allowed by the City Code including but not limited to Sections 15-80.120 and/or 16- 05.035, as applicable. 4. The City shall mail to the Owner and Applicant a notice in writing, on or after the time the Resolution granting this Approval is duly executed containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). THIS APPROVAL OR PERMIT SHALL EXPIRE SIXTY (60) DAYS AFTER THE DATE SAID NOTICE IS MAILED IF ALL PROCESSING FEES CONTAINED IN THE NOTICE HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the Community Development Director certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 5. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Variance Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. 6. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference. 7. Prior to issuance of any Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit to implement this Design Review Approval the Owner or Applicant shall obtain a “Zoning Clearance” from the Community Development Director by submitting final plans for the requested permit to the Resolution No. 14-044 Community Development Department for review to ascertain compliance with the requirements of this Resolution. 8. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans received October 1, 2014 denominated Exhibit "A". All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with Condition A.3, above. 10. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted per habitable structure (e.g., main house or guest house). All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. 11. Fences. Fences and walls shall comply with City Code Chapter 15-29. 12. All building exterior lighting shall be on a timer or motion detector to ensure that the lights do not remain on during the evening when the building is not in use. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a final exterior lighting plan that complies with Section 15- 35.040(i) of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, the plan shall indicate that no exterior lighting fixtures shall allow direct light rays to leave the project site, or allow direct light sources (incandescent, fluorescent, or other forms of electric illumination) to be directly visible from off-site locations. The plan shall also show that light levels will not exceed 100 foot lamberts anywhere on the property. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department prior to building permit issuance 13. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. Resolution No. 14-044 14. Landscape installation and replacement for screening or ornamentation. A landscaped area required as a condition of any Design Review Approval shall be planted with materials suitable for screening or ornamenting the site, whichever is appropriate, and plant materials shall be replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site. 15. Landscape maintenance. Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized, sprayed or otherwise maintained by the Owner as may be prescribed by the Community Development Department; 16. Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures or irrigation systems shall be water conserving and otherwise comply with City Code Section 16-75.030. 18 Noise limitations during construction. The noise level at any point twenty-five feet from the source of noise shall not exceed 83 dBA during residential construction, and residential construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted only between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Residential construction shall be prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with the exception of that construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays. A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on site at all times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit. 19. Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Plan. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a construction, remodeling, or demolition project affecting more than two thousand five hundred square feet of floor space the Applicant is required to provide to the Building Official a construction and demolition debris recycling plan prior to the issuance of any Demolition, Grading or Building Permit. 20. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 21. Stormwater. Disposition and treatment of stormwater shall comply with the applicable requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit issued to the City of Saratoga and the implementation standards established by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (collectively the “NPDES Permit Standards”). Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for a Demolition, Grading or Building Permit for this Project, a Stormwater Detention Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval demonstrating how all storm water will be detained on-site and in compliance with the NPDES Permit Standards. If not all stormwater can be detained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, and if complete detention is not otherwise required by the NPDES Permit Standards, the Project shall be designed to detain on-site the maximum reasonably feasible amount of stormwater and to direct all excess stormwater away from adjoining property and toward stormwater drains, drainageways, streets or road right-of- ways and otherwise comply with the NPDES Permit Standards and applicable City Codes. Resolution No. 14-044 22. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department Director or designee prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department and referenced in Condition No. B.1 above; b. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval; c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; d. A boundary survey, wet-stamped and wet-signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying. The stamp shall reflect a current license for the land surveyor/engineer, the document shall be labeled “Boundary Survey,” and the document shall not contain any disclaimers; e. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. C. PUBLIC WORKS 23. Broken Gutter and Curb – Applicant (owner) shall replace any and all broken section of concrete curb and gutter along the property frontage per City standard specifications prior to final occupancy approval. 24. Encroachment Permit – Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including curb and gutter replacement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review D. CITY GEOLOGIST 25. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant shall either review geotechnical aspects of supporting structural calculations to verify that appropriate CBC 2010 seismic design parameters have been utilized or prepare updated seismic design parameters. The consultant shall verify that the proposed project design is consistent with recommendations of all referenced AESC documents. The plan review shall be prepared and signed by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist. Results of the Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. The following items should be performed prior to final (as-built) project approval. Resolution No. 14-044 26. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant shall inspect final installed site drainage improvements for conformance with geotechnical recommendations. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (as-built) project approval. 27. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 28. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. September 2014 Dear Saratoga City Planning Commission, We are the homeowners at 21781 Heber Way, and would like to write to express our support of the proposed project at 21794 Heber Way. We have had the opportunity to review the proposed plans for the development of the property, and feel that the current proposal is architecturally pleasing, in line with the character of our street, and will be of benefit to us as neighbors. These benefits include utilizing a currently empty lot (the last street-facing lot on Heber Way), which will reduce a potential fire hazard, improving the aesthetics of our street with finished landscaping in place, and potentially raise property values as our street will be matured and fully developed. In conclusion, we fully support the development project at 21794 Heber Way. Regards, Anandi and Dhiren Unadkat Han C. Lin and Huoy-Bing Lim 21790 Heber Way, Saratoga, CA 95070 City of Saratoga Planning Commissioner Sep 13, 2014 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070-5151 Re: Objections to the Building Plans on 21794 Heber Way, Saratoga, CA Dear commissioner: We are the residents and owners of 21790 Heber Way. We are writing to you regarding the proposed building project of our neighbor Mr. Steve Sheng on his vacant lot at 21794 Heber Way (Lot #14 of Teerlink Ranch). We are opposing the proposed building project. Here are our reasons: 1. Granting of a Special Privilege In 1996, the city granted a special privilege to Mr. Sheng by giving him front setback variance to build his residence at 21791 Heber Way. His house is the only house on Heber Way that was granted a setback variance. All other houses on Heber Way followed the city's building codes and regulations. Now the city is about to grant Mr. Sheng the same special privilege for the second time by approving him not only the front setback variance but also the side setback variance to build another house. This is simply not fair to all the other neighbors. 2. Misleading Setback Variance Information Neighbors and general public were misled regarding the setback distance. In the public hearing notice, all neighbors were informed that the side setback variance requested is 30 feet (when 45 feet is required) but in fact the requested side setback is actually only 20 feet. 20 foot side setback is tabulated and marked on Mr. Sheng's building plan submitted to the city. We believe granting a setback variance to Mr. Sheng by misleading the neighbors is wrong. 3. Granting of Another Special Privilege In the latest geological report (please refer to attached Tim J. Manzagol’s map) Mr. Sheng submitted to the city for his building proposal, the Berrocal fault line was suggested to be 10 - 40 feet outside of Mr. Sheng’s property line (Lot #14), and inside of our property line (Lot #15). The report confirmed that the fault line originates from Lot #13 (the lot which Mr. Sheng’s residence sits on and adjacent to Lot #14 in the north). However, instead of continuing in a rather straight line fashion into Lot #14, the report suggested the fault line bends and enters Lot #15. On the contrary, in two earlier geological reports Mr. Sheng submitted (please refer to attached Hydro-Geo’s map), Berrocal fault line is confirmed to be inside Lot #14. When our house was built in 1990, a separate geological study was conducted on our lot (Lot #15) and no fault line was found in the area suggested by Mr. Sheng’s latest geological report. When we purchased our house in 2010, the disclosure reports from JCP-LGS also did not reveal any fault line in our lot. If there were any fault lines within our property, we would not have made the decision to buy our house. Furthermore, in another different geological study conducted by the Rekhi family on their vacant lot (Lot #23) adjacent to Mr. Sheng’s lot (Lot #14) in the south and behind our lot (Lot #15), the Berrocal fault line was found to be entering Lot #23 from the border between Lot #14 and Lot #23. If one sums up the pictures from Mr. Sheng’s first two reports, our reports, and the Rekhi’s report; one can see that the Berrocal fault line actually originates from Lot #13, continues into Lot #14 and later Lot #23; instead of originating from Lot #13, changes direction and enters Lot #15, and then magically reappears in Lot #23 from the border of Lot #14 in a discontinuous fashion. In 1996, the city gave approval to Mr. Sheng to build his house on Lot #13 in close distance to the Berrocal fault line. Now the city also plans to allow him to build another house on Lot #14 after the fault line conveniently disappeared from his Lot #14. On the other hand, the city disallowed the Rekhis to build theirs near the same fault line. This seems like yet another grant of special privilege and huge favor from the city to Mr. Sheng. To us, agreeing with Mr. Sheng’s building proposal is like admitting that the Berrocal fault line is inside our property line. Not only will our property value plummet, our house will also become not up to code. We have absolutely no choice but to oppose the plan. 4. Violation of Open Space Easement Part of Mr. Sheng's proposed building is in the open space easement. His plan also calls for construction of a retaining wall in the open space easement on the hillside. All lots on Heber Way are subdivisions of Teerlink Ranch. According to the county code, any development or construction on this kind of open space easement is prohibited. The 1974 Open Space Easement Act grants standing to government and owner of any property to seek injunctive relief to prevent construction on open space easement. Any resident may seek an injunction if the city or county fails to do so. It is everyone’s job to bring this violation to the attention of the city. 5. Detrimental to Health, Safety and Welfare In his latest geological report, some landslide areas in Mr. Sheng’s lot appear smaller than they are as reported in his first two geological reports and City of Saratoga Geology Map created in 1980. This significant discrepancy should be carefully investigated before any decision on the building plan is even made. Mr. Sheng’s building plan also calls for removing soil from the steep hillside on his lot. The plan calls for removing soils from the open space easement which is strictly prohibited. Should a landslide occurs due to Mr. Sheng's construction, even if the landslide does not physically affects any of the neighbors’ houses or lots, the property values in the neighborhood will surely be negatively impacted. 6. Violation of Privacy Mr. Sheng’s request of setback variances is not only unfair to the neighbors, but is also a violation to our privacy. If the left side setback variance is approved, the left side of the proposed building which faces our house will appear as a huge, tall, and long wall. This intimidating long wall with windows and balcony will not only block our entire view of the open space but also seriously invade our privacy. Noise impact caused by the 20 foot side setback (45 feet is the setback requirement) is also a major concern to us. There is no space to plant any trees or plants along our side of the property line to screen the building from view or to buffer the noise. The reasons we bought our house in 2010 is because of the privacy, the open space view, and the tranquility offered by its location. All these reasons will be taken away by Mr. Sheng’s proposed building. In additions to the negative effects on privacy, view, and noise, our property value will also decrease. Mr. Sheng bought a piece of land with an intention to build a big house and sell it for maximal profit. He knew at the time when he purchased the lot that 5.5 acres of the land is dedicated as open space and only 0.5 acre is buildable, and the site has multiple geologic problems. However, instead of building a house within his legal rights, he is asking the city for multiple special treatments and violating our property rights at the same time. We are pleading the planning commission to reject this proposed building plan based on the all the objections and concerns mentioned above. Thank you. Regards, Han C. Lin & Huoy-Bing Lim Existing Proposed 21 7 9 4 He b e r Wa y –N o r t h El e v a t i o n 21 7 9 4 He b e r Wa y –W e s t El e v a t i o n Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 21 7 9 4 He b e r Wa y –S o u t h El e v a t i o n Existing Proposed 21 7 9 4 He b e r Wa y –E a s t El e v a t i o n 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868-1274 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Fossati, Planner DATE: May 14, 2015 FROM: Cotton Shires and Associates, Inc., City Geotechnical Consultant SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Sheng, Proposed Two-Story Residence (S5121C) GEO11-0008 21794 Heber Way (Lot 14) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of permit applications for residential development using:  Response to Concerns and Questions (letter) prepared by Applied Earth Sciences Consultants, dated May 27, 2013;  Architectural Plans, Elevations and Sections (6 sheets, various scales) prepared by DL Architectural & Planning, latest revision dated September 18, 2014;  Grading Plan (Sheet C-1, 10-scale) prepared by Kam Leung, dated May 2013;  Geotechnical Inspection and Site Condition Update (letter) prepared by Applied Earth Sciences Consultants, dated July 8, 2011;  Response to the City of Saratoga – City Geotechnical Consultant (letter) prepared by Applied Earth Sciences Consultants, dated February 26, 2001; and  Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (report) prepared by Applied Earth Sciences Consultants, dated June 19, 1998. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent project documents from our office files. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family residence and driveway on Lot 14 of the Teerlink Subdivision. In our previous geotechnical peer review (dated June 18, 2013), we recommended approval of proposed Project Geotechnical Clearance with the conditions of Geotechnical Plan Review and Updated Seismic Parameters, along with our standard condition of Geotechnical Construction Inspections. Our approval came after extensive site geologic investigation had been completed including use of deep, large diameter borings which are deemed the best exploration tool for detection and characterization of landslides and other subsurface geologic conditions. Iveta Harvancik May 14, 2015 Page 2 S5121C We understand that the owners of the downslope adjoining property (Lot 15) have disputed the findings of Applied Earth Sciences Consultants (AESC) regarding geologic conditions on Lot 14. Specifically, we understand that there are disagreements regarding the position of the Berrocal Fault and the existence of a large previously mapped landslide on lot 14. As part of our current review we evaluated the referenced Response to Concerns and Questions letter by AESC (7 pages of text and 4 pages of figures). We have also reviewed pertinent portions of our project file. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Based on our review of the AESC Response letter, we conclude that the Consultant has credibly addressed the questions presented by the adjoining property owner. In our capacity as geologic and geotechnical peer reviewer for more than a dozen Bay Area communities, we have been exposed to a wide range of competence of consultants who perform geologic and geotechnical investigations. In our experience, Applied Earth Sciences Consultants is a highly respected firm that consistently performs some of the most complete and accurate geologic investigations we review. The work submitted by AESC regarding 21794 Heber Way is consistent with this high level of professional practice. We have reviewed our project file and find no basis to change our recommendation of Project Geotechnical Clearance approval to the City. We recommend that the conclusions and recommendation of our last project memorandum (June 18, 2013) remain unchanged. LIMITATIONS This supplemental geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. TS:DTS:kd 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6 0 61 6 2 63 6 4 65 6 6 67 6 8 69 70 7 1 72 73 ACTION MINUTES REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 27, 2015 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE ROLL CALL PRESENT Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Wendy Chang, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Joyce Hlava, Dede Smullen, Tina Walia, Chair Leonard Almalech ABSENT None ALSO PRESENT Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Michael Fossati, Planner Justin Shiu, Contract Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 13, 2015. Action: WALIA/AHUJA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MAY 13, 2015 MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPLICATION ELN15-0004; 18349 Vanderbilt Drive (403-28-010) Ho/Yeh – The applicant is requesting approval for a remodel and addition to a nonconforming structure. The Planning Commission may approve a major alteration of a nonconforming structure, which results in expenditure (cumulatively) of 20% to 50% of the estimated construction cost of the structure. The project will result in expenditure of approximately 45.4% of the estimated construction valuation of the existing structure. Contact: Justin Shui (408)868- 1230. Action: FITZSIMMONS/AHUJA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-019 APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION PDR14-0028/ARB14-0065; 20455 Herriman Avenue (Saratoga Presbyterian Church); Verizon Wireless on behalf of The Presbytery of San Jose – The applicant is requesting Design Review and 74 Conditional Use Permit Approval to install a new cellular telecommunication facility on the site. The facility will be located in an enclosure that will be located atop the classroom building and would increase the height of the 31.6’ tall building by 9’-8”. The installation would include nine antennas, ground mounted electrical equipment, and associated cabling. The enclosure would be constructed to match the materials of the existing building. The project would include the removal of one 19 inch Liquid Amber tree. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235. Action: HLAVA/SMULLEN MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO JUNE 10, 2015. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2. APPLICATION PDR11-0003 & VAR11-0001; 21794 Heber Way (503-31-067); Eric Keng / Steve Sheng – The project is a Design Review and Variance to construct a new two-story residence with a three-car garage on a hillside lot. The height will be no taller than 26 feet from average grade. The variance is required because the applicant is proposing a 99 foot front setback (when 131 foot setback is required) and a 20 foot and 35 foot side setback (when a 45 foot side setback is required). No protected trees are being proposed for removal. This meeting is continued from the October 22, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Action: WALIA/AHUJA MOVED TO DENY RESOLUTION NO. 14-044. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: HLAVA ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3. Application PDR15-0009/ARB15-0023; 19990 Bella Vista Ave (397-20-059); Terry Martin on behalf of Paghu Pai and Sahana Pai - The applicant is requesting approval for a new 26 foot tall, 6,530 square foot two-story house with a basement. Three protected trees are in poor condition. Staff Contact: Justin Shiu, (408)868-1230 Action: HLAVA/AHUJA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-020 APPROVING THE PROJECT WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS: 1) Provide privacy screening trees along the west property line. 2) Incorporate the proposed driveway design revision. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 4. APPLICATION PDR15-0010; South Side of Saratoga Ave. and 140’ East of Douglass Lane (Right-of- Way): Verizon Wireless – The applicant is requesting approval for the replacement of an existing 29 foot, 9 inch utility pole with a new 35 foot utility pole, 2 foot pole extension, 4 foot tall wireless antenna and associated equipment located on the south side of Saratoga Avenue and 140 feet east of Douglass Lane. The installation also includes three Radio Remote Units (RRU’s), one ground mounted cabinet, an electrical meter, and associated cabling. The height of the utility pole with the antenna would increase from approximately 29 feet 9 inches to 41 feet. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Action: HLAVA/SMULLEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-018 APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 5. APPLICATION ZOA15-0005 (CITYWIDE) – Application by the City of Saratoga to amend portions of Chapter 15 of the City Code. Staff Contact: Erwin Ordoñez (408)868-1231 Action: WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-023 APPROVING THE ORDINANCE AND RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, WALIA. NOES: AHUJA, HLAVA, SMULLEN. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 75 OTHER ITEMS 1. Fifteen new capital projects are proposed for the Fiscal Year 15-16 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). California Government Code Section 65401 states that the local planning agency should report on the conformity of the CIP with the agency’s general plan. Attachment 4 contains a listing of the proposed projects and the specific general plan policy(s) the project is conforms to. Not all projects have a relationship to specific policies. Staff has reviewed the projects and found that they are not in conflict with general plan policies and a conformity finding can be supported. The environmental determination will be addressed project by project as they are funded for construction. Staff Contact: Erwin Ordonez (408) 868- 1231. Action: HLAVA/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-021 APPROVING THE CIP PROJECTS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ADJOURNMENT WALIA MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:01 PM. AYES: AHUJA, ALMALECH, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, HLAVA SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 10 9 11 0 11 1 11 2 11 3 11 4 11 5 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 2, 2015 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Erwin Ordoñez SUBJECT: General Plan Annual Progress Report and HCD Annual Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a resolution accepting the 2014 file the report with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research of Housing and Community Development BACKGROUND: Government Code Section 65400 requires the City Council to review and accept an annual report on the status of their progress in implementing their General Plan. a copy of the report is submitted to OPR and to HCD requirements. A copy of the prepared report materials was reviewed by the Planning Commission as an informational item on August 26, 2015. DISCUSSION: Attachment A is a copy of the August 26, 2015 attached Housing Element Progress Report which constitutes the City’s official Annual Progress Report and the HCD Housing Element Progress Report. FISCAL STATEMENT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this action CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City would not be in compliance with State law. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Staff will file the report with OPR and HCD SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL September 2, 2015 Community Development ez, Community Development Director General Plan Annual Progress Report and HCD Annual Report 2014 General Plan Annual Progress Report and direct staff to with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). t Code Section 65400 requires the City Council to review and accept an annual report on the status of their progress in implementing their General Plan. After review and acceptance, a copy of the report is submitted to OPR and to HCD to fulfill the State mandated reporting A copy of the prepared report materials was reviewed by the Planning on August 26, 2015. August 26, 2015 Planning Commission staff report attached Housing Element Progress Report which constitutes the City’s official General Plan Annual Progress Report and the HCD Housing Element Progress Report. There is no fiscal impact associated with this action OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: compliance with State law. Staff will file the report with OPR and HCD if authorized by City Council. direct staff to and the Department t Code Section 65400 requires the City Council to review and accept an annual report After review and acceptance, mandated reporting A copy of the prepared report materials was reviewed by the Planning report and the General Plan 116 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 2014 General Plan Annual Progress Report Attachment B: Resolution 117 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: August 26, 2015 Application: Informational Only Location / APN: City Wide Owner / Applicant: City of Saratoga Staff Planner: Erwin Ordonez BACKGROUND: State law requires that cities submit an annual report to their City Councils on the status of carrying out the implementation of their General Plan. This includes progress made in achieving the housing production goals established under the Housing Element. Annual Progress Reports (APRs) provide local legislative bodies with information regarding the implementation of the General Plan for the communities they represent. Upon acceptance of the report, a copy of the report is filed with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). There is no standardized form or format for the General Plan APR. The APR is also not required to incorporate all of the General Plan Elements and is not intended to be an elaborate or time consuming endeavor. The APR meets the basic statutory requirements by law and high lights just the key aspects of the City’s General Plan implementation during the calendar year 2014. This report and its attachments are intended satisfy the State’s reporting requirements. This item is scheduled before the City Council for their acceptance at the September 2, 2015 meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The General Plan Annual Progress Report is provided to the Commission as an informational item only. The Planning Commission has no official action required under State law. Staff recommends the Commission accept the report. 118 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The review and acceptance of the General Plan Annual Progress Report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is the type of activity that is Categorically Exempt, Class 6 (Informational Collection) based on Section 15306 of the CEQA Guidelines. DISCUSSION: The City is reporting the following General Plan related activity for 2014. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS The following General Plan Amendment revisions were adopted as part of the 2014 Housing Element Update process and were required by State HCD in order to certify the document: Land Use Element Revisions  Establishment of 30 dwelling units per acre minimum density for Prospect Avenue/Lawrence Expressway commercial area  Establishment of three story height limit for Prospect Avenue/Lawrence Expressway commercial area  Clarification that mixed use/commercial uses are permitted on all commercially zoned lands with a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre. With the exception of these Housing Element related Amendments, no additional General Plan amendments were approved in 2014. ANNEXATIONS/REORGANIZATIONS There were three annexations of land within the unincorporated area of the County and within the Urban Service Boundary of the City of Saratoga. Those annexations were:  The “Quarry” properties consisting of approximately 75 acres  STG01 properties off Mt Eden Road consisting of 31 acres  STG07 properties also of Mt Eden Road consisting of 106 acres These areas will have a General Plan designation of Hillside Open Space. Part of the Quarry properties will be planned for a City park. ZONING AMENDMENTS The following four Zoning Ordinance Amendments were adopted during 2014:  ZOA 13-0001 Approval of Planned Combining Overlay Zoning for Our Lady of Fatima to facilitate its Master Plan and proposed parking lot improvements. 119 3  ZOA 14-0002 A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to update the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO) in conformance with State requirements.  ZOA 14-0003 A Zoning Ordinance Amendment to update the City’s Zoning Regulations to reflect annual revisions recommended by the Planning Commission.  ZOA 14-0004 Zoning Ordinance Amendments to implement the State Certified Housing Element -Commercial-Neighborhood Residential, High Density C-N (RHD) zoning standards updated standards -Updated affordable housing parking standards -Updated second dwelling unit standards -Updated Special Needs Housing regulations ANNUAL HOUSING ACTIVITY Attachment 1 of this report is the Housing Element Progress Report required by HCD. The report requires the City to report the number of net new dwelling units issued a certificate of occupancy during the 2014 calendar year. While there are several residential projects under construction, the City had only one single family dwelling issued a certificate of occupancy during 2014. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2014 HCD Housing Element Progress Report P:\PLANNING COMMISSION\Staff Reports\2015\082615\Staff Report - 2014 General Plan Annual Progress Report.doc 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 RESOLUTION NO. 15-____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ACCEPTING THE 2014 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT AND DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE THE REPORT WITH THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH (OPR) AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD) . . . WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65400 requires that an Annual Progress Report (APR) be prepared highlighting the progress made on implementation of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the APR is to be reviewed and accepted by the City Council and subsequently filed with OPR and HCD; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saratoga City Council has reviewed and accepted the 2014 General Plan Annual Progress Report and hereby directs staff to file the report with OPR and HCD. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 2nd day of September, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Howard A. Miller, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk 129 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 2, 2015 DEPARTMENT: Community Development PREPARED BY: Kirk Heinrichs, Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: Village Specific Plan Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the work plan for Phase I of the BACKGROUND: Under the Administrative and Technology Improvement Program Improvement Program (CIP), the City Council Specific Plan and related documents (see Attachment A and there has not been an update of this land use policy this project will consist of a multi-phase, multi regulating development and land use within the Village. This report addresses the community outreach phase of the process to help contemplated for the Village Plan and Village Design Guidelines DISCUSSION: The Village Specific Plan is one of two specific plans within the City. Specific Plans are significant land use policy documents Specific Plan regulates development within the boundaries of building envelopes, and land use. The current goals of the Saratoga Village Specific Plan are: · Preserving and enhancing the small scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners; · Preserving the architectural and landscape character of the area; · Improving parking and circulation; · Encouraging a traditional town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences; and · Conserving historic structures SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL , 2015 Community Development Kirk Heinrichs, Special Projects Manager Specific Plan Update – Phase 1 the work plan for Phase I of the process to consider updates to the Village Specific Plan Technology Improvement Program of the FY2015/16 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the City Council funded the review and update of the Village (see Attachment A). The Village Plan was adopted in 1988 of this land use policy in the last 27 years. It is anticipated that phase, multi-year process to review the policy documents regulating development and land use within the Village. This report addresses the community to help the Council determine what changes, if any, and Village Design Guidelines. The Village Specific Plan is one of two specific plans within the City. Specific Plans are significant land use policy documents subordinate only to the City’s General Plan. The Village Specific Plan regulates development within the boundaries of the Village, including density, The current goals of the Saratoga Village Specific Plan are: and enhancing the small scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and diners; Preserving the architectural and landscape character of the area; Improving parking and circulation; al town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience shops, services and residences; and Specific Plan of the FY2015/16 Capital the Village The Village Plan was adopted in 1988 It is anticipated that year process to review the policy documents regulating development and land use within the Village. This report addresses the community , will be The Village Specific Plan is one of two specific plans within the City. Specific Plans are ity’s General Plan. The Village including density, and enhancing the small scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the al town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants, convenience 130 One of the implementation measures of the Village Specific Plan is the development of the Village Design Guidelines which are used to carry out the policies of the Village Plan. The Guidelines regulate the physical development of property within the Village by establishing parameters for building forms, architectural elements and styles, and setting the general architectural context for the Village. These considerations are used by the City to evaluate applications for permits and approvals within the Village. It is anticipated that the Village Visioning Process will be a multi-year work plan item as the City systematically gathers community feedback and translates that input into an update, if any, of the Village Plan and related documents. Staff is suggesting a three phase approach: Phase I: Community outreach Phase II: Update the Village Plan based on results of the community outreach. Phase III: Update supporting policy documents including the Village Design Guidelines and parking districts to be consistent with the Village Plan. This report is intended to define and frame Phase I of this multi-phase process beginning with the community outreach. The objectives of the community outreach will be to: · Review the existing Village Specific Plan land use and development policies · Measure the general public opinion of how the Village is meetings the needs of Saratoga residents; · Measure the opinion of the business environment from Village businesses and property owners; · Determine what the community’s vision is for the Village; and · Evaluate the alignment of the community’s vision with the existing Specific Plan policies. The Planning Commission and Historical Preservation Commission can both play a role in reviewing the existing Specific Plan Policies and attend, with staff, community outreach events. The three major stakeholder groups that should be included in the community outreach effort include: · Saratoga residents · Village business owners · Village property owners Saratoga Resident Outreach Staff is proposing a two pronged approach to reaching out for resident input on the Village. The first approach is to have a “grass roots” outreach effort to access a broad sector of the community creating convenient platforms for the community to engage the process and provide feedback. This grass roots effort will include: · Creating a dedicated City webpage to facilitate the sharing of information and events 131 · Creating a crowd sourcing page (such as mySidewalk or Open Town Hall) to gather opinions on different aspects of the Village Plan · Setting up a booth in the library on certain days and evenings with a questionnaire similar to the one that will be used in the polling research; · Attending service club meetings and neighborhood associations; The goal is to make the process inclusive through convenient platforms whereby the opportunity to comment is provided to those who wish to have their input considered. The second approach is to hire a professional public opinion research firm to conduct a resident survey capturing a demographic sampling of the community. Attached to this report is a sample public opinion survey recently conducted in Los Altos which provides an example of the approach staff is suggesting (Attachment B). A professional public opinion research firm provides a qualified, scientific element to analyzing and qualifying public opinion. Examples of questions that might be used are: · Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the Village? And why? · How often do you patronize the Village? · When you patronize the Village, what kinds of businesses do you patronize? · What would compel you to patronize the Village more often? · What concerns you about the Village? ü Parking ü Trafffic ü Lack of desirable businesses ü accesibility Village Business Owners and Property Owners After the resident outreach has been concluded, staff will meet with the Village business and property owners to solicit their input about what works and what doesn’t work for them and how they envision the Village being successful. The questions asked of these stakeholders will be very different from the ones asked of the residents. Samples of questions that could be asked include: · How long have you owned a business/property in the Village? · Why did you choose the Village to invest or start a business? · Over the last five years has business been better or worse. Why do you think that is? · What could be done to improve the business climate in the Village? 132 Staff is suggesting a work plan for completing Phase I of the Village Visioning Process as follows: 2015 September City Council authorization of Phase I October Council authorization of contracts for professional services including project web page, crowd sourcing and opinion polling. November Work with consultant on developing resident opinion questionnaire and process. December Commission Workshop; start community outreach 2016 January Continue gross roots community outreach. February Implement resident opinion poll. March Conduct business and property owner outreach April Present preliminary results to the Planning Commission and Historical Preservation Commission. May Report back to City Council on final results and determine next steps. FISCAL STATEMENT: The City Council has budgeted $100,000 for the update of the Village Specific Plan in the 2015/16 CIP. Staff will be returning to the City Council in October seeking authorization for professional services and at that time will provide the Council with a cost estimate for the implementation of Phase 1. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: CIP Project Page Attachment B: Los Altos 2014/15 Downtown Planning Survey Attachment C: Village Specific Plan 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 2, 2015 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY: James Lindsay, City Manager SUBJECT: Report on Flavored Tobacco RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report. BACKGROUND: At the June 3, 2015, the Saratoga City Council conducted the first reading of an ordinance to require that tobacco retailers obtain a license to sell tobacco within the time, the City Council placed the ordinance on the agenda of for adoption and directed staff to schedule further a future City Council meeting. The federal 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act prohibited cigarettes flavored with fruit, candy, and clove flavors in the United States (not including menthol), because these cigarettes are considered more appealing to children. Though flavored cigarettes have been banned, other flavored tobacco products are include products such as small cigars, cigarillos various flavorings to disguise the flavor of tobacco a fact sheet regarding flavored tobacco included as Exhibit A. Several communities in the United States concerned with high ordinances to limit or prohibit the sales of flavored smoking. Retailers in Saratoga have consistently complied with tobacco laws that prohibit sale of tobacco to minors in youth decoy operations. Example Regulations Santa Clara County adopted a ban on flavored to 2015. The County Ordinance provides “N constituent or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or smoke produced by the tobacco product. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL September 2, 2015 City Manager’s Office James Lindsay, City Manager Report on Flavored Tobacco Regulations At the June 3, 2015, the Saratoga City Council conducted the first reading of an ordinance to require that tobacco retailers obtain a license to sell tobacco within the City of Saratoga. At that time, the City Council placed the ordinance on the agenda of the June 17, 2015 Council Meeting for adoption and directed staff to schedule further City Council discussion of flavored tobacco at 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act prohibited cigarettes flavored with fruit, candy, and clove flavors in the United States (not including menthol), because these cigarettes are considered more appealing to children. Though flavored cigarettes have been banned, other flavored tobacco products are not restricted by federal law. These cigarillos, bidis, rolling papers, and hookah tobacco disguise the flavor of tobacco. The Federal Drug Administration has issued a fact sheet regarding flavored tobacco included as Exhibit A. in the United States concerned with high youth smoking rates have the sales of flavored tobacco products in an effort to curb youth Retailers in Saratoga have consistently complied with tobacco laws that prohibit sale of tobacco to minors in youth decoy operations. adopted a ban on flavored tobacco in 2010 and started enforcing the ban in The County Ordinance provides “No retailer shall sell a tobacco product containing, as a additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb uding strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product produced by the tobacco product.” (Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances A18 At the June 3, 2015, the Saratoga City Council conducted the first reading of an ordinance to . At that the June 17, 2015 Council Meeting discussion of flavored tobacco at 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act prohibited cigarettes flavored with fruit, candy, and clove flavors in the United States (not including menthol), because these cigarettes are considered more appealing to children. Though flavored cigarettes ese tobacco with The Federal Drug Administration has issued have adopted in an effort to curb youth Retailers in Saratoga have consistently complied with tobacco laws that prohibit sale of ted enforcing the ban in o retailer shall sell a tobacco product containing, as a additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb uding strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product nances A18- 248 369(i).) This rule does not apply to electronic smoking devices. The County has supplemented this with an enforcement policy described in the next section of the staff report. Santa Clara County is the only jurisdiction in California that has adopted flavored tobacco restrictions. A summary of ordinances from other jurisdictions based on information provided by the County (Attachment B) and City of Minneapolis is below. JURISDICTION FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCT RESTRICTIONS Chicago, Illinois Enacted 2013. Retailers within 500 feet of a school may not sell flavored tobacco, not including adult-only tobacco shops. A product is considered flavored if the label, labeling, or packaging includes a statement or claim, in the form of words or graphics, that the product has a taste or aroma other than tobacco. Restrictions apply to menthol, mint, or wintergreen flavored products. Restrictions apply to electronic smoking devices. Minneapolis, Minnesota Adopted July 10, 2015, effective January 1, 2016. Ordinance restricts sale of flavored tobacco products to adult-only tobacco shops. A product is considered flavored if there is a public statement or claim made or disseminated by the manufacturer, or by any person authorized or permitted by the manufacturer, that the product has or produces a taste or aroma other than tobacco, menthol, mint, or wintergreen. Retailers are prohibited from selling cigars for less than $2.60 per cigar. Restrictions apply to electronic smoking devices. New York, New York Enacted 2009. Sale of flavored tobacco is prohibited, except for in adult-only tobacco shops. A product is considered flavored if the label, labeling, or packaging includes a statement or claim, in the form of words or graphics, that the product has a taste or aroma other than tobacco, menthol, mint, or wintergreen. Restrictions do not apply to electronic smoking devices. Providence, Rhode Island Enacted 2012. Sale of flavored tobacco is prohibited, except for in adult-only tobacco shops. A product is considered flavored if the label, labeling, or packaging includes a statement or claim, in the form of words or graphics, that the product has a taste or aroma other than tobacco, menthol, mint, or wintergreen. 249 In addition to the ordinances described above, two states have adopted regulations for flavored tobacco products. The State of Maine has prohibited sales of flavored cigars (not including “premium” cigars) and the State of Illinois prohibits sales of flavored rolling papers. County of Santa Clara Enforcement During the June 3, 2015 City Council Meeting, discussion about the County’s enforcement of flavored tobacco restrictions was brought up. The City Council requested additional information about lessons learned from the County of Santa Clara. Although the County adopted flavored tobacco restrictions in 2010, the County did not begin enforcing the regulations until February 2015. The history of the County’s policy is described in the County’s November 4, 2014 staff report included as Exhibit B and the County’s enforcement policy is presented beginning on page 5 of that staff report under the heading “Background.” The County enforcement policy exempts adult-only tobacco stores (defined as “a retailer that primarily sells tobacco products; generates more than 60 percent of its gross revenues annually from tobacco products and tobacco paraphernalia; does not permit minors to enter the premises at any time unless accompanied by a parent or guardian; and does not sell alcoholic beverages or food for consumption on the premises”). The enforcement policy also states that a product is presumed to be flavored if “the label or labeling of such a product includes words and/or graphic images depicting that such a product has or produces a characterizing flavor including but not limited to [list of flavors from ordinance] or any other flavor other than menthol or tobacco.” The County conducted its first round of retailer spot checks during the summer. The County is expected to share the results of its enforcement efforts in a letter to the City Council prior to the September 2, 2015 City Council Meeting. Tobacco Retailers in Saratoga There are 6 retailers in the City of Saratoga that sell tobacco or tobacco products. These retailers are listed here. STORE NAME ADDRESS 76 Gas Station 14395 Big Basin Way Safeway 12876 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road The Bank 14421 Big Basin Way Valero Gas Station 12600 Saratoga Avenue 76 Gas Station 12015 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Stop N Save 12304 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - U.S. Food and Drug Administration Fact Sheet on Flavored Tobacco Products Attachment B – Santa Clara County Flavored Tobacco Ban Enforcement Policy Staff Report (November 4, 2014) 701345.2 250 FACT SHEET Flavored Tobacco Products Flavored tobacco products have become increasingly common in the United States. These products, containing flavors like vanilla, orange, chocolate, cherry and coffee, are espe- cially attractive to youth. They are widely considered to be “starter” products, establishing smoking habits that can lead to a lifetime of addiction. Like all tobacco products, flavored tobacco products have serious health risks and are not considered safe by the FDA. Youth Data • In 2004, 22.8% of 17-year-old smokers reported using flavored cigarettes over the past month, as compared to 6.7% of smokers over the age of 25.1 • A poll conducted in March 2008 found that one in five youngsters between the ages of 12 and 17 had seen flavored tobacco products or ads, while only one in 10 adults reported having seen them.2 • According to one study of youth smokers be- tween the ages of 13 and 18, 52% of smokers who had heard of flavored cigarettes reported interest in trying them, and nearly 60% thought that flavored cigarettes would taste better than regular cigarettes.3 • Studies of youth expectations around other fla- vored tobacco products like bidis and hookahs have found that young smokers report choosing flavored products over cigarettes because they “taste better” and are perceived to be “safer.” 4,5 Tobacco Company Marketing • Industry documents have previously revealed clear patterns of designing flavored cigarettes to target youth. • Advisors to one company developed concepts for a “youth cigarette,” including cola and apple flavors, and a “sweet flavor cigarette,” stating, “It’s a well-known fact that teenagers like sweet products. Honey might be considered.” 6 • A memo from another company instructed workers to “make a cigarette which is obviously youth oriented. This could involve cigarette name, blend, flavor and marketing technique.... for example, a flavor which would be candy-like but give the satisfaction of a cigarette.” 7 • Other internal documents describe sweetened products as “…for younger people, beginner cigarette smokers, teenagers . . . when you feel like a light smoke, want to be reminded of bubblegum.” 8 251 FACT SHEET Flavored Tobacco Products Health Effects • All tobacco products, including flavored products, are addictive and carry serious health risks. • An estimated 443,000 Americans die prematurely each year due to smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke.9 • More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides and murders combined.10 • Cigarette smoking causes many types of cancer, as well as heart disease and chronic lung diseases like emphysema. Smokeless tobacco products cause gum disease and cancers of the mouth.11,12 Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the sale of cigarettes containing certain characterizing flavors other than menthol will be illegal as of September 22, 2009. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently examining options for regulating both menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco products other than cigarettes. 1 Klein SM, Giovino GA, Barker DC, Tworek C, Cummings KM, O’Connor RJ. Use of flavored cigarettes among older adolescent and adult smokers: United States, 2004-2005. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008;10(7):1209-14. 2 National telephone survey of teens aged 12 to 17 and adults conducted by International Communications Research (ICR), March 2008. 3 American Legacy Foundation, First Look Report 17: Cigarette Preferences Among Youth--Results from the 2006 Legacy Media Tracking Online (LMTO), June 5, 2007, http://americanlegacy.org/PDFPublications/fl_17.pdf. 4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999. Bidi use among urban youth – Massachussetts, March-April. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48, 796-799. 5 Primack BA, Sidani J, Agarwal AA, Shadel WG, Donny EC, Eissenberg TE. Prevalence of and associations with waterpipe tobacco smoking among U.S. university students. Ann Behav Med 2008 Aug;36(1):81-6. 6 Marketing Innovations, “Youth Cigarette - New Concepts,” Memo to Brown & Williamson, September 1972, Bates No. 170042014. 7 R.J. Reynolds Inter-office Memorandum, May 9, 1974, Bates No. 511244297-4298. 8 Report from R.M. Manko Assoc. to Lorillard Tobacco Co. (Aug. 1978), available at http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/85093450-3480. html?pattern=85093450-3480#images. 9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual Smoking–Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States, 2000-2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2008;57(45):1226-1228. 10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco-Related Mortality, available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/index.htm. 11 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking—25 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 1989. 12 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Using Smokeless Tobacco: A Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General, 1986. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1986. 252 253 254 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 2, 2015 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office PREPARED BY: Crystal Bothelio SUBJECT: 2015 League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide input to the City’s voting delegate (Council Member Bernald) and alternate voting delegates (Council Member Lo and Council Member Kumar) at the 2015 League of California Cities Annual Conference. BACKGROUND: Each year, the League of California Cities holds an annual conference. This year, the conference will take place from September 30, 2015 to October 2, 2015 in San Jose. During the conference, resolutions that set policy direction for the League are consider are expected to send a designated voter to represent their city’s position. The City Council selected Council Bernald to serve as the Saratoga voting delegate and Council Members Lo and Kumar as the alternate delegates at the June 17, 2015 Regular City Council Meeting. This year, a total of four resolutions will be considered resolutions include: (1) Resolution Relating to League Bylaws Amendments Regarding Succession of League Offices to Fill Vacancies; (2) Resolution Calling for Legislation to Preserve Therapeutic Environments for Group Homes and Avoid Impacts of Overconcentration of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Recovery and Treatment Facilities in Residential Neighborhoods; (3) Resolution Supporting SB 593 They Address Neighborhood and Fiscal Impacts of Temporary Rentals of Residential Units; (4) Resolution Calling Upon Governor and Legislature to Work with the League to Enact Legislation or to Otherwise Compel Southern California Edison to Create a Program to Automatically Provide Direct Compensation to Its Customers Affected by Prolonged Electrical Power Outages Under Specified Circumstances. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL September 2, 2015 City Manager’s Office Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk 2015 League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions Provide input to the City’s voting delegate (Council Member Bernald) and alternate voting (Council Member Lo and Council Member Kumar) on the resolutions to be considered at the 2015 League of California Cities Annual Conference. ach year, the League of California Cities holds an annual conference. This year, the conference will take place from September 30, 2015 to October 2, 2015 in San Jose. During the conference, resolutions that set policy direction for the League are considered and voted upon. Member send a designated voter to represent their city’s position. The City Council selected Council Bernald to serve as the Saratoga voting delegate and Council Members Lo and he June 17, 2015 Regular City Council Meeting. This year, a total of four resolutions will be considered at the Annual Conference Resolution Relating to League Bylaws Amendments Regarding Succession of League Resolution Calling for Legislation to Preserve Therapeutic Environments for Group Homes and Avoid Impacts of Overconcentration of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Recovery and Treatment Facilities in Residential Neighborhoods; Resolution Supporting SB 593 (McGuire) and Continued Local Flexibility for Cities as They Address Neighborhood and Fiscal Impacts of Temporary Rentals of Residential Resolution Calling Upon Governor and Legislature to Work with the League to Enact Legislation or to Otherwise Compel Southern California Edison to Create a Program to Automatically Provide Direct Compensation to Its Customers Affected by Prolonged cal Power Outages Under Specified Circumstances. Provide input to the City’s voting delegate (Council Member Bernald) and alternate voting on the resolutions to be considered ach year, the League of California Cities holds an annual conference. This year, the conference will take place from September 30, 2015 to October 2, 2015 in San Jose. During the conference, ed and voted upon. Member cities send a designated voter to represent their city’s position. The City Council selected Council Bernald to serve as the Saratoga voting delegate and Council Members Lo and at the Annual Conference. These Resolution Relating to League Bylaws Amendments Regarding Succession of League Resolution Calling for Legislation to Preserve Therapeutic Environments for Group Homes and Avoid Impacts of Overconcentration of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Recovery (McGuire) and Continued Local Flexibility for Cities as They Address Neighborhood and Fiscal Impacts of Temporary Rentals of Residential Resolution Calling Upon Governor and Legislature to Work with the League to Enact Legislation or to Otherwise Compel Southern California Edison to Create a Program to Automatically Provide Direct Compensation to Its Customers Affected by Prolonged 255 Attachment A includes the resolutions and additional information about the resolution and voting process. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – 2015 League of California Cities Resolutions Packet 256 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet 2015 Annual Conference Resolutions San Jose September 30 – October 2 257 INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference. This year, four resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and referred to the League policy committees. POLICY COMMITTEES: Four policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider and take action on the resolution referred to them. The committees are Administrative Services; Environmental Quality; Housing, Community and Economic Development; and Revenue and Taxation. These committees will meet on Wednesday, September 30, 2015, at the Hilton San Jose. The sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meetings. GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 1, at the San Jose Convention Center, to consider the reports of the four policy committees regarding the resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s regional divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals appointed by the League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location. ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting will be held at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October 2, at the San Jose Convention Center. PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day deadline, a resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (47 valid signatures required) and presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the Annual Business Meeting of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:00 p.m., Thursday, October 1. Resolutions can be viewed on the League's Web site: www.cacities.org/resolutions. Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond at the League office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (916) 658-8224 1258 GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through the League’s eight standing policy committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions. Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions should adhere to the following criteria. Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions 1. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted at the Annual Conference. 2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern. 3. The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy. 4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives: (a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities. (b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around which more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of directors. (c) Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and board of directors. (d) Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly). 2259 LOCATION OF MEETINGS Policy Committee Meetings Wednesday, September 30 Hilton San Jose 300 Almaden Boulevard, San Jose 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.: Environmental Quality Housing, Community & Economic Development 10:30 a.m. – Noon: Administrative Services Revenue and Taxation General Resolutions Committee Thursday, October 1, 1:00 p.m. San Jose Convention Center 150 West San Carlos Street, San Jose Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon Friday, October 2, 12:00 p.m. San Jose Convention Center 150 West San Carlos Street, San Jose 3260 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action 1 2 3 1 - Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee 2 - General Resolutions Committee 3 - General Assembly ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 1 League Bylaw Amendment ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 4 Compensation for Prolonged Electrical Power Outages HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 2 Overconcentration of Alcohol & Drug Treatment Facilities 3 Residential Rentals, Support for SB 593 (McGuire) REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 3 Residential Rentals, Support for SB 593 (McGuire) Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each committee’s page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will be posted at: www.cacities.org/resolutions. 4261 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued) Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN 1. Policy Committee A Approve 2. General Resolutions Committee D Disapprove 3. General Assembly N No Action R Refer to appropriate policy committee for study ACTION FOOTNOTES a Amend+ * Subject matter covered in another resolution Aa Approve as amended+ ** Existing League policy Aaa Approve with additional amendment(s)+ *** Local authority presently exists Ra Refer as amended to appropriate policy committee for study+ Raa Additional amendments and refer+ Da Amend (for clarity or brevity) and Disapprove+ Na Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No Action+ W Withdrawn by Sponsor Procedural Note: The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided by the League Bylaws. A helpful explanation of this process can be found on the League’s website by clicking on this link: Resolution Process. 5262 2015 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 1. RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEAGUE BYLAWS AMENDMENTS REGARDING SUCCESSION OF LEAGUE OFFICES TO FILL VACANCIES Source: League Board of Directors Referred to: Administrative Services Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the League of California Cities® is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation under California law and, as such, is governed by corporate bylaws; and WHEREAS, the League’s Board of Directors periodically reviews the League’s bylaws for issues of clarity, practicality, compliance with current laws, and responsiveness to membership interests; and WHEREAS, on two occasions in recent years when vacancies arose in office of President of the Board of Directors after disappointing reelection results, the vacancy was filled in accordance with the League Bylaws by the First Vice President becoming President at the next Board meeting. This left a vacancy in the office of First Vice President that was filled by the Board by advancing the Second Vice President. This required recruiting a new Second Vice President that the Board chose, as provided in the Bylaws, from the ranks of the Board itself; and WHEREAS, in September 2014 the Board chose a new Second Vice President as usual and also a new First Vice President who had not previously served as Second Vice President because the prior Second Vice President was elected to county office and was no longer eligible. When the President was not reelected in November 2014, the First Vice President advanced to the office of President with only two months of experience as a League officer. Additionally, the Second Vice President was advanced to First Vice President; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors believe this confluence of events twice in recent years demonstrates a weakness in the succession of League offices required by the League Bylaws because the accelerated advancement of officers in the event of a vacancy in the office of President may deprive the junior officers and the League of adequate time to serve and develop expertise and relationships in the offices of Second and First Vice President; and WHEREAS, it is the unanimous recommendation of the League Board that the League membership amend article VIII, section 4, of the League bylaws to allow the Immediate Past President to fill an unexpected vacancy in the office of President for the unexpired term if the Immediate Past President agrees. If not, the current succession process would occur; and now, therefore, be it, RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in San Jose, October 2, 2015, that article VIII, section 4 of the League bylaws be amended to read as follows: 6263 Article VIII: Officers Section 1: Identity. The officers of the League are a President, a First Vice-President, a Second Vice-President/Treasurer, an Immediate Past President, and an Executive Director. Section 2: Duties of League Officers. (a) President. The President presides at all League Board meetings and all General Assemblies. The President has such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by these bylaws or the League Board. (b) First Vice-President. The First Vice-President carries on the duties of the President in the President’s temporary absence or incapacity. The First Vice-President has such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by these bylaws or the League Board. (c) Second Vice-President/Treasurer. The Second Vice-President/Treasurer carries on the duties of the President in the President’s and First Vice-President’s temporary absence or incapacity. The Second Vice-President/Treasurer has such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by these bylaws or the League Board. Section 3: Election. The League Board elects the League’s President, First Vice-President and Second Vice-President for terms of one year. The election occurs at the League Board’s meeting at the Annual Conference. Section 4: Vacancies. A vacancy in the office of President is filled at the next meeting of the League Board by the Immediate Past President who shall serve for the unexpired term of office and, upon election of a new President at the next Annual Conference, shall subsequently serve a full term as Immediate Past President. In the event the Immediate Past President is not available to fill the vacancy in the office of the President, or declines in writing, it shall be filled by the succession of the First Vice-President to that office. A vacancy in the office of First Vice-President, or Second Vice-President/Treasurer, is filled for the un-expired term by appointment by the League Board of a member of the League Board. A vacancy in the office of the Immediate Past President is filled for the un-expired term by the last Past President continuing to hold a city office. ////////// Background Information on Resolution No. 1 Source: League Board of Directors Background: In 2010 and again recently in 2014 the city official elected League President at the Annual Conference in September was not returned to office by the voters of their city. This development triggered a series of steps laid out in the order of succession in the League Bylaws that mandates that the First Vice President advance to the office of President at the next Board meeting and that the Board fill the vacancy in the office of First Vice President for the remainder of the term. 7264 When the Board filled the League offices in September 2014, the Second Vice President could not advance to First Vice President since she had been elected to the office of county supervisor and was ineligible to serve. Consequently the Board selected two directors to fill both the offices of First Vice President and Second Vice President. Neither had previously served as a League officer. When the vacancy in the office of President occurred after the November general election, the First Vice President advanced to the office of President after having served only two months as a League officer in contrast to the normal advancement process of twenty-four months. The Second Vice President was advanced to the office of First Vice President after having served only two months as a League officer. The Board also chose a new Second Vice President. At the February, 2015 meeting of the League Board of Directors, the Executive Committee recommended unanimously an amendment to the order of succession in Art. VIII, Sec. 4 of the League Bylaws. The proposed amendment would allow the most experienced member of the Executive Committee, the Immediate Past President, to fill out the remainder of the term of office of a President who leaves the office before its term is completed if the Immediate Past President is willing and able to do so. This arrangement would allow the First Vice President to continue serving and to advance to the office of President on the schedule envisioned by the League Bylaws. If the Immediate Past President were unable or unwilling to serve, the existing order of succession would occur. ////////// League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Alicia Lewis Committee: Administrative Services Policy Committee Summary: This resolution seeks to streamline the succession process when filling a vacancy for the office of President of the Board of Directors. It would allow for the League bylaws to be amended, allowing the Immediate Past President to fill an unexpected vacancy in the office of President for the remainder of the vacating President’s term. Changes to League bylaws require a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly. Background: The past few years have yielded several occasions where the succession line for Board of Directors leadership was disrupted due to disappointing election results and officers taking office outside of city government. In September 2014 the Board chose a new First and Second Vice President. The First Vice President had not previously served as Second Vice President because the prior member was elected to county office and therefore no longer eligible. When the President was not reelected in the November 2014, the First Vice President advanced to the office of President with only two months of experience as a League officer. Additionally, the Second Vice President was advanced to First Vice President. This transition far outpaced the normal process for advancing as an officer on the Board of Directors. Fiscal Impact: This impact of this resolution would have no fiscal impact. Comments: The nature of this resolution is to ensure that there is a smooth succession process in place and that current Vice-Presidents (First and Second) have ample time to prepare for their role as President. By 8265 allowing the Immediate Past President to finish out the term of a vacated presidency the Board would ensure there is minimal disruption to the workflow and goals of the association. RESOLUTION REFERRED TO HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE 2. A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR LEGISLATION TO PRESERVE THERAPEUTIC ENVIRONMENTS FOR GROUP HOMES AND AVOID IMPACTS OF OVERCONCENTRATION OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE RECOVERY AND TREATMENT FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS Source: City of Malibu Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities: Artesia; Duarte; La Canada Flintridge; Lakewood; Lomita; and Pico Rivera. City Officials: Los Angeles Council Member Mitchell Englander Referred to: Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, residential group home facilities provide valuable rehabilitation and support services for those who live in them, which benefits the greater society; and WHEREAS, state departments license these facilities through several state agencies, and operators are required to meet various state statutory requirements; and WHEREAS, in addition to residents, these facilities often include live-in managers and other staff, who provide a variety of services to residents which may include meals, workshops, training, counseling and other services. These uses and services may also require frequent deliveries to be made to the facility, shuttle van service provided to residents, and additional automobile traffic due to shift changes, visiting hours, and other activities. Collectively, these uses often generate more noise and activity than expected from a traditional single-family home; and WHEREAS, the overconcentration of residential group homes changes the character of neighborhoods as they become centers for the delivery of various services. This environment not only creates a disruption to long-time residents, it can also diminish the quality of the residential treatment experience for group home residents as the neighborhood assumes a more institutional setting; and WHEREAS, the State and local governments operate in partnership regarding the location of these residential care facilities in residential neighborhoods in order to carry out the policy of the State to prevent overconcentration of such facilities in these neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the state has adopted a 300 foot separation requirement between facilities licensed by the Department of Social Services, 1 but these siting standards have not been extended to apply to facilities licensed by other state agencies such as the Department of Health Care Services or other licensed or unlicensed facilities; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State that each county and city permit and encourage development of sufficient numbers and types of alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities as are commensurate with local need;2 and 1 Health & Safety Code Section 1520.5 2 Health & Safety Code Section 11834.20 9266 WHEREAS, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act includes legal protection against discrimination against persons with disabilities through zoning laws, denials of use permits, and other actions authorized under the Planning and Zoning Law;3 and WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires public entities to make reasonable accommodations in policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination on the basis of a disability;4 and WHEREAS, there is no provision in State law that allows for the consideration of the impact of alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities on single-family neighborhoods or the overconcentration of these facilities as there is for residential group home facilities; and WHEREAS, many community concerns could be addressed if State agencies communicated and collaborated more with local governments; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities is committed to working in partnership with the Legislature and Administration to address overconcentration of alcohol and drug abuse recovery and treatment facilities in residential neighborhoods while respecting important legal rights of patients and legal obligations established by State and federal law. RESOLVED, at the League of California Cities General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on October 2, 2015 in San Jose, that the League calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League and other stakeholders to address the following issues: 1. Explore options to address overconcentration of alcohol and drug abuse recovery and treatment facilities in residential neighborhoods while respecting important legal rights of patients and legal obligations of public entities. 2. Avoid the creation of institutional settings when multiple facilities are concentrated in a single location, while also reducing noise, congestion and other concerns often raised by residents in residential neighborhoods. 3. Determine the appropriate balance between not-for-profit (including county) facilities and for-profit facilities in residential neighborhoods. ////////// Background Information on Resolution No. 2 Source: City of Malibu Background: State law preempts local zoning regulation for licensed drug and alcohol treatment facilities. State and federal anti-discrimination laws require cities to treat facilities that function as single housekeeping units the same as any other “family.” In many areas of the state, these facilities are impacting residential neighborhoods because their concentration in certain neighborhoods tends to change the character of the area from a residential neighborhood to more like a hospital and institutional zone in terms of the land use impacts. In order to avoid overconcentration in residential neighborhoods, most state-licensed group homes are required by state law to meet certain distancing requirements from other licensed group homes. Alcohol 3 Government Code 12955(l) 4 42 U.S.C. Section 12134 10267 and drug programs are treated differently under state law in this respect and no distancing requirements apply. In fact, the state licensing agency does not impose any restrictions on the number of facilities in the vicinity of one another and have been allowing licensees to obtain two licenses on one lot and to operate integrated multi-structure facilities under the guise of multiple single-family residential licenses. Similarly, state law currently requires private foster family agencies operating in residential zones to be organized and operated on a nonprofit basis, while drug and alcohol programs and sober living homes are permitted to operate as a for-profit business in residential zones. The addiction recovery industry has become big business. There are now thousands of treatment facilities and sober living homes in California and the number is rapidly increasing. State policy sought integration of group homes into residential neighborhoods, not disintegration of the residential character of the neighborhoods. A course correction is required to advance state policy. Through zoning authority, cities can preserve the very neighborhoods that the community-care model depends on to provide the therapeutic environment of a residential neighborhood. Distancing requirements both respond to the biggest concern of local government (over concentration that impairs neighborhood character) and advances state policy. In addition, limiting the zoning preemption to non- profit programs will also assist in preserving the integrity of residential neighborhoods. ////////// League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2 Staff: Dan Carrigg Committee: Housing, Community and Economic Development Summary: This Resolution calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League and other stakeholders to explore options to address overconcentration of alcohol and drug abuse recovery and treatment facilities in residential neighborhoods while respecting important legal rights of patients and legal obligations of public entities, avoid the creation of institutional settings when multiple facilities are concentrated in a single location, and determine the appropriate balance between not-for-profit (including county) facilities and for-profit facilities in residential neighborhoods. Background: The City of Malibu is sponsoring this resolution as a way of highlighting an issue that continues to create zoning and land use problems in single-family neighborhoods. While this is not a new issue for the League and its cities, and the League has existing policy in this area, the sponsors view the passage of this resolution as helpful in restarting conversations with the Legislature and the Governor’s Administration that can hopefully lead to productive solutions. HCED Committee member and Malibu Council Member Lou La Monte raised this issue at the Committee’s June meeting, where he presented a resolution that had recently been adopted by the California Contract Cities Association on May 15. The Committee encouraged him to work with League staff in his effort to draft a measure to be presented at the League’s annual conference. League staff worked with Mr. La Monte in this regard, mostly in helping ensure that the various “whereas clauses” appropriately reflect the important legal rights of patients and obligations of public entities that Legislators will expect to be balanced in any solutions to local land use issues. Resolved Clauses from Recent CCCA Resolution: NOW THEREFORE, the Members of the California Contract Cities Association hereby re-affirms its commitment to cooperation among units of government that serve the people of California and urges the 11268 California state legislature to enact legislation that empowers local government to preserve the residential character of neighborhoods necessary to effect state policy regarding group homes as follows: 1. Amend the state law to provide the same distancing and notice requirements for ADP facilities as it does for Community Care Act facilities; 2. Enact legislation providing standards that prevent overconcentration of unlicensed sober living homes to maintain residential character of neighborhoods which has therapeutic benefit for the occupants; and 3. Restrict the zoning preemption for licensed ADP facilities to those owned and operated by non- profit organizations. Fiscal Impact: Minor, if any. Comment: 1) The League has significant existing policy in this area. In the past the League has had internal task forces and sponsored and supported various legislative proposals. 2) Making significant progress in this area has been difficult in the Capitol. Federal and state fair housing and anti-discrimination laws and various court decisions have bearing on local authority in this area. Patient advocacy groups and sympathetic legislators have been suspicious of any solutions that they see as limiting patient access. Thus, any effort to develop solutions to address local land use concerns must also remain sensitive to these issues and the perspective of legislators that sit on committees with jurisdiction in these areas. Existing League Policy: Related to this Resolution, existing policy provides: • The League supports permitting cities to exercise review and land use regulation of group home facilities and residential care facilities in residential neighborhoods including the application of zoning, building and safety standards. State and county licensing agencies should be required to confer with the city’s planning agency in determining whether to grant a license to a community care facility. The League recognizes that better review and regulation of residential care facilities will protect both the community surrounding a facility and the residents within a facility from a poorly managed facility or the absence of state oversight. • The League supports state legislation to require a minimum distance of 300 feet between all new and existing residential care facilities. The League supports notification of cities about conditional release participants residing in group homes. RESOLUTION REFERRED TO HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REVENUE & TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEES 3. A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES SUPPORTING SB 593 (MCGUIRE) AND CONTINUED LOCAL FLEXIBILITY FOR CITIES AS THEY ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD AND FISCAL IMPACTS OF TEMPORARY RENTALS OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS Source: City of West Hollywood Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities of Healdsburg, Mammoth Lakes, Napa, Piedmont, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, Sonoma Referred to: Housing, Community & Economic Development; Revenue & Taxation Policy Committees Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: 12269 WHEREAS, the temporary rental of residential houses, condominiums, rooms, and apartments for tourist or transient use is a developing part of the sharing economy; and WHEREAS, while these rentals provide additional options to the traveling public, and income to affected property owners or tenants, it is also important that such rentals comply with local laws, regulations and ordinances; and WHEREAS, the temporary rental of residential houses, condominiums, rooms, and apartments for tourist or transient use can present numerous challenges to neighborhoods and adjacent property owners and create additional noise, traffic, parking, privacy and public safety issues, subvert local rent- control laws, decrease available housing stock and in some cases turn residential neighborhoods into de- facto hotel rows; and WHEREAS, where temporary rental of residential units for tourist or transient use is allowed in conformance with local laws, regulations and ordinances, the applicable transient occupancy tax (TOT) should also be collected. The temporary rental of residential units for tourist or transient use is in direct competition with hotels, motels and other accommodations where guests pay the local TOT, so all such uses should be subject to the same tax. The revenues generated support local streets, roads, fire, police, lifeguards, trash pick-up, park maintenance and other local public services which directly affect local quality of life and the attraction of the community for a visitor; and WHEREAS, the Thriving Communities and Sharing Economy Act, introduced as SB 593 by Senator Mike McGuire (D-2, Healdsburg), prohibits the operators of transient residential hosting platforms from advertising residential units for tourist or transient use if such use will violate any ordinance, regulation, or law within the applicable city or county that opts into its provisions, and requires the confidential quarterly reporting to the city or county of the following information (if the City or County adopts an ordinance requiring the reporting of the data): 1. The address of each residential unit that was occupied for tourist or transient use during the quarterly period. 2. The total number of nights the residential unit was occupied for tourist or transient use. 3. The amounts paid for the occupancy of the residential unit for tourist or transient use. WHEREAS, the provisions of SB 593 bolster existing local authority to enforce local ordinances and collect revenue associated with the temporary rental of residential units by allowing local agencies access to the data necessary to enforce their ordinances and requiring short-term rental hosting platforms to collect local TOT and remit it to the appropriate jurisdiction if short-term rentals are allowed in that jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the provisions of SB 593 provide a helpful regulatory framework that cities and counties may choose in lieu of exercising their existing authority; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities supports SB 593 because it recognizes and preserves local flexibility to address the temporary rental of residential units in the manner that best fits with the unique issues and conditions found in each local jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, SB 593 provides local jurisdictions with the data and framework necessary to collect TOT revenues from short-term rentals, to pay for vital local services; and WHEREAS, SB 593 provides local jurisdictions with the data and framework necessary to enforce local regulations designed to ensure the safety of the public and residents living adjacent to short- term rentals; and 13270 WHEREAS, despite any existing challenges faced by cities in regulating or collecting revenue from the temporary rental of residential units, cities would oppose any effort to undermine their existing local authority to regulate land use or collect local TOT revenue. RESOLVED, at the League of California Cities General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on October 2, 2015 in San Jose, as follows: 1. Land use regulation and local tax collection are best overseen and implemented locally. 2. While temporary rental of residential units can offer innovative opportunities for travelers and property owners within the developing sharing economy, cities must retain flexibility to address any problems raised by such uses in a manner that reflects the unique issues and conditions in their communities. 3. Cities have existing legal authority and tools to regulate and collect revenue from the temporary rental of residential units, and SB 593 provides the data and framework that supports and bolsters such local efforts. 4. The League encourages cities to support SB 593. ////////// Background Information on Resolution No. 3 Source: City of West Hollywood Background: The sharing economy has quickly become common place in the everyday life of many individuals, whether they participate in ride-sharing, have rented a short-term residential unit, or live in a community were either is prevalent. The sharing economy has provided benefits to many, but also includes many issues that must be addressed in order to allow these sharing practices to effectively incorporate into our communities. Specifically, the short-term rental of residential units has grown exponentially within the last several years throughout the State, and its impacts need to be addressed. Presently, many cities and counties prohibit the renting of residences for less than 30 days. However, these prohibitions are frequently ignored by Online Vacation Rental Businesses (“OVRBs”), causing unwanted burdens on cities while reducing TOT collection from sanctioned hotels. The short-term rental of residential properties presents numerous challenges within neighborhoods and to adjacent property owners. They may create additional noise, traffic, parking, privacy and public safety issues, subvert local rent-control laws, decrease available housing stock and in some cases turn residential neighborhoods into de-facto hotel rows. The rentals facilitated by OVRB’s in these cities and counties go against the expressed wishes of the residents. For the cities and counties that do allow short-term residential rentals, most require hosts to register and that transient occupancy taxes be paid. However, registration and payment of TOT in these cities and counties are based on the owners of the short terms residential units voluntarily reporting their rental activity. However, there has been a severe under-registration of hosts and underpayment of TOT. Only 10% of hosts in San Francisco have followed the city ordinance to register. Sonoma County has had to spend in excess of $200,000 in an attempt to track down those rentals that are not paying the required TOT under the ordinance. And Los Angeles is currently experiencing a rental housing shortage due in part to the recent popularity of OVRBs. 14271 Cities and counties have been unable to obtain this information due to the fact that OVRB’s pass their responsibility to individual homeowners. This lack of oversight and enforcement presents a gap in accountability, and as a result, local laws and regulations are not being followed. Sen. Mike McGuire’s Thriving Communities and Sharing Economy Act (SB 593) will provide local jurisdictions with the data and framework necessary to collect TOT revenues from short-term rentals, to pay for vital local services; or conversely, the data necessary to help cities enforce local regulations designed to ensure the safety of the public and residents living adjacent to short-term rentals, if those rental are not allowed. Specifically, SB 593 would: 1) Prohibit the operators of short-term residential hosting platforms from advertising residential units for tourist or transient use if such use will violate any ordinance, regulation, or law, within the applicable city that opts into the bill’s provisions; 2) Require short-term rental housing platforms to collect and remit applicable transient occupancy tax (if short-term rentals are allowed in the city and the collection of TOT is required by the city); and 3) Require the confidential quarterly reporting of the address of each residential unit that was occupied for tourist or transient use during the quarterly period, the total number of nights the residential unit was occupied for tourist or transient use, and the amounts paid for the occupancy of the residential unit for tourist or transient use. The premise of SB 593 is simple: reinforce local laws already on the books. Where vacation rentals are legal, the bill will assist local jurisdictions in their regulation and collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes, (TOT) as more than 430 cities and 56 counties impose a TOT. Where vacation rentals are illegal by local ordinance, the bill will prohibit online vacation rental businesses from making a rental. The Thriving Communities and Sharing Economies Act will empower local control, provide desperately needed funding for parks, local roads, fire and police services, and promote safe neighborhoods. SB 593 will require online vacation rental businesses to disclose information to cities and counties and/or collect and disperse Transient Occupancy Tax dollars – projected to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars statewide. The emerging short term rental industry is an important segment of the state economic fabric and an issue of statewide importance. SB 593 would assist in facilitating a shared economy that will be beneficial to California’s cities and their residents. ////////// League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 3 Staff: Dan Carrigg Committees: Housing, Community & Economic Development; Revenue & Taxation Summary: This Resolution seeks to highlight and increase support for SB 593 (McGuire), which is pending in the Legislature. SB 593, titled the Thriving Communities and Sharing Economy Act, seeks to bolster local efforts to regulate and collect transient occupancy taxes from the temporary rental of residential houses, condominiums, rooms, and apartments for tourists and transient use. The League is currently in support of this legislation. Background: The City of West Hollywood and other cities are sponsoring the resolution in an effort to expand awareness of the issue among cities and encourage additional support for SB 593. They view the 15272 legislation as helpful in bolstering local efforts to appropriately regulate a growing vacation rental industry. The author introduced SB 593 based upon his past experience as both former Mayor of Healdsburg and a Sonoma County Supervisor. These areas are popular with tourists, and the affected communities are facing increasing land use and revenue collection issues. SB 593 is currently on the Senate Floor and is considered a “two-year bill,” meaning that it cannot move until January 2016. In addition to the League, SB 593 has a broad range of support: Support: American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; American Hotel and Lodging Association; Asian American Hotel Owners Association; American Insurance Association; Association of California Insurance Companies; Andaz West Hollywood General Manager Lin Schatz; Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; City of Big Bear Lake; Borrego Springs Chamber of Commerce & Visitors Bureau; California Apartment Association; California Association of Boutique and Breakfast Inns; California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors; California Apartment Association; California Association of Code Enforcement Officers; California College and University Police Chiefs Association; California Narcotics Officers Association; California Police Chiefs Association; California Hotel and Lodging Association; California Labor Federation; California Professional Firefighters; California State Association of Counties; California Teamsters Public Affairs Council; Contra Cost County Treasurer-Tax Collector Russell Watts; Paul Desterman, Mindy Desterman; El Dorado County Treasurer-Tax Collector C.L. Raffety; Douglas Engmann; Fairmont San Jose General Manager Kelley Cosgrove; Hilton Los Angeles/Universal City General Manager Mark Davis; Hotel Association of Los Angeles; Hotel Council of San Francisco; Humboldt County Convention and Visitors Bureau; International Faith Based Coalition; League of California Cities; Long Beach Firefighter Association; Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Town of Mammoth Lakes; Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers; Marriot Courtyard in Larkspur General Manager Sam Pahlavan; Denise McNicol; Mendocino County Board of Supervisors; Mendocino County Treasurer-Tax Collector Shari Schapmire; Mono County Board of Supervisors; Ashok Mukherje; National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; Neighbors for Overnight Oversight; Jenny Oaks; Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies; Riverside Sheriffs Association; Rural County Representatives of California; Sacramento Hotel Association; San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth; San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller- Treasurer-Tax Collector James Erb; San Mateo County Central Labor Council; Santa Cruz County Convention and Visitors Council; Service Employees International Union; ShareBetter San Francisco; Sierra County Auditor-Treasurer-Tax Collector Van Maddox; Siskiyou County Treasurer-Tax Collector Wayne Hammar; Sonoma County Auditor-Controller-Tax Collector David Sundstrom; Sonoma County Board of Supervisors; City of Thousand Oaks; Tulare County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector Rita Woodard; Tuolumne County Treasurer-Tax Collector Shelley Piech; UNITE-HERE, AFL-CIO; United Firefighter of Los Angeles City, Local #112; Natasha Yankoffski. Opposition: Airbnb; Consumer Watchdog; Internet Association, TechNet. Fiscal Impact: Transient Occupancy Taxes are a significant source of local revenue. Many cities and counties are encountering challenges identifying units in their community that are being used as vacation rentals and collecting associated revenue. Where vacation rentals are permitted by local ordinance, the passage of SB 593 can assist local efforts, thereby increasing local revenues to support local services. Comment: 3) Earlier this year the League’s Housing Community and Economic Development Committee and Revenue and Taxation Committee reviewed an earlier version of SB 593 and initially adopted a 16273 Support, If Amended position, which was concurred with by the League board. The author later incorporated the League’s amendments into the bill and the League issued a support letter on the current version of the bill. 4) Local governments already have extensive authority to regulate land use and collect local taxes. While vacation rentals may be an increasingly popular option for the traveling public, local ordinances are beginning to adjust. The League supports SB 593 because it is crafted in a way that supports local authority in dealing with this emerging issue. Local agencies can either opt in to its provisions or continue to address issues differently under their existing local authority. Existing League Policy: Related to this Resolution, existing policy provides: HCED Policy: The League believes that local zoning is a primary function of cities and is an essential component of home rule. Rev. & Tax Policy: Additional revenue is required in the state/local revenue structure. There is not enough money generated by the current system or allocated to the local level by the current system to meet the requirements of a growing population and deteriorating services and facilities. RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE 4. RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE TO WORK WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES TO ENACT LEGISLATION OR TO OTHERWISE COMPEL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON TO CREATE A PROGRAM TO AUTOMATICALLY PROVIDE DIRECT COMPENSATION TO ITS CUSTOMERS AFFECTED BY PROLONGED ELECTRICAL POWER OUTAGES UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES. Source: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities of Hermosa Beach, Lomita, Palos Verdes Estates, Rolling Hills and Rolling Hills Estates Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Recommendations to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, local governments in California are often reliant upon investor-owned private utility companies for the provision of electrical power to their citizens, businesses and institutions; and, WHEREAS, the reliability and consistency of electrical supply and transmission is critically important to local governments to ensure the protection of the public safety, health and general welfare of communities; and, WHEREAS, prolonged disruptions in electrical service can jeopardize the health of citizens who have a variety of physical challenges and rely on a constant source of power for medical devices; the safety of senior citizens who are particularly susceptible to injury if power outages persist for long periods of time into evening hours; and the financial well-being of citizens, businesses and institutions that suffer from the loss of food, medication and other perishable items during prolonged power outages; and, WHEREAS, Southern California Edison (SCE), an investor-owned utility serving 15 million customers in Southern and Central California, experiences frequent and prolonged service disruptions due to both planned and unplanned outages, equipment failures and weather-related events, which adversely affect local governments within its service area; and, 17274 WHEREAS, SCE has been fined by the California Public Utilities Commission in the past due to prolonged service disruptions, most recently being levied a $24.5 million penalty as a result of a prolonged outage that resulted from a wind storm in 2011; and, WHEREAS, although SCE provides a claim process by which its customers may seek compensation for financial losses incurred as a result of prolonged service disruptions, SCE appears to reject most such claims; which places an unreasonable burden upon its customers and creates a false impression that customers will be compensated for their losses; and, WHEREAS, at least one other investor-owned utility in California, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) in Northern and Central California, has existing programs and procedures in place (“Safety Net” and “Service Guarantee”) that automatically and directly compensate its customers when they are affected by prolonged service disruptions, including disruptions due to weather events and other causes, without the need for customers to seek compensation through a claim process; and, WHEREAS, these PG&E programs provide for “Storm Inconvenience Payments” of $25 to $100 for weather-related service disruptions of forty-eight (48) hours or more; as well as $30 service credits in instances of where the customer’s electrical service is not restored within four (4) hours, or the customer is not provided with a time for service restoration within four (4) hours; the customer is without electrical service for twenty-four (24) hours or more in the event of unplanned service disruptions (unless the cause of the disruption is completely beyond the utility’s control); and the customer is without electrical service as a result of a planned service interruption where less than seventy-two (72) hours’ notice is provided to the customer; and, WHEREAS, local governments within SCE’s service area believe that requiring SCE to implement automatic and direct compensation programs for prolonged service disruptions, similar to those implemented by PG&E, will provide tangible relief to citizens, businesses and institutions that are adversely affected by prolonged outages, and will incentivize SCE to improve the reliability of its equipment and service; and now therefore let it be, RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in San Jose on October 2, 2015, that the League calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California Cities to enact legislation or to otherwise compel SCE to create a program to automatically provide direct compensation to its customers affected by prolonged electrical power outages under specified circumstances; and let it be, FURTHER RESOLVED that such program shall be modeled upon PG&E’s “Safety Net” and “Service Guarantee” programs, and shall cover weather-related events and planned and unplanned service disruptions. ////////// Background Information on Resolution No. 4 Source: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Background: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes and other cities in the South Bay region of Los Angeles County have longstanding concerns regarding the ineffective process by which Southern California Edison (SCE) addresses residents’ claims, and desires to obtain the League’s assistance in correcting that process. On the Palos Verdes Peninsula, SCE’s aged infrastructure has caused fires and repeated, prolonged power 18275 outages. The prolonged power outages are the focus of this request, because they adversely affect residents in a variety of ways, particularly: • Residents who have a variety of physical challenges and rely on a constant source of power for medical devices; • Residents who are senior citizens and are particularly susceptible to injury if power outages persist for a long period of time into the evening hours; and, • Residents who suffer financial burdens as a result of losing food, medication and other perishable items during prolonged power outages. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has the authority to impose penalties on utilities, including for prolonged power outages, and did so in connection with an extreme wind event that occurred in the Los Angeles area in 2011. However, the CPUC is not authorized to award claims to residents for prolonged electrical power outages. If a resident has a claim he or she wishes to pursue, the resident must file a claim with SCE, along with documentation of the financial loss that was incurred. If the claim is rejected, the resident then must file a lawsuit against SCE (probably in small claims court). Most residents will not want to spend the time and effort to pursue small claims for monetary damages arising from extended power outages. SCE only awards claims for damages caused by its own negligence. This means that if an extended power outage is caused by a weather-related event, the claim will be denied. The SCE website also states that it will not cover claims for power surges. Since SCE often moves power from one line to another to enable repairs and maintenance, SCE can be the cause of the power surge, but residents still will not receive compensation for those claims. Proposed Legislation The proposed resolution calls upon the Governor and Legislature to enact legislation (or take other action) that will provide rebates in flat amounts to SCE customers for extended power outages under specified conditions. The proposed legislation could be modeled on the “Safety Net” and “Service Guarantee” programs offered by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), another California-based investor-owned utility, which provides specific rebates to its customers based upon the type, cause and duration of service interruptions. These penalties are designed to provide direct compensation to SCE’s customers who are adversely affected by prolonged power outages, and to incentivize SCE to restore the power as quickly as possible. They also will eliminate the frustration that SCE’s customers experience as a result of SCE’s existing claim process. ////////// League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 4 Staff: Jason Rhine Committee: Environmental Quality Summary: Resolution No. 4 calls upon the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California Cities to enact legislation or to otherwise compel Southern California Edison (SCE) to create a program to automatically provide direct compensation to its customers affected by a prolonged electrical power outage under specified circumstances. Background: City of Rancho Palos Verdes asserts that the South Bay region of Los Angeles County has longstanding concern regarding the ineffective process by which SCE addresses residents’ claims associated with 19276 prolonged electrical power outages. The City believes that SCE’s aged infrastructure has caused fires and repeated, prolonged electrical power outages. Prolonged electrical power outages can adversely affect residents who have physical challenges and rely on a constant source of power for medical devices; residents who are senior citizens and are particularly susceptible to injury if electrical power outages persist for a long period of time into the evening hours; and, residents who suffer financial burdens as a result of losing food, medication and other perishable items during prolonged electrical power outages. According to information provided by SCE, SCE has the following customer compensation program: Service Guarantee Program SCE shall provide the following four service guarantees to its electric customers and provide a $30 credit when these service guarantees are not met. Unless otherwise stated below, the four service standards apply only to active service accounts served under the Residential, General Service and Industrial, or Agricultural and Pumping rate schedules. • Restoration of Service Within 24 Hours: SCE will restore electrical service within 24 hours of when SCE first becomes aware of a power outage. The first credit will be applied if the outage exceeds 24 hours. Additional credits will be applied for each succeeding 24-hour period that the customer is without service. Partial credits will not be paid for outage periods less than a full 24-hour increment. Power outages associated with a moderate, severe, or catastrophic storm condition are exempt from the program. • Missed Appointments: When an appointment for a field service visit is made with a customer for a specific appointment time, and the customer’s presence is required for establishing new service, a billing inquiry, or meter installation, SCE will arrive at the agreed upon appointment within 30 minutes before or after the scheduled time. • Notification of Planned Outages: SCE will provide customers with notification of a planned outage at least three calendar days prior to the event. SCE will notify customers either by US Postal Service mail, by phone, in-person or door-to-door through door hangers, or by e-mail if SCE has the customer’s e-mail address on file. If a planned outage is rescheduled to a new date not specified in the original notice to the customer, SCE will provide a new notice at least three calendar days in advance of the rescheduled planned outage. • Timely and Accurate First Bill: SCE will issue an accurate first bill to a new customer of record within 60 days of establishing service. The bill and bill accuracy is defined according to the terms and conditions of SCE’s Rule 9 (Rendering and Payment of Bills) and Rule 17 Section A (Adjustment of Bills and Meter Tests Usage) and Section D (Adjustment of Bills for Billing Error). The service guarantee credit process will be initiated once SCE is aware that the first bill was either inaccurate or issued beyond sixty days of establishing service. The first bill for any given customer account is eligible for only one service guarantee credit regardless of whether the bill is late, inaccurate, or both. According to PG&E’s website, PG&E offers the following customer compensation programs: Compensation for Extended Outages STORMS MESSAGE: If you are a residential customer and have gone without power for at least 48 hours due to severe storm conditions, you may qualify for a payment under PG&E's Safety Net Program. This program provides for the automatic payment of $25 - $100, which is paid about 60 days following the storm outage. In some cases, processing may take 90-120 days (heavy storm season). Safety Net Program We understand how inconvenient it is for customers who go without power for 48 hours or longer due to severe events, such as a storm. That is why PG&E created the following: 20277 • PG&E will provide payments to residential customers we determine were without power for more than 48 hours due to a severe storm. • The payments will range from $25 up to $100, depending on the length of the outage. Eligibility • The Storm Inconvenience Payment provision of the Safety Net Program applies to residential customers only (rate schedules E-1, E-6, E-7, E-8, E-9, EM, ES, ESR, ET, and EV); customers also may be enrolled in programs such as CARE and medical baseline. • Businesses, agricultural accounts, multi-family building common areas, streetlights, and all other customers other than residential customers are ineligible for Storm Inconvenience Payments. • Storm Inconvenience Payments will not be issued to customers in areas where access to PG&E's electric facilities was blocked (mud slides, road closures or other access issues). Also, if customer equipment prevented restoral or extended customer outage (ex. weatherhead, service drop, etc.). • The outage must have occurred during a major weather-related event that caused significant damage to PG&E's electric distribution system. • The outage must have lasted more than 48 hours. • Storm Inconvenience Payments are in increments of $25 ($100 maximum per event). Payment levels are based on the length of the customer's outage: o 48 to 72 hours $25 o 72 to 96 hours $50 o 96 to 120 hours $75 o 120 hours or more $100 • Both bundled-service and direct-access residential customers qualify for Storm Inconvenience Payments. • Storm Inconvenience Payments will be issued to the customer of record. • A customer with multiple residential services such as a primary residence and a vacation home is eligible for Storm Inconvenience Payments at each location where there was a storm-related outage of more than 48 hours. • Customers must have an open account (service agreement) in good standing at the time of the outage and at the time payment is issued (generally 45 to 60 days after the event). • For master-metered accounts such as mobile home parks, the customer of record will receive the Storm Inconvenience Payment for the master meter only. Service Guarantee Program Gas and electricity are essential to keep your life running smoothly, safely and efficiently. When your service is interrupted or in need of repair, you expect a reasonable and timely response. To ensure that we provide this to you, PG&E has implemented service guarantees, which spell out our commitment to prompt customer service for our customers: • Guarantee 1: Missed Appointments: PG&E will meet the agreed upon appointment time set with our customer during contact with our Call Center or automatically credit your account $30. • Guarantee 2: Non-Emergency Investigations: PG&E will investigate non-emergency situations (check meter) and communicate results to a customer within seven days of a customer's request. Check-meter appointments between October 15 and December 15 of each year will be scheduled within 10 workdays. If an off-site meter test is required, PG&E will communicate the results to the customer within 30 days. If access is required to the customer's premises, then an appointment is necessary. Failure to meet the service guarantee will result in a $30 credit to the customer’s account. An automatic credit to the customer’s account would apply only if PG&E misses a scheduled appointment date. If 21278 the appointment is scheduled beyond five workdays, the customer must notify PG&E to receive the credit. If PG&E's records show that such scheduling was at the customer's request, the credit does not apply. • Guarantee 3: Emergency: The Emergency Service Guarantee is not currently in effect. • Guarantee 4: Complaint Resolution: PG&E will decide on a course of action to resolve a complaint and communicate it to the customer within three working days. PG&E will communicate the complaints resolution to the customer within 10 working days, or 30 working days when an off-site meter test is required or an on-site home audit is requested. Failure to meet the service guarantee will result in a $30 credit to the customer’s account. • Guarantee 5: New Meter Installations: PG&E will meet the agreed upon date for new service meter installations and service turn-ons or automatically credit your account $50. • Guarantee 6: Electric Service Disruptions: PG&E will respond to customer calls reporting electric service interruptions within four hours by restoring service; or by informing the customer, upon request, when service restoration is expected; or automatically credit your account $30. • Guarantee 7: Electric Service Restoration: PG&E will restore electric service within 24 hours, unless the cause is absolutely beyond our control, or we will automatically credit your account $30 for each 24-hour period you are without service. • Guarantee 8: Commencing Bills: PG&E will issue an accurate commencing bill to a new customer account within 60 days of service initiation, or we will automatically credit your account $30. • Guarantee 9: Planned Interruptions: PG&E shall provide at least three days’ notice of a planned interruption in service. Failure to meet the service guarantee will result in a $30 credit to the customer’s account. This guarantee will require a customer call and PG&E investigation to determine if PG&E’s commitment to notify customers 72 hours in advance of planned interruptions was missed. Customers notified of planned service interruptions 72 hours in advance may have their service interrupted on multiple occasions on the date(s). • Guarantee 10: Service Termination in Error: Impacted customers will be eligible for a $100 credit adjustment if PG&E terminates service in error. Fiscal Impact: No Impact on City Funds. Compelling SCE to create automatic direct compensation programs modeled on PG&E’s “Safety Net” and “Service Guarantee” programs would have no direct fiscal impact on cities because the “Safety Net” program is limited to residential customers and the “Service Guarantee” program is very similar to SCE’s existing program. However, residential customers would receive direct payments in specified circumstances for prolonged electrical power outages. Comment: • The City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in sponsoring this resolution, does not believe that SCE has an effective process to address customer damage claims associated with prolonged electrical power outages. According to the resolution, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would like to compel SCE to create a program to automatically provide direct compensation to its customers affected by prolonged electrical power outages under specified circumstances. Additionally, the program would be modeled upon PG&E “Safety Net” and “Service Guarantee” programs, and shall cover weather-related events and planned and unplanned service disruptions. • What is SCE’s process to provide relief to customers that have experienced a prolonged electrical power outage? As part of SCE’s four point service guarantee program, customers experiencing an electrical power outages exceeding 24 hours, may qualify for a $30 credit under specific conditions. However, prolonged electrical power outages 22279 caused by a moderate, severe, or catastrophic storm condition are exempt from the program. • How does PG&E provide relief to customers that have experienced a prolonged electrical power outage? Like SCE, PG&E has a multi-point service guarantee program that provides customer credits that range from $30 -$100 for a wide range of activities. In addition, PG&E has a specific, weather related program, the “Safety Net” program, which provides automatic, direct payment to customers experiencing electrical power outages, in excess of 48 hours. • What type of customer compensation program does the Resolution call for? The Resolution calls for a customer compensation program that expands beyond PG&E’s two existing programs. Under the Resolution, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes would like to compel SCE to adopt a program based on PG&E’s “Safety Net” and “Service Guarantee” programs, and also cover weather-related events and planned and unplanned service disruptions. • Do these programs really provide funds to residential customers? While the Resolution holds PG&E’s programs in high esteem, after hearing from a number of city officials in PG&E’s service territory, it seems that there is a great deal of skepticism around the effectiveness and utilization of their residential compensation programs. Is PG&E’s program really working as described? • What about California’s other Investor Owned Utilities (IOU) and municipal utilities? The Resolution is directed at SCE. However, the committee may want to consider the implications of the Resolution on the other investor owned utilities and municipal utilities. • Is legislation the best approach? The Resolution calls upon the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California Cities to enact legislation or to otherwise compel SCE to create a program to automatically provide direct compensation to its customers affected by a prolonged electrical power outage. Given that the California Public Utilities Commission regulates all of the investor owned utilities, it may be more appropriate to seek a regulatory change rather than a legislative proposal. • More information to come. The Resolution could have broader implications beyond SCE and PG&E. Prior to the Environmental Quality Policy Committee and General Resolutions Committee meeting at Annual Conference, League staff will provide additional background information on the following: o Other IOU electrical power outage compensation programs. o Municipal utility electrical power outage compensation programs. o Role of the California Public Utilities Commission. Existing League Policy: In response to the energy crisis of 2001, the League of California Cities established extensive policy and guiding principles related to the electric industry. However, there is no existing policy that pertains to prolonged power outages or compensating customers for damages incurred during a prolonged power outage. 23280 LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE Resolution No. 2 Overconcentration of Alcohol & Drug Treatment Facilities 24281 25282 26283 27284 28285 29286 30287 31288 32289 33290 LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE Resolution No. 3 Residential Rentals, Support for SB 593 (McGuire) 34291 35292 M a m m o t h L a k e s T o w n C o u n c i l P . O . B o x 1 6 0 9 , M a m m o t h L a k e s , C A , 9 3 5 4 6 ( 7 6 0 ) 9 3 4 - 8 9 8 9 ~ L 4 ~ . Q 4 . - w w w . t o w n o f m a m m o t h l a k e s . c a . g o v C A L ! F O R N I A J u l y 3 0 , 2 0 1 5 S t e p h a n y A g u i l a r , P r e s i d e n t L e a g u e o f C a l i f o r n i a C i t i e s 1 4 0 0 K S t r e e t S a c r a m e n t o , C A 9 5 8 1 4 R E : L E T T E R I N S U P P O R T O F A R E S O L U T I O N O F T H E L E A G U E O F C A L I F O R N I A C I T I E S S U P P O R T I N G S B 5 9 3 ( M C G U I R E ) D e a r P r e s i d e n t A g u i l a r : T h e T o w n o f M a m m o t h L a k e s s u p p o r t s t h e p r o p o s e d r e s o l u t i o n r e l a t e d t o t h e S h a r i n g E c o n o m y a n d c o n c u r s i n t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e r e s o l u t i o n f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n b y t h e L e a g u e o f C i t i e s G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y a t i t s a n n u a l m e e t i n g o n O c t o b e r 2 , 2 0 1 5 . T h e T o w n o f M a m m o t h L a k e s i s a s m a l l , r u r a l c o m m u n i t y i n t h e E a s t e r n S i e r r a R e g i o n o f a b o u t 8 , 0 0 0 f u l l - t i m e r e s i d e n t s M a m m o t h L a k e s i s a t o u r i s t d e s t i n a t i o n , s e r v i c i n g h u n d r e d s o f t h o u s a n d s o f v i s i t o r s e a c h y e a r . W e a r e g e o g r a p h i c a l l y i s o l a t e d f r o m p o p u l a t e d a r e a s b y s e v e r a l h u n d r e d m i l e s a n d a r e s u p p o r t e d b y o u r o n e p r i m a r y i n d u s t r y — t o u r i s m . T h e L e a g u e ’ s p r o p o s e d r e s o l u t i o n r e a f f i r m s a n d a c k n o w l e d g e s l o c a l e f f o r t s t o e f f e c t i v e l y r e g u l a t e l a n d u s e i m p a c t s a n d c o l l e c t a p p l i c a b l e t a x e s f r o m t r a n s i e n t r e s i d e n t i a l r e n t a l s a s p a r t o f t h e e m e r g i n g “ s h a r e d e c o n o m y ” . T h e s h o r t - t e r m r e n t a l o f r e s i d e n t i a l h o u s e s , r o o m s , c o n d o m i n i u m s , a n d a p a r t m e n t s p r e s e n t n u m e r o u s c h a l l e n g e s w i t h i n n e i g h b o r h o o d s a n d t o a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y o w n e r s . T h e y m a y c r e a t e a d d i t i o n a l n o i s e , t r a f f i c , p a r k i n g , p r i v a c y a n d p u b l i c s a f e t y i s s u e s , s u b v e r t l o c a l r e n t - c o n t r o l l a w s , a n d d e c r e a s e a v a i l a b l e h o u s i n g s t o c k . I n M a m m o t h L a k e s , w i t h a l i m i t e d p o l i c e f o r c e t h a t i s n o t s t a f f e d 2 4 - h o u r s a d a y a n d a c o d e e n f o r c e m e n t s t a f f o f o n e , e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e s e t y p e s o f i s s u e s c a n b e v e r y c h a l l e n g i n g . W h e r e t h e t e m p o r a r y r e n t a l o f r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s i s a l l o w e d b y l o c a l r e g u l a t i o n , t h e a s s o c i a t e d t r a n s i e n t o c c u p a n c y t a x ( T O T ) s h o u l d a l s o b e c o l l e c t e d . T h e s e u n i t s a r e i n d i r e c t c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h h o t e l s , m o t e l s a n d o t h e r a c c o m m o d a t i o n s w h e r e g u e s t s p a y t h e l o c a l t r a n s i e n t o c c u p a n c y t a x , s o a l l t r a n s i e n t r e n t a l s s h o u l d b e s u b j e c t t o t h e s a m e t a x . T h e r e v e n u e s g e n e r a t e d s u p p o r t l o c a l s e r v i c e s , i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o , p u b l i c s a f e t y , s n o w r e m o v a l , m a i n t e n a n c e o f p u b l i c p a r k s a n d f a c i l i t i e s , r o a d m a i n t e n a n c e , a n d r e c r e a t i o n p r o g r a m s , w h i c h d i r e c t l y a f f e c t l o c a l q u a l i t y o f l i f e a n d t h e a t t r a c t i o n o f t h e c o m m u n i t y f o r a v i s i t o r . T h i s p r o p o s a l w i l l m a k e i t m u c h e a s i e r f o r c o m m u n i t i e s s u c h a s M a m m o t h L a k e s t h a t d e p e n d o n r e v e n u e f r o m T O T t o e n f o r c e e x i s t i n g r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s a n d c o l l e c t T O T a s s p e c i f i e d i n o u r M u n i c i p a l C o d e . M a m m o t h L a k e s r e l i e s h e a v i l y o n T O T c o l l e c t i o n t o o p e r a t e t h e T o w n g o v e r n m e n t ; n e a r l y 6 5 % o f t h e T o w n ’ s o p e r a t i n g b u d g e t i s f u n d e d b y t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f T O T . 3 6 2 9 3 C o l l e c t i o n o f T O T i s s o i m p o r t a n t t o t h e T o w n t h a t w e h a v e t h r e e f u l l - t i m e e m p l o y e e s d e d i c a t e d i t s e n f o r c e m e n t . T h i s i n c l u d e s m a k i n g s u r e t h a t p e o p l e r e m i t t h e i r t a x e s o n t i m e , b u t m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y i t i s t r a c k i n g d o w n v i o l a t o r s w h o a r e r e n t i n g t h e i r u n i t s w i t h o u t a n a p p r o v e d p e r m i t , r e n t i n g u n i t s i n l o c a t i o n s w h e r e t h e z o n i n g d o e s n o t p e r m i t i t , a n d / o r n o t r e m i t t i n g t h e i r t a x e s t o t h e T o w n . E n f o r c e m e n t i s m a d e m u c h m o r e d i f f i c u l t b y t h e u s e o f o n l i n e v a c a t i o n r e n t a l b u s i n e s s ( O V R B ) w e b s i t e s w h e r e u n i t n u m b e r s a n d a d d r e s s e s a r e t y p i c a l l y n o t l i s t e d a n d o f t e n o w n e r s d o n o t r e q u i r e t h e p a y m e n t o f T O T . T h e d a t a p r o p o s e d t o b e c o l l e c t e d a n d p r o v i d e d t o u s b y O V R B s w i l l b e o f g r e a t v a l u e a s w e m a n a g e t r a n s i e n t r e n t a l s i n o u r c o m m u n i t y . T h e T o w n o f M a m m o t h L a k e s b e l i e v e s S B 5 9 3 , a s r e f e r e n c e d i n t h e p r o p o s e d r e s o l u t i o n , a c k n o w l e d g e s e x i s t i n g l o c a l a u t h o r i t y i n t h i s a r e a a n d p r o v i d e s t h e n e c e s s a r y d a t a f o r l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s t o e n f o r c e t h e i r r e g u l a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g s h o r t - t e r m r e s i d e n t i a l r e n t a l s a n d a h e l p f u l r e g u l a t o r y f r a m e w o r k t h a t l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s m a y c h o o s e i n l i e u o f e x e r c i s i n g t h e i r e x i s t i n g a u t h o r i t y F o r a l l o f t h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e T o w n o f M a m m o t h L a k e s s u p p o r t s t h e L e a g u e C a l i f o r n i a C i t i e s ’ R e ~ o l u t i o n . S i n c ~ J o h n ~ e n t ~ v ~ r t i , C o u n c i l m e m b e r T o w n o f M a m m o t h L a k e s c c : M e g D e s m o n d , L e a g u e o f C a l i f o r n i a C i t i e s , m d e s m o n d ~ c a c i t i e s . o r q J o h n L e o n a r d , C i t y o f W e s t H o l l y w o o d , j l e o n a r d ~ w e h o . o r q 3 7 2 9 4 City Hall: 955 School Street | Mailing Address: PO Box 660 Napa, California 94559 |Phone (707) 257-9500| www.cityofnapa.org Page 1 of 2 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL July 27, 2015 Stephany Aguilar, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear President Aguilar: RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES SUPPORTING SB 593 (MCGUIRE) AND CONTINUED LOCAL FLEXIBILITY FOR CITIES AS THEY ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD AND FISCAL IMPACTS OF TEMPORARY RENTALS OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR TOURIST OR TRANSIENT USES The City of Napa supports the proposed resolution related to the Sharing Economy and concurs in the submission of the resolution for consideration by the League of Cities General Assembly at its annual meeting on October 2, 2015. The resolution reaffirms and acknowledges local efforts to effectively regulate land use impacts and collect applicable taxes from transient residential rentals as part of the emerging “shared economy”. The short-term rental of residential houses, rooms, condominiums, and apartments present numerous challenges within neighborhoods and to adjacent property owners. They may create additional noise, traffic, parking, privacy and public safety issues, subvert local rent-control laws, decrease available housing stock and in some cases turn residential neighborhoods into de-facto hotel rows. The City of Napa’s zoning ordinance defines a “Rental Housing Shortage” as a vacancy rate less than 5%. A vacancy rate of less than 2% is defined as “Severe”. We are currently at severe levels. The City’s vacancy rates have continued to decline from 4% in 2009 to less than 2% today. Our Housing Element recognizes the issue of rising housing costs in Napa and its impact on the goal of maintaining Napa’s quality of life by balancing the availability of housing with other environmental considerations. Maintaining and protecting our housing stock is of utmost importance to the City of Napa. Where the temporary rental of residential units is allowed by local regulation, the associated transient occupancy tax (TOT) should also be collected. These units are in direct competition with hotels, motels and other accommodations where guests pay the local transient occupancy tax, so all such uses should be subject to the same tax. The revenues generated support local streets, roads, fire, police, lifeguards, trash pick-up, park maintenance and other local public services which directly affect local quality of life and the attraction of the community for a visitor. The City of Napa believes SB 593, as referenced in the proposed resolution, acknowledges existing local authority in this area and provides the necessary data for local jurisdictions to enforce their regulations 38295 City Hall: 955 School Street | Mailing Address: PO Box 660 Napa, California 94559 |Phone (707) 257-9500| www.cityofnapa.org Page 2 of 2 regarding short-term residential rentals and a helpful regulatory framework that local governments may choose in lieu of exercising their existing authority. For the reasons as stated above, the City of Napa supports the proposed Resolution. Sincerely, Jill Techel Mayor CITY OF NAPA JT/dr cc: City of Napa City Councilmembers Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmond@cacities.org John Leonard, City of West Hollywood, jleonard@weho.org City Manager Mike Parness Community Development Director Rick Tooker 39296 40297 41298 42299 43300 4 4 3 0 1 City of Sonoma No. 1 The Plaza Sonoma California 95476-6690 Phone (707) 938-3681 Fax (707) 938-8775 E-Mail: cityhall@sonomacity.org July 27, 2015 Stephany Aguilar, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear President Aguilar: RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES SUPPORTING SB 593 (MCGUIRE) AND CONTINUED LOCAL FLEXIBILITY FOR CITIES AS THEY ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD AND FISCAL IMPACTS OF TEMPORARY RENTALS OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR TOURIST OR TRANSIENT USES The City of Sonoma supports the proposed resolution related to the Sharing Economy and concurs in the submission of the resolution for consideration by the League of Cities General Assembly at its annual meeting on October 2, 2015. The resolution reaffirms and acknowledges local efforts to effectively regulate land use impacts and collect applicable taxes from transient residential rentals as part of the emerging “shared economy”. The short-term rental of residential houses, rooms, condominiums, and apartments present numerous challenges within neighborhoods and to adjacent property owners. They may create additional noise, traffic, parking, privacy and public safety issues, subvert local rent-control laws, decrease available housing stock and in some cases turn residential neighborhoods into de- facto hotel rows. Where the temporary rental of residential units is allowed by local regulation, the associated transient occupancy tax (TOT) should also be collected. These units are in direct competition with hotels, motels and other accommodations where guests pay the local transient occupancy tax, so all such uses should be subject to the same tax. The revenues generated support local streets, roads, fire, police, lifeguards, trash pick-up, park maintenance and other local public services which directly affect local quality of life and the attraction of the community for a visitor. The City of Sonoma believes SB 593, as referenced in the proposed resolution, acknowledges existing local authority in this area and provides the necessary data for local jurisdictions to enforce their regulations regarding short-term residential rentals and a helpful regulatory framework that local governments may choose in lieu of exercising their existing authority. The City of Sonoma is a tourist destination and the proliferation of vacation rentals is a top priority for City staff. The workload in monitoring and attempting to ensure compliance with local 45302 regulations is over-burdening our small staff. In addition, the sale of available housing has become a market for out of town investors to purchase and create new vacation rentals. Without legislative intervention, vacation rentals become an epidemic in a desirable destination location and the local residents “pay the price”. For these reasons, the City of Sonoma supports the League’s Resolution. Sincerely, Carol E. Giovanatto City Manager For and on behalf of the City of Sonoma cc: Meg Desmond, League of California Cities, mdesmond@cacities.org John Leonard, City of West Hollywood, jleonard@weho.org 46303 LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE Resolution No. 4 Compensation for Prolonged Electrical Power Outages 47304 City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254-3885 July 30, 2015 Stephany Aguilar, President League of California Cities 1400 K St., Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear President Aguilar: The City of Hermosa Beach supports the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2015 Annual Conference in San José. The City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ resolution seeks to address the failure of Southern California Edison (SCE) to reasonably compensate its customers for losses incurred due to prolonged service disruptions. Prolonged electrical outages jeopardize the public safety, health and general welfare of the communities within SCE’s service area. Among the populations that are most at risk as a result of outages are:  Customers with physical challenges who rely on a constant source of power for medical devices;  Customers who are senior citizens and are particularly susceptible to injury if power outages persist for long periods of time into evening hours; and,  Customers who suffer financial burdens as a result of losing food, medication and other perishable items during prolonged power outages. At least one other California utility, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), provides automatic, direct rebates to its customers in the event of prolonged power outages for a variety of causes, including severe weather and other planned and unplanned outages. Rebates are provided automatically to PG&E’s customers without filing a claim, which we believe demonstrates that such a program is feasible for SCE as well. As a member of the League, our city values the policy development opportunity provided by the Annual Conference Resolution process. We appreciate your time and consideration of this important issue. Please feel free to contact Andrew Brozyna at (310) 318-0238 or abrozyna@hermosabch.org if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom Bakaly City Manager 48305 49306 50307 51308 52309