Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-01-2023 City Council Agenda Packet, amended 11-02-2023
Saratoga City Council Agenda November 1, 2023 – Page 1 of 5 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 2023 AMENDED AGENDA • 10/30/2023 JOINT SESSION PARTICIPATION INFORMATION UPDATED • 11/01/2023 JOINT SESSION PRESENTATION SLIDES ADDED • 11/01/2023 SPECIAL PRESENTATION, REVISED ATTACHMENT A ADDED • 11/01/2023 ITEM 2.1 APPELLANT PRESENTATION SLIDES ADDED • 11/01/2023 ITEM 2.1 STAFF PRESENTATION SLIDES ADDED • 11/01/2023 ITEM 3.1 PRESENTATION SLIDES ADDED • 11/01/2023 ITEM 3.1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADDED • 11/02/2023 ITEM 2.1 DOCUMENTS PROVIDED AT MEETING ADDED • 11/02/2023 ITEM 3.1 DOCUMENTS PROVIDED AT MEETING ADDED • 11/02/2023 ITEM 3.1 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ADDED Public Participation Information In accordance with Saratoga City Council’s Remote Public Participation Policy, members of the public may participate in these meetings in person at the locations listed below or via remote attendance (if applicable) using the Zoom information below. In the event remote participation technology is unexpectedly unavailable, the meeting will proceed in person without remote participation. Members of the public can view and participate in the 6:00 p.m. Joint Session by: 1. Attending the meeting in person at the Saratoga Senior Center, S. Ku Hall, located at 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 Members of the public can view and participate in the 7:00 p.m. Regular Session by: 1. Attending the meeting in person at Saratoga Civic Theater, Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070; OR 2. Accessing the meeting through Zoom • Webinar URL: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81627041223 • Webinar ID: 816 2704 1223 • Call In: 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833; OR 3. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99 and calling in following the direction above; OR 4. Viewing online at www.saratoga.ca.us/watch and calling in following the direction above. Written Communication Comments can be submitted in writing at www.saratoga.ca.us/comment. Written communications will be provided to the members of the City Council and included in the Agenda Packet and/or in supplemental meeting materials. Saratoga City Council Agenda November 1, 2023 – Page 2 of 5 Public Comment Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. The amount of time for public comment may be reduced by the Mayor or by action of the City Council. Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items will take place at the beginning of the meeting for those attending in person. Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items will take place at the end of the meeting for those attending via telephone and Zoom. Public Comment for agendized items will begin with speakers attending in-person followed by those attending via Zoom. Please ensure your comments pertain to the agenda item. Individuals providing comments not relevant to the agenda item will be asked to stay on topic or they will be muted. Meeting Recording Information In accordance with the Saratoga City Council’s Meeting Recording Policy, City Council Study Sessions, Joint Meetings, Joint Sessions, Commission Interviews, Retreats, meetings with the Planning Commission, and Regular Session Meetings are recorded and made available following the meeting on the City website. 6:00 PM JOINT SESSION Saratoga Senior Center, S. Ku Hall, | 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Joint Session with Saratoga Schools Recommended Action: Receive updates from Saratoga Schools Joint Session Presentation Slides, LGSUHSD (Added 11-1-2023) Joint Session Presentation Slides, FUHSD (Added 11-1-2023) 7:00 PM REGULAR SESSION Civic Theater, Council Chambers | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 26, 2023. REPORT FROM JOINT SESSION ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public may address the City Council on matters not on the Agenda. The law generally prohibits the City Council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly. ANNOUNCEMENTS Saratoga City Council Agenda November 1, 2023 – Page 3 of 5 SPECIAL PRESENTATION Xi'an Friendship City Presentation Recommended Action: Receive presentation from Meng Shi on a potential Friendship City partnership with Xi’an, a large city and capital of Shaanxi Province in central China. Staff Report Attachment A - Presentation Slides Revised 10-31-2023 1. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted on in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council Member. Any member of the public may speak on an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request that the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes for the October 18, 2023, City Council Regular Meeting. Staff Report Attachment A - Minutes for the October 18, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting 1.2. Review and Accept Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept the 10/11/2023 and 10/19/2023 accounts payable vendor payment check registers. Staff Report Attachment A - Check Register 10-11-2023 Attachment B - Check Register 10-19-2023 1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended August 31, 2023 Recommended Action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended August 31, 2023. Staff Report Saratoga City Council Agenda November 1, 2023 – Page 4 of 5 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1. Appeal – TSC Approval of Mendelsohn Lane Speed Tables Recommended Action: Conduct a public hearing and de novo review of the appeal and adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and approving the Traffic Safety Commission’s September 14 decision on Traffic Matrix #392 to install two speed tables on Mendelsohn Lane. Staff Report Attachment A - Appeal Application Attachment B - Resolution of the City Council to Deny the Appeal Attachment C - Final Speed Table Plan for Mendelsohn Lane Attachment D - TM 392 Background Attachment E - TM 392 Request for Speed Humps on Mendelsohn Lane Attachment F - 2020 Mendelsohn Lane Signage and Striping Plan Attachment G - Speed Hump Process Attachment H - April 2023 Notice to Residents, Responses, and Comments Attachment I - August 2023 Notice to Residents, Responses, and Comments Attachment J - TSC Draft Minutes - September 14, 2023 Attachment K - Comments Received in Response to Appeal Attachment L - County Fire Approval of Speed Table Plans Item 2.1 Appellant Presentation Slides (Added 11-1-2023) Item 2.1 Staff Presentation Slides (Added 11-1-2023) Item 2.1 Documents submitted at meeting (Added 11-2-2023) 3. GENERAL BUSINESS 3.1. Housing Element Update & Policy Options Recommended Actions: 1. Review and consider policy options. 2. Review recommendations from the Planning Commission. 3. Receive public comments. 4. Provide direction to staff for responding to comments from California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the third Draft Housing Element. Staff Report Attachment A - Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments 1-7) and Draft Minutes Attachment B - HCD Comment Letter dated July 27, 2023 Attachment C - Map of RLD & RVLD designated properties Attachment D - Map of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Attachment E - Map of Religious Institutions Attachment F - Builders Remedy Frequently Asked Questions Attachment G - Location of Builders Remedy Projects Attachment H - Housing Element Unit Analysis Table Attachment I - Public Comment Presentation Slides (Added 11-1-2023) Supplemental Memo - Written Communications (added 11-1-2023) Supplemental Memo - Written Communications (added 11-2-2023) Item 3.1 Documents submitted at meeting (added 11-2-2023) Saratoga City Council Agenda November 1, 2023 – Page 5 of 5 COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Council Assignments CITY COUNCIL ITEMS COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public may address the City Council on matters not on the Agenda. The law generally prohibits the City Council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I, Britt Avrit, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council was posted and available for review on October 26, 2023 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 26th day of October 2023 at Saratoga, California. Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk 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, copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials distributed to the City Council by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us and are available for review in the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Governor’s Executive Order, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] Joint Meeting of Saratoga City Council & Saratoga Schools 5 Introductions2 6 New Administrative Staff Members 3 Patrick Bernhardt Director, Continuous Improvement & Accountability Toby Mockler Director, Facilities, Maintenance, Operations, & Transportation Dave Poetzinger Assistant Principal, Los Gatos High School Kristen Cunningham Assistant Principal, Saratoga High School 7 Updates Los Gatos High School | Saratoga High School | LGSUHSD 2 8 Strategic Plan: We INSPIRE! 5 ➢Began gathering feedback from staff, students, parents, & community in Spring 2023 ➢Design Team came together in April -September 2023 to develop focus areas ➢Adopted by the Board of Trustees 10/17/23 ➢Action Items & Timeline to achieve each goal in the focus area will take place November -June. ➢Frequent updates to the community 9 Measure E Summer Work 6 ➢Expansion and remodel of our Los Gatos High School Wellness Center ➢Window Replacement on the Administration Building at Los Gatos High ➢Turf replacement on the football field at Saratoga High School 10 New District & School Websites 7 ➢Easier Navigation ➢Quicklinks for frequently visited pages ➢News & Announcements to showcase district accomplishments 11 State Test Results 8 ●Publicly released last week ●Given to 11th grade students in the spring ●Ranked #1 in the State for Math among high school districts 12 Recent News Highlights 9 ●LGSUHSD Teachers Honored for Arts, Civics, STEM, & Teacher of the Year Awards ○Audrey Warmuth (Saratoga HS Engineering Dept) ●Golden Bell Award (state-wide recognition) for district’s cafeteria ●LGSUHSD Celebrates 24 National Merit Scholars ○33 students from Saratoga HS! 13 Sign-Up to receive District News 1014 FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT UPDATE November 2023 15 FUHSD GOOD NEWS •All five FUHSD high schools were included in the US News and World Report list of Best High Schools for 2023. •165 FUHSD students from all five high schools were named as National Merit Scholarship semi-finalists for 2023. 16 17 FUHSD, Fremont High School and Adult School Celebrate 100 Year Anniversary 18 CELEBRATING 100 YEARS •FHS Homecoming Game & Featherette reunion was held this month •Rally and possible mini Hall of Fame induction – January 2024 •100 Year Anniversary Open House of Fremont, District and Adult School – May 11, 2024 19 TRANSITION TO BY-TRUSTEE AREAS 20 OVERVIEW OF TRANSITION TO TRUSTEE AREAS •On March 7, 2023, the FUHSD Board of Trustees passed Resolution 2223-19 indicating its intention to transition Governing Board elections from At-Large Elections to By-Trustee Area Elections. •The transition will see Board members elected from trustee areas, instead of by all District voters. •As part of this transition, the Board will seek input from the community on the development of the trustee area boundary map. •This transition does not affect school site attendance boundaries. At -Large Elections Candidates must reside within the District’s boundaries and are elected by all the voters who reside in the District’s boundaries (Education Code Section 5030(a)). By-Trustee Area Elections Candidates must reside in specific Trustee Areas within the District’s boundaries and are elected only by the voters who reside in the same Trustee Areas (Education Code Section 5030(b)). 21 HIGH-LEVELTRUSTEE AREA DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 22 ROLE OF THE COMMUNITY TRUSTEE AREA DISTRICTING COMMITTEE The Community Trustee Area Districting (CTAD) Committee will facilitate the process of gathering input and developing draft maps, which will then be considered by the FUHSD Board of Trustees for elections from 2024 and through 2032. The committee will hold multiple community meetings to gather public input. The Committee will then submit a set of focus maps to the Board of Trustees to be considered. The Board of Trustees’ goal is that the CTAD Committee will represent the diverse communities, interests and experience of the residents of the Fremont Union High School District. COMMUNITY TRUSTEE AREA DISTRICTING (CTAD) COMMITTEE A Superintendent’s Committee The Committee will be composed of 10 to 15 members, all selected by the Superintendent’s Nominating Committee. Committee members are not required to be registered voters. The term of the committee members begins at the time of selection by the Nominating Committee and ends when a final district map is adopted by the FUHSD Board of Trustees, unless otherwise determined by the Board of Trustees. 23 On October 17, a third Public Hearing was held. The District’s demographers presented four preliminary map scenarios. The preliminary map scenarios serve as a starting point for the community. PRELIMINARY MAPS 24 Fremont Union High School District | Trustee Area Scenarios CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPING VOTING AREAS Each area shall contain nearly equal number of inhabitants Drawn to comply with the Federal Voting Rights Act AB 764 Criteria •Contiguous •Maintain communities of interest •City/census designated places •Natural/artificial boundaries •Compactness Not drawn to favor incumbents Other traditional/local criteria 11 25 Fremont Union High School District | Trustee Area Scenarios Trustee Areas Coterminous with High School Attendance Boundaries For Descriptive Purposes Only-This Map Is Not Legally Compliant Total Population: 240,655 Ideal Trustee Area Size: 48,131 Variance: 124.6% Not Legally Compliant 12 26 Fremont Union High School District | Trustee Area Scenarios CONCEPTUAL TRUSTEE AREAS SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 Population Variance 6.1% Asian CVAP Majority: Trustee Areas 1, 3, and 5 Hispanic/Latino CVAP in Trustee Area 2: 26.2% Population Variance: 6.7% Asian CVAP Majority: Trustee Areas 1, 3, and 5 Hispanic/Latino CVAP in Trustee Area 2: 28.4% Population Variance: 7.4% Asian CVAP Majority: Trustee Areas 1, 3, and 5 Hispanic/Latino CVAP in Trustee Area 2: 28.4% SCENARIO 4 Population Variance: 6.5% Asian CVAP Majority: Trustee Areas 1, 3, and 5 Hispanic/Latino CVAP in Trustee Area 2: 28.4% 13 27 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 1, 2023 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY: Leslie Arroyo, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Xi’an Friendship City Presentation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation from Meng Shi on a potential Friendship City partnership with Xi’an, a large city and capital of Shaanxi Province in central China. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A – Xi’an Friendship City Presentation 28 Xi’an & Saratoga Friendship City Proposal Meng Shi11/1/2023 29 Xi’an ●Capital city of Shaanxi province ●Called “Chang An” in ancient times meaning “Everlasting Peace” Bell Tower and Drum Tower 30 Rich History ●7,000+ years of civilization ●Established 3,100+ years ago ●Capital city for 13 dynasties 31 Historic Heritage Terracotta Warriors and Horses Giant Goose Pagoda The Forest of Stone Steles Museum Hua Qing Palace Qian Ling Mausoleum 32 City Walls ●First built in the early Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) ●39 ft high, 39 -46 ft wide at the top ●49 -59 ft thick at the bottom ●8.5 miles in length ●Surrounded by a deep moat and a circular parkXi’an International City Wall Half Marathon Lantern Fair 33 Natural Attractions Hua Shan Mountain Qinling Mountain Ranges 34 Local Arts Qin Opera Dunkey Skin Play Art of Paper Cutting Festival Steamed Buns 35 Xi’an Delicacies 36 ●A group of Saratoga residents lead the efforts ●Build relationships between Saratoga and Xi’an ●Promote cultural exchanges and awareness 37 Thank You! 38 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 1, 2023 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk SUBJECT:City Council Meeting Minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Minutes for the October 18,2023,City Council Regular Meeting. 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. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A -Minutes for the October 18, 2023, City Council Regular Meeting 39 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ October 18, 2023 ~ Page 1 of 7 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2023 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING At 5:00 p.m., the City Council held a Joint Session with the Youth Commission in the Linda Callon Conference Room. Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment. No one requested to speak. At 6:00 p.m., the City Council held a Joint Session with Senator Cortese and Assemblymember Berman in the Linda Callon Conference Room. Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment. The following individuals spoke: Dave Dornblaser, Bernie Mills, Jared, a Saratoga resident, and Lakhinder. Mayor Fitzsimmons called the Regular Session to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons, Vice Mayor Yan Zhao, Council Members Belal Aftab, Chuck Page, Tina Walia ABSENT:None ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Leslie Arroyo, Assistant City Manager Bryan Swanson, Community Development Director Dan Jacobson, Interim Administrative Services Director Britt Avrit, City Clerk REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The City Clerk reported the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 12, 2023. FITZSIMMONS/ZHAO MOVED TO REARRANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS MOVING CEREMONIAL ITEMS TO BEFORE ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE REPORT FROM JOINT SESSION Mayor Fitzsimmons stated the City Council held a Joint Session with the Youth Commission prior to the Regular Session and provided a report of the City Council Joint Session. Mayor Fitzsimmons stated the City Council held a Joint Session with Senator Cortese and Assemblymember Berman prior to the Regular Session. Senator Cortese provided a report of the City Council Joint Session. 40 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ October 18, 2023 ~ Page 2 of 7 CEREMONIAL ITEMS Commendation for Victoria Zhang Recommended Action: Commend Victoria Zhang for her service on the Saratoga Library & Community Engagement Commission. The City Council commended Victoria Zhang for her service on the Saratoga Library & Community Engagement Commission. Commendation for James Cai Recommended Action: Commend James Cai for his service on the Saratoga Public Art Commission. The City Council recognized the service of James Cai for his service on the Saratoga Public Art Commission. Commendation for Renee Paquier Recommended Action: Commend Renee Paquier for her service on the Saratoga Parks & Recreation Commission. The City Council recognized the service of Renee Paquier for her service on the Saratoga Parks & Recreation Commission. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS; IN-PERSON ATTENDEES Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment. The following individuals spoke: Balaji Bashyam, Jody Tatro, Jeff Newman Lan, Fran Williams, Markus Schaaf, Charlene Wong, Andrew Krainin, Shawna Ballard, Scott Liu, Bernie Mills discussed the Housing Element, zoning, and Builders Remedy. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Fitzsimmons shared information about the Great Shakeout Drill, SASCC’s Health Fair, the Witchy Walk-A-Bout event, and the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce and Dogwood App’s Halloween Pet Parade and Costume Contest. Council Member Page shared information about adult Trivia Night at the Saratoga Library. SPECIAL PRESENTATION Special Presentation of Student Art from Duan Art Studio Recommended Action: Receive presentation of student art from Duan Art Studio. The City Council received a presentation of student art from Duan Art Studio. 41 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ October 18, 2023 ~ Page 3 of 7 1.CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment. No one requested to speak. 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes for the October 4, 2023, City Council Regular Meeting. PAGE/ZHAO MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 4, 2023, CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE 1.2. Review and Accept Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept the 09/28/2023 and 10/05/2023 accounts payable vendor payment check registers. PAGE/ZHAO MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT THE 09/28/2023 AND 10/05/2023 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VENDOR PAYMENT CHECK REGISTERS.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE 1.3. Update to the Bail Schedule Recommended Action: Adopt the Resolution approving an updated bail schedule setting bail amounts for violations of Municipal Code provisions adopted or amended since the last update in 2016. PAGE/ZHAO MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING AN UPDATED BAIL SCHEDULE SETTING BAIL AMOUNTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS ADOPTED OR AMENDED SINCE THE LAST UPDATE IN 2016.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE 1.4. Final Map Approval for Two Lots Located at 14805 Fruitvale Avenue Recommended Action: Adopt the Resolution granting final map approval of parcel map application No. ULS22- 0002 for two lots located at 14805 Fruitvale Avenue (APN: 397 18 027). PAGE/ZHAO MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL MAP APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP APPLICATION NO. ULS22-0002 FOR TWO LOTS LOCATED AT 14805 FRUITVALE AVENUE (APN: 397 18 027).MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE 42 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ October 18, 2023 ~ Page 4 of 7 1.5. Amended Lease Agreement with Los Gatos-Saratoga Community Education and Recreation Recommended Action: Approve the Amended Lease Agreement with Los Gatos-Saratoga Community Education and Recreation. PAGE/ZHAO MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDED LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LOS GATOS-SARATOGA COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND RECREATION.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE 2.PUBLIC HEARING 2.1. Resolution Amending the City’s Fee Schedule Effective January 3, 2024, and July 1, 2024 Recommended Action: Adopt a Resolution amending the City of Saratoga’s Fee Schedule effective January 3, 2024, and July 1, 2024. Dan Jacobson, Interim Administrative Services Director, presented the staff report. Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment. No one requested to speak. PAGE/AFTAB MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF SARATOGA’S FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 3, 2024, AND JULY 1, 2024.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE 3.GENERAL BUSINESS 3.1. Formation of Cities Association of Santa Clara County Joint Powers Agency Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement creating the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Joint Powers Agency subject to non-substantive changes approved by the City Manager and City Attorney. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented the staff report. Margaret Abe-Koga, Mountain View City Council Member and current President of the Cities Association of Santa Clara County, provided a presentation for this item. Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment. No one requested to speak. 43 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ October 18, 2023 ~ Page 5 of 7 WALIA/ZHAO MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT CREATING THE CITIES ASSOCIATION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY JOINT POWERS AGENCY SUBJECT TO NON-SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY. MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, WALIA, ZHAO. NOES: PAGE, FITZSIMMONS. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE 3.2. Automated License Plate Reader Pilot Review Recommended Action: Provide direction on Automated License Plate Reader pilot cameras. Crystal Bothelio, Consultant, presented the staff report. Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment. The following individuals spoke: Jim Stallman, Dory Albert, Reese Williams. ZHAO/WALIA MOVED TO KEEP THE AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER (ALPR) PROGRAM AS IS AND NO LONGER CONSIDER IT A PILOT PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE Mayor Fitzsimmons requested a recess at this time. Mayor Fitzsimmons reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m. 3.3. Resolution Supporting Initiative Constitutional Amendment to Protect Local Land Use Control Recommended Action: Consider Resolution Supporting Initiative Constitutional Amendment to Protect Local Land Use Control. Leslie Arroyo, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report. Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment. The following individual spoke: Vivek Tiwari WALIA/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROTECT LOCAL LAND USE CONTROL.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE 3.4. Consideration of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter from the City Council to State Senator Dave Cortese and Assemblymember Marc Berman requesting legislation to account for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process. 44 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ October 18, 2023 ~ Page 6 of 7 James Lindsay, City Manager, presented the staff report. Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment. No one requested to speak. WALIA/PAGE MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A LETTER FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO STATE SENATOR DAVE CORTESE AND ASSEMBLYMEMBER MARC BERMAN REQUESTING LEGISLATION TO ACCOUNT FOR VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES IN THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION PROCESS.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE 3.5. Discussion of Maintenance of Residential Front Yard Landscaping Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council review the information in this report and provide staff direction as needed. Bryan Swanson, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment. No one requested to speak. No action needed; the report was received and filed. COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Council Member Tina Walia Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors – stated the Board received a presentation from The Planning Collaborative. Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors - stated the Board authorized entering into the Agency’s third Municipal Prepay Bond and, staff led a Study Session about programs focused on reducing emissions from the residential building sector. Council Member Chuck Page West Valley Sanitation District Board of Directors - stated the meeting was primarily ministerial and the Board held a Closed Session. Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Board - stated the Board discussed concerns about the Housing Element, specifically concerns about commercial use becoming residential or mixed-use. Council Member Belal Aftab Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee – stated bus ridership hit a post-pandemic ridership record and, the Committee reviewed the Valley Transportation Plan, and the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Vice Mayor Yan Zhao Nothing to report Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons Nothing to report 45 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ October 18, 2023 ~ Page 7 of 7 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS None COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS; VIRTUAL ATTENDEES Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment. The following individual spoke: Vivek Tiwari discussed the Housing Element. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Fitzsimmons adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted: Britt Avrit, City Clerk City of Saratoga 46 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 1, 2023 DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services PREPARED BY: Vivian Lu, Accounting Technician SUBJECT: Review and Accept Accounts Payable Check Registers RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept the 10/11/2023 and 10/19/2023 accounts payable vendor payment check registers. BACKGROUND: The accounts payable check registers report payments to vendors for goods and services properly procured and approved for payment in accordance with the City’s administrative purchasing policy. The information listed below lists vendor payments exceeding $20,000 and any checks that were voided during the time period. The complete check register(s) and summary by Fund are provided as attachments to this report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Check Register Reports Dated 10-11-2023 Attachment B - Check Register Reports Dated 10-19-2023 REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are Check Registers for: Date Ending Check # 10/11/2023 148392 148434 43 271,300.05 10/11/2023 10/05/2023 148391 10/19/2023 148435 148466 32 878,059.73 10/19/2023 10/11/2023 148434 Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater: Date Check #Dept. Amount 10/11/2023 148395 City of San Jose CIP Street Project Fund PW Prospect Road Pavement Cost Sharing Project 44,113.64 10/11/2023 148401 FD Construction CIP Street Project Fund PW Wildwood Park Stabilization Project 23,117.00 10/11/2023 148408 Imperial Sprinkler Supply Various Funds PW Irrigation Control Replacement Project 73,382.67 10/11/2023 148426 SCI Consulting Group WVCWP Agency Fund WVCWP Public Opinion Poll Services 39,435.78 10/19/2023 148440 City of Campbell General Fund PW Q2 FY2023-2024 Waste Management 61,755.38 10/19/2023 148453 Maritza Zgomba General Fund CDD Deposit Refund ARB21-0123 & GEO21-0042 56,723.45 10/19/2023 148454 SCC Office of the Sheriff General Fund ASD October 2023 Law Enforcement 651,016.58 10/19/2023 148455 PG&E Various Funds Various Gas & Electric Expenses 21,096.06 Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period: AP Date Check #Amount 03/23/2023 147119 Timothy Watson Lost/Never received 1,968.03 07/06/2023 147833 County of Santa Clara Itemize location is not included 2,388.00 Ending Check # Starting Check #Type of Checks Date Checks ReleasedTotal Checks Amount Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Fund Purpose StatusReason Issued to Issued to Voided Voided 47 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 10/11/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 19:59:52 CHECK REGISTER - FUND TOTALS ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/24 FUND FUND TITLE AMOUNT 111 GENERAL FUND 38,508.58 214 2023 STORM FUND 1,200.00 241 ARROYO DE SARATOGA LNDSCP 614.95 242 BONNET WAY LANDSCAPE 73.55 245 FREDERICKSBURG LANDSCAPE 106.37 246 GREENBRIAR LANDSCAPE 567.41 248 LEUTAR COURT LANDSCAPE 321.93 251 MCCARTYSVILLE LANDSCAPE 435.27 252 PRIDES CROSSING LANDSCAPE 801.69 271 BEUACHAMPS L&L 670.36 272 BELLGROVE L&L 10,403.17 273 GATEWAY L&L 2,240.24 279 BROOKVIEW L&L 277.71 292 PARAMOUNT COURT SWD 258.36 411 CIP STREET PROJECTS FUND 77,728.38 412 CIP PARKS PROJECT FUND 72,712.31 435 ARPA/SLFRF FUND 7,095.56 611 LIABILITY /RISK MGMT FUND 183.21 612 WORKERS COMP FUND 289.92 621 OFFICE SUPPORT 8,500.00 622 IT SERVICES 4,100.00 624 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 113.54 713 WVCWP AGENCY FUND 44,097.54 TOTAL REPORT 271,300.05 48 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 10/11/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 19:59:00 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/24 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 148392 11111 10/11/23 234 A T & T 63211 GATEWAY IRR CONTROL 27.10 148392 11111 10/11/23 234 A T & T 63211 ELEC PANEL CVC THTR 27.10 148392 11111 10/11/23 234 A T & T 63211 PHONE LNS PARKS/LIB 27.61 148392 11111 10/11/23 234 A T & T 63211 EMER POTS LINE 27.10 148392 11111 10/11/23 234 A T & T 63211 EMER POTS LN CDD LBBY 27.10 148392 11111 10/11/23 234 A T & T 63211 EMER POTS LV VM 32.24 148392 11111 10/11/23 234 A T & T 63211 AM 1610 RADIO 27.10 148392 11111 10/11/23 234 A T & T 63211 BOOK GO ROUND ALARM 52.91 148392 11111 10/11/23 234 A T & T 63211 CSP HVB FOR IRR 53.69 TOTAL CHECK 301.95 148393 11111 10/11/23 1600 ARTICULATE SOLUTIONS, INC 64313 WVCWP OUTREACH SPPL 870.75 148394 11111 10/11/23 500 BELAL AFTAB 66212 AAPI LEADERSHIP RMB 38.00 148394 11111 10/11/23 500 BELAL AFTAB 66212 AAPI LEADERSHIP RMB 226.58 148394 11111 10/11/23 500 BELAL AFTAB 66211 AAPI LEADERSHIP RMB 188.58 TOTAL CHECK 453.16 148395 11111 10/11/23 517 CITY OF SAN JOSE 81161 PROSPECT COST SHARE 44,113.64 148396 11111 10/11/23 930 COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 61341 PARK SPPL-SOAP FOAMS 2,112.12 148397 11111 10/11/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64549 KMP IRR SERVICES 3,003.39 148398 11111 10/11/23 378 EKIM PAINTING - NORTH, IN 64585 ALLENDALE SIGN RPR 900.00 148399 11111 10/11/23 1688 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASS 81141 PERMITTING/CEQA SPPRT 1,626.50 148400 11111 10/11/23 421 EWING IRRIGATION 64549 IRRIGATION PARTS 254.44 148401 11111 10/11/23 1797 FD CONSTRUCTION 81161 WILDWOOD PK STABILIZE 23,117.00 148402 11111 10/11/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 81161 OCT MNTHLY WEED ABATE 901.00 148403 11111 10/11/23 455 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMEN 61341 PARKS SPPL-CHARGER 177.18 148404 11111 10/11/23 1771 GOT GOPHERS INC 64549 ORCHARD PEST - AUG 550.00 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 162.97 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 115.98 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 43.60 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 61331 ROAD MAINT SUPPLIES 69.93 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 61331 ROAD MAINT SUPPLIES 170.45 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 62418 CSP REPLACEMENT SPPLS 183.21 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 345.85 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 61341 CSP RPR SUPPLIES 217.66 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 61331 ROAD MAINT SUPPLIES 130.57 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 26.23 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 97.19 148405 11111 10/11/23 488 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICE 61331 ROAD MAINT SUPPLIES 41.52 TOTAL CHECK 1,605.16 148406 11111 10/11/23 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64543 SPRING BLOSSOM LEAK 447.14 148406 11111 10/11/23 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64549 GARDINER PK DRAIN RPR 76.00 148406 11111 10/11/23 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64549 FRIENDSHIP FOUNTAINS 121.42 TOTAL CHECK 644.56 49 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2 DATE: 10/11/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 19:59:00 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/24 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 148407 11111 10/11/23 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 81161 PROSPECT CTR RPR 391.60 148408 11111 10/11/23 1123 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY 64549 IRR CONTROL RPLC 670.36 148408 11111 10/11/23 1123 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY 81161 IRR CONTROL RPLC 72,712.31 TOTAL CHECK 73,382.67 148409 11111 10/11/23 1579 JULIE SCHAER 66212 WVCWP CASQA CONF RMB 583.51 148410 11111 10/11/23 1802 KAIZEN INFOSOURCE LLC 65114 SEP CITY RECORD SVC 8,500.00 148411 11111 10/11/23 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMENT 64549 WILDWOOD PK PEST MGMT 120.00 148411 11111 10/11/23 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMENT 64549 AZULE PK PEST MGMT 40.00 148411 11111 10/11/23 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMENT 64549 CSP PEST MGMT 40.00 148411 11111 10/11/23 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMENT 64549 EL QUITO PK PEST MGMT 80.00 148411 11111 10/11/23 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMENT 64549 GARDINER PK PEST MGMT 80.00 148411 11111 10/11/23 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMENT 64549 KMP PEST MGMT 280.00 148411 11111 10/11/23 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMENT 64549 WILDWOOD PK PEST MGMT 640.00 TOTAL CHECK 1,280.00 148412 11111 10/11/23 1563 LOGAN & POWELL, LLP 65282 WVCWP JUL LEGAL SVCS 1,475.00 148412 11111 10/11/23 1563 LOGAN & POWELL, LLP 65282 WVCWP JUL LEGAL SVCS 632.50 148412 11111 10/11/23 1563 LOGAN & POWELL, LLP 65282 WVCWP AUG LEGAL SVCS 632.50 148412 11111 10/11/23 1563 LOGAN & POWELL, LLP 65282 WVCWP SEP LEGAL SVCS 467.50 TOTAL CHECK 3,207.50 148413 11111 10/11/23 500 MEIYU CHEN 43481 TREE REF TRP23-0447 130.00 148414 11111 10/11/23 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 81161 CSP RESTROOM CLEANUP 812.00 148415 11111 10/11/23 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 64551 OCT WKND PK RESTROOM 4,239.83 148416 11111 10/11/23 1745 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, L 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 103.44 148416 11111 10/11/23 1745 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, L 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 29.29 TOTAL CHECK 132.73 148417 11111 10/11/23 1646 O'ROURKE & ASSOCIATES 65433 CLIMATE PLAN UPDATE 4,991.25 148418 11111 10/11/23 610 PACIFIC DISPLAY, INC 64221 SEP VIL PED LIGHTING 900.00 148419 11111 10/11/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 139.57 148420 11111 10/11/23 500 PAVAN CHITUMALLA 22113 DEP BD REF ARB21-0109 7,800.00 148420 11111 10/11/23 500 PAVAN CHITUMALLA 22111 DEP REF ARB21-0109 1,110.93 TOTAL CHECK 8,910.93 148421 11111 10/11/23 410 RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC 61341 BIG BASIN LANDSCAPE 300.00 148422 11111 10/11/23 410 RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC 64583 13740 PIERCE RD RPR 300.00 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 FARWELL/THREE OAKS 258.36 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 FREDERICKSBURG 106.37 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 GATEWAY PROJECT 2,240.24 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 175.47 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PRIDES CROSSING 523.69 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MEDIAN/PARKWAYS 278.00 50 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3 DATE: 10/11/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 19:59:00 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/24 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 12050 BROOKGLN DR 50% 277.71 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 ARROYO DE SARATOGA 614.95 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 BELLGROVE 10,403.17 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 BONNET WAY 10% 73.55 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 GREENBRIAR 567.41 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 LEUTAR CT 321.93 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MCCARTYSVILLE 348.22 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MCCARTYSVILLE 25% 87.05 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MED/MCCARTYSVILLE 75% 261.17 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MED/PRKWYS 50% BRKGLN 277.71 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MED/PRKWYS 90% BONNET 662.03 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MEDIANS/PARKWAYS 520.73 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 1,411.64 148423 11111 10/11/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PRIDES CROSSING 278.00 TOTAL CHECK 19,687.40 148424 11111 10/11/23 1 SANTA CLARA COUNTY - DTAC 62325 SEP PARKING CITATION 112.50 148425 11111 10/11/23 98 SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMME 68519 WILDWOOD CONCERT RMB 4,048.38 148426 11111 10/11/23 1687 SCI CONSULTING GROUP 64745 WVCWP OPINION POLL 39,435.78 148427 11111 10/11/23 236 SOLECTRIC ELECTRICAL 64549 CSP LIGHT RPR 931.43 148428 11111 10/11/23 1246 STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY 81161 GUAVA CT TRAFFIC CTRL 281.91 148428 11111 10/11/23 1246 STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY 81161 GUAVA CT TRAFFIC CTRL 152.40 TOTAL CHECK 434.31 148429 11111 10/11/23 256 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC 81121 WILDWOOD/4TH ST SPPL 1,106.42 148429 11111 10/11/23 256 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC 81121 WILDWOOD/4TH ST SPPL 313.12 148429 11111 10/11/23 256 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC 81161 PROSPECT GREEN PROJ 293.78 TOTAL CHECK 1,713.32 148430 11111 10/11/23 1261 THE FRUITGUYS 61192 EMPLOYEE WELLNESS 207.92 148430 11111 10/11/23 1261 THE FRUITGUYS 61192 EMPLOYEE WELLNESS 82.00 TOTAL CHECK 289.92 148431 11111 10/11/23 343 TMT ENTERPRISES INC 81161 PROSPECT GREEN PROJ 5,175.25 148431 11111 10/11/23 343 TMT ENTERPRISES INC 81161 PROSPECT GREEN PROJ 422.93 TOTAL CHECK 5,598.18 148432 11111 10/11/23 1524 VILLALOBOS & ASSOCIATES 81161 ALLENDALE BRIDGE RPR 4,500.00 148433 11111 10/11/23 1815 WHITE CAP , LP 81121 WILDWOOD PK SPPL 1,616.39 148434 11111 10/11/23 696 ZAG TECHNICAL SERVICES, I 64315 SEP IT SUPPORT SVCS 4,100.00 TOTAL FUND 271,300.05 TOTAL REPORT 271,300.05 51 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 10/19/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:01:11 CHECK REGISTER - FUND TOTALS ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/24 FUND FUND TITLE AMOUNT 111 GENERAL FUND 812,489.55 233 SARAHILLS LIGHTING DIST 246.07 244 CUNNINGHAM/GLASGOW LND -27.84 251 MCCARTYSVILLE LANDSCAPE -55.07 252 PRIDES CROSSING LANDSCAPE -43.21 271 BEUACHAMPS L&L 2,481.47 272 BELLGROVE L&L 628.33 273 GATEWAY L&L 3,302.33 274 HORSESHOE DRIVE L&L -27.77 276 TOLLGATE L&L -20.62 292 PARAMOUNT COURT SWD 4,866.24 411 CIP STREET PROJECTS FUND 548.25 412 CIP PARKS PROJECT FUND .24 414 CIP ADMIN PROJECTS FUND 6,739.95 434 CIP GRANT - ADMINISTRATN 8,102.75 435 ARPA/SLFRF FUND 3,850.00 611 LIABILITY /RISK MGMT FUND 16,000.00 612 WORKERS COMP FUND 59.98 624 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 13,167.78 713 WVCWP AGENCY FUND 5,751.30 TOTAL REPORT 878,059.73 52 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 10/19/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:00:26 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/24 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 148435 11111 10/19/23 1600 ARTICULATE SOLUTIONS, INC 64313 WVCWP OUTREACH SPPL 391.50 148436 11111 10/19/23 357 BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 81148 DOCUMENTS SCAN SVCS 6,739.95 148437 11111 10/19/23 247 CA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVA 43476 23/24 Q1 COM SMIP FEE 152.77 148437 11111 10/19/23 247 CA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVA 43477 23/24 Q1 RES SMIP FEE 4,870.56 TOTAL CHECK 5,023.33 148438 11111 10/19/23 552 CA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 64161 SEP FINGERPRINT SVCS 64.00 148439 11111 10/19/23 692 CBSC 21932 Q1 FY23/24 CBSC FEES 660.07 148440 11111 10/19/23 188 CITY OF CAMPBELL 62235 Q2 FY23/24 WASTE MGMT 61,755.38 148441 11111 10/19/23 937 CITY OF SARATOGA 65134 WVCWP JUL-SEP STF SRV 3,477.75 148442 11111 10/19/23 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO23-0021 (S5125) 2,025.00 148442 11111 10/19/23 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO19-0023 (S5229) 1,282.50 148442 11111 10/19/23 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO23-0008 (S6093) 675.00 148442 11111 10/19/23 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCIA 22119 GEO23-0032 (S6193) 2,436.55 TOTAL CHECK 6,419.05 148443 11111 10/19/23 562 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 62146 FOOD PERMIT-COMM. CTR 1,079.00 148444 11111 10/19/23 562 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 62146 FOOD PERMIT-FRIENDSHP 635.00 148445 11111 10/19/23 1136 DIVISION OF THE STATE ARC 21931 JUL-SEP 23 SB1186 FEE 207.60 148446 11111 10/19/23 1655 EVANGELINE BUNDANG 66212 CALPERS CONF RMB 183.97 148446 11111 10/19/23 1655 EVANGELINE BUNDANG 66211 CALPERS CONF RMB 102.00 148446 11111 10/19/23 1655 EVANGELINE BUNDANG 66212 CALPERS CONF RMB 28.70 148446 11111 10/19/23 1655 EVANGELINE BUNDANG 66213 CALPERS CONF RMB 8.65 148446 11111 10/19/23 1655 EVANGELINE BUNDANG 66212 CALPERS CONF RMB 798.96 TOTAL CHECK 1,122.28 148447 11111 10/19/23 1655 EVANGELINE BUNDANG 61112 POSTAGE REIMB 18.95 148448 11111 10/19/23 1123 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY 81161 IRR CONTROL RPLC .24 148448 11111 10/19/23 1123 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY 64549 IRR CONTROL RPLC 1,574.44 148448 11111 10/19/23 1123 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY 64549 IRR CONTROL RPLC 2,480.87 148448 11111 10/19/23 1123 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY 64549 IRR CONTROL RPLC 3,291.80 148448 11111 10/19/23 1123 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY 64549 IRR CONTROL RPLC 3,302.33 TOTAL CHECK 10,649.68 148449 11111 10/19/23 1462 JANET COSTA 61192 WELLNESS GRANT REIMB 59.98 148450 11111 10/19/23 1816 KIRA O'SHELSKI 66212 WVCWP PRINT SVC RMB 123.73 148451 11111 10/19/23 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64341 SEP GIS SUPPORT 1,162.50 148451 11111 10/19/23 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64341 SEP GIS SUPPORT 1,162.50 TOTAL CHECK 2,325.00 148452 11111 10/19/23 1750 MARIO TOPETE TREE CARE, I 64544 COX AVE TREE MAINT 4,720.00 148453 11111 10/19/23 500 MARITZA ZGOMBA 22113 REF BD DEP ARB21-0123 55,000.00 148453 11111 10/19/23 500 MARITZA ZGOMBA 22111 REF DEP ARB21-0123 805.71 53 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2 DATE: 10/19/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:00:26 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/24 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 148453 11111 10/19/23 500 MARITZA ZGOMBA 22111 REF DEP GEO21-0042 917.74 TOTAL CHECK 56,723.45 148454 11111 10/19/23 1 OFF OF SHERIFF-FISCAL SVC 64811 OCT 2023 LAW ENFORCE 651,016.58 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 AZULE LIGHTING 265.26 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 BEAUCHAMPS .60 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 BELLGROVE CIRCLE 628.33 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 BUILDINGS 13,167.78 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 CITYWIDE STREETLIGHTS 989.99 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 CUNNINGHAM/GLASGOW -27.84 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 HORSESHOE DR LNDSCAP -27.77 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 MCCARTYSVILLE -55.07 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 825.28 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PRIDES CROSSING -43.21 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 QUITO LIGHTING 733.16 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 SARAHILLS LIGHTING 246.07 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 TOLLGATE -20.62 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 128.40 148455 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 VILLAGE LIGHTING 4,285.70 TOTAL CHECK 21,096.06 148456 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PUB LIB/LNDSCP LIGHTS 24.64 148457 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 CITYWIDE STREETLIGHTS 25.40 148458 11111 10/19/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 VILLAGE LIGHTING 517.03 148459 11111 10/19/23 1619 RICHARDSON CONSULTING 22119 ENV19-0005 12,350.00 148459 11111 10/19/23 1619 RICHARDSON CONSULTING 65411 SEP ADR PROJ REVIEWS 520.00 TOTAL CHECK 12,870.00 148460 11111 10/19/23 1338 ROBERT CHAVEZ FENCING 62418 CSP EMER FENCE RPR 16,000.00 148461 11111 10/19/23 1 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLERK- 62123 CNFRMD CPY/EASEMENT 5.00 148462 11111 10/19/23 248 STATE OF CA FRANCHISE TAX 21252 DED:2011 FTB W/H 50.00 148463 11111 10/19/23 1246 STATEWIDE TRAFFIC SAFETY 81161 PROSPECT GREEN PROJ 3,850.00 148464 11111 10/19/23 1287 TAPCO 81121 STREETS SUPPLIES 548.25 148465 11111 10/19/23 1707 URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS, 81141 AUG HOUSING ELEMENT 8,102.75 148466 11111 10/19/23 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66212 WVCWP CONFERENCE 287.80 148466 11111 10/19/23 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62171 WVCWP DMV REGISTER 198.00 148466 11111 10/19/23 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 62171 WVCWP DMV SVC FEES 4.16 148466 11111 10/19/23 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61171 WVCWP EQUIP/SOFTWARE 700.92 148466 11111 10/19/23 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66111 WVCWP MTG EXP - ZOOM 55.99 148466 11111 10/19/23 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 WVCWP OFFICE SUPPLIES 104.77 148466 11111 10/19/23 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61119 WVCWP OUTREACH SPPL 244.91 148466 11111 10/19/23 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 63211 WVCWP TELEPHONE 161.77 TOTAL CHECK 1,758.32 TOTAL FUND 878,059.73 54 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3 DATE: 10/19/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:00:26 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/24 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT TOTAL REPORT 878,059.73 55 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 1,2023 DEPARTMENT:Administrative Services PREPARED BY:Ann Xu, Interim Finance Manager/Accountant SUBJECT:Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended August 31, 2023 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended August 31, 2023. BACKGROUND: California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer submits to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. The Municipal Code of the City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035 designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer. This report is prepared to fulfill this requirement. The following attachments provide various financial transaction data for the City of Saratoga’s Funds collectively as well as specifically for the City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an attachment from the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977 to the present FISCAL STATEMENT: Cash and Investments Balance by Fund As of August 31, 2023, the City’s unaudited cash and investments totaled $39,665,994. The City Council’s adopted policy on the Working Capital Reserve Fund states that effective July 1, 2016: for cash flow purposes and to avoid the occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be allowed to fall below $1,000,000. The total pooled cash balance of $39.7 million exceeds the minimum amount required. Comerica Bank 455,085$ Deposit with LAIF 39,210,909$ Total Cash 39,665,994$ Cash Summary 56 City’s Current Financial Position In accordance with California government code section 53646 (b) (3), the City is financially well positioned and able to meet its estimated expenditure requirements for the next six months. As of August 31, 2023, the City’s financial position (Assets $39.2M, Liabilities $5.1M, and Fund Equity $34.1M) remains very strong and there are no issues in meeting financial obligations now or in the foreseeable future. The following Fund Balance schedule represents actual funding available for all funds at the end of the monthly period. This amount differs from the above Cash Summary schedule as assets and liabilities are components of the fund balance. As illustrated in the summary below, Total Cash is adjusted by the addition of Total Assets less the amount of Total Liabilities to arrive at the Ending Fund Balance –which represents the actual amount of funds available. ATTACHMENTS: Table 1 – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund Table 2 – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project Chart 1 – Change in Investment Pool Balance by Month Chart 2 – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates "+ Total Cash 39,665,994$ Plus: Assets (459,802) Less: Liabilities (5,059,848) Ending Fund Balance 34,146,344$ Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance 57 TABLE 1: CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE *Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues Fund Description Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/2023 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 8/31/2023 General Fund Committed Fund Balances: Hillside Stability Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Assigned Fund Balances: Future Capital Replacement & Efficiency Project Reserve 3,509,000 - - - - - 3,509,000 Carryforwards Reserve 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 Facility Reserve 3,700,000 - - - - - 3,700,000 Unassigned Fund Balances: Working Capital Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Fiscal Stabilization Reserve 3,150,000 - - - - - 3,150,000 Compensated Absences Reserve 330,000 - - - - - 330,000 Other Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve (Pre YE distribution)2,359,789 (725,735) 824,813 (1,271,867) - (3,289,000) (2,102,001) * General Fund Total 15,148,789 (725,735) 824,813 (1,271,867) - (3,289,000) 10,686,999 Special Revenue Landscape/Lighting Districts 1,001,132 (8,802) 24 (28,228) - - 964,126 ARPA Federal Grants 6,473,435 - - - - - 6,473,435 2023 Storm Fund 200,884 - - - - - 200,884 Special Revenue Fund Total 7,675,451 (8,802) 24 (28,228) - - 7,638,445 Debt Service Library Bond 910,655 (733,293) 1,045 (750) - - 177,658 Arrowhead Bond 190,128 - - (69,473) - - 120,655 Debt Service Fund Total 1,100,783 (733,293) 1,045 (70,223) - - 298,313 Internal Service Fund Liability/Risk Management 643,207 (974,508) - (8,116) - - (339,416) * W orkers Compensation 224,868 (2,203) - (67,387) - - 155,278 Office Support Fund 162,213 (119) 1,072 (4,918) - - 158,247 Information Technology Services 710,691 (38,328) 1,229 (43,468) - - 630,124 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 268,387 (6,499) - (20,806) - - 241,082 Building Maintenance 692,401 (34,615) - (86,670) - - 571,116 Vehicle & Equipment Replacement 754,983 - - - - - 754,983 Technology Replacement 908,565 - - - - - 908,565 Facility FFE Replacement 855,962 - - - - - 855,962 Internal Service Fund Total 5,221,277 (1,056,272) 2,301 (231,365) - - 3,935,941 Trust/Agency WVCWP Agency Fund 653,923 (28,764) - (44,261) - - 580,898 Trust/Agency Fund Total 653,923 (28,764) - (44,261) - - 580,898 Capital Project Street Projects 3,660,101 (5,460) 41,973 (149,923) 2,846,395 (57,395) 6,335,691 Park and Trail Projects 836,826 - - - 375,000 - 1,211,826 Facility Projects 492,336 3,573 - - - - 495,909 Administrative Projects 1,334,960 22,203 42,091 (5,247) 125,000 - 1,519,008 Tree Fund Projects 53,141 10,670 1,500 - - - 65,311 Park In-Lieu Projects 1,048,701 291,087 64,686 - - - 1,404,474 CIP Grant Street Projects (81,233) - - - - - (81,233) * CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects 90,000 - - - - - 90,000 CIP Grant Administrative Projects (186,987) - - (9,469) - - (196,455) * CIP Grant ARPR/SLFRF Projects - - - (3,905) - - (3,905) * Gas Tax Fund Projects (51,189) - 216,312 - - - 165,123 CIP Fund Total 7,196,656 322,073 366,562 (168,544) 3,346,395 (57,395) 11,005,748 Total City 36,996,879 (2,230,792) 1,194,745 (1,814,488) 3,346,395 (3,346,395)34,146,344 58 TABLE 2: FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT *Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues CIP Funds/Projects Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/2023** Increase/ (Decrease) Jul Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 8/31/2023 Street Projects Annual Road Improvements 853,356 - 41,973 (29,426) 1,337,000 (57,395) 2,145,509 Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming 212,585 - - (83,000) 150,000 - 279,585 Citywide Traffic Signal Battery Backup 271,991 - - - - - 271,991 Portable Radar Feedback Sign 1,548 - - - - - 1,548 Local Roadway Safety Plan 3,047 - - - - - 3,047 Traffic Signal Controller Upgrades 80,000 - - - - - 80,000 Safe Routes to School Implementation - - - - 160,000 - 160,000 Citywide Bikeways and Sidewalk Master Plan - - - - 57,395 - 57,395 Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement 309,379 - - - - - 309,379 Village Clock 2,560 - - - - - 2,560 Big Basin Way/Blaney Trash Can Replacement 2,133 - - - - - 2,133 Annual Infrastructure Maintenance & Repairs 72,915 - - (36,740) 250,000 - 286,175 Guava Court Curb & Gutter Replacement 252,514 - - - - - 252,514 Annual Corrugated Pipe Rehabilitation Project - - - - 300,000 - 300,000 El Camino Grande Storm Drain Pump 104 - - - - - 104 Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation 31,724 - - - - - 31,724 Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements 43,370 - - - - - 43,370 Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road Sidewalk 92,158 - - - - - 92,158 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Pathway Rehab Cox to RRX 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Quito Road Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Gap Closure 182,609 - - - - - 182,609 Quito Road Sidewalk Rehabilitation Gap Closure Phase 2 300,000 - - - - - 300,000 Fourth Street Bridge Widening 95,813 - - - 42,000 - 137,813 Quito Road Bridge Replacement 127,478 - - - - - 127,478 Quito Road Bridge - ROW Acquisition 3,662 - - - - - 3,662 Bridge Rehabilitation Project Phase 1 350,000 - - - 350,000 - 700,000 Annual Retaining Wall Maintenance & Repairs 332,401 (5,460) - (758) 200,000 - 526,184 Mt. Eden Erosion Repair 45,344 - - - - - 45,344 Continental Circle Landslide Stabilization 57,447 - - - - - 57,447 Pierce Road Retainment 36,881 - - - - - 36,881 Mt. Eden Emergency Landslide 20,080 - - - - - 20,080 Unallocated Street Funds (171,000) - - - - - (171,000) Total Street Projects 3,660,101 (5,460) 41,973 (149,923) 2,846,395 (57,395) 6,335,691 Parks & Trails Projects Park/Trail Repairs 150,756 - - - 250,000 - 400,756 Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements (12,010) - - - 25,000 - 12,990 Hakone Pond Reconstruction 300,000 - - - - - 300,000 Beauchamps Park Playground Replacement (3,945) - - - - - (3,945) * Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance 87,035 - - - - - 87,035 Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 228,989 - - - - - 228,989 Park and Trail Fire Mitigation - - - - 100,000 - 100,000 Unallocated Park Funds 86,000 - - - - - 86,000 Total Parks & Trails Projects 836,826 - - - 375,000 - 1,211,826 Facility Projects Open Work Space 78,100 - - - - - 78,100 Civic Theater Improvements 27,240 3,573 - - - - 30,812 PEG Funded Project 189,312 - - - - - 189,312 Community Center Improvement 19,484 - - - - - 19,484 Community Center Generator and EV Charging Stations 163,201 - - - - - 163,201 Library Building Exterior Maintenance 15,000 - - - - - 15,000 Total Facility Projects 492,336 3,573 - - - - 495,909 Administrative and Technology Projects Safe Routes to School 158,755 - - - - - 158,755 City Website/Intranet 16,948 - - - - - 16,948 Development Technology (27,042) 68 44 - - - (26,931) * Software Technology Management 194,403 6,989 8,875 - - - 210,267 LLD Initiation Match Program (7,344) - - - - - (7,344) * Horseshoe Beautification 8,237 - - - - - 8,237 Business Renewal Program 5,798 - - - - - 5,798 Citywide Accessibility Assessment 26,116 - - - 100,000 - 126,116 City Art Program 78,669 - - - 25,000 - 103,669 Safe Routes to School Needs Assessment 15,748 - - - - - 15,748 El Quito Neighborhood Improvements 284,507 - - - - - 284,507 Parking District ADA Improvements and Rehabilitation 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 Storm Drain Master Plan 300,000 - - - - - 300,000 ADA Self Assessment 320,250 - - - - - 320,250 General Plan Update 234,195 15,147 33,172 (5,247) - - 277,267 Wildfire Mitigation Program 4,067 - - - - - 4,067 Risk Management Project Funding 54,153 - - - - - 54,153 Unallocated Administrative Funds (582,500) - - - - - (582,500) Total Administrative and Technology Projects 1,334,960 22,203 42,091 (5,247) 125,000 - 1,519,008 59 TABLE 2 (cont.): FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT *Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues CIP Funds/Projects Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/2023** Increase/ (Decrease) Jul Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 8/31/2023 Tree Fund Projects Citywide Tree Planting Program 27,266 10,670 1,500 - - - 39,436 Tree Dedication Program 25,875 - - - - - 25,875 Total Tree Fund Projects 53,141 10,670 1,500 - - - 65,311 Park In-Lieu Projects Orchard Irrigation & Tree Planting 3,237 - - - - - 3,237 Hakone Gardens Infrastructure 82,011 - - - - - 82,011 Hakone Gardens Neighbor Wood Fence Replacement 75,000 - - - - - 75,000 Quarry Park Maintenance Building Utility Project 35,000 - - - - - 35,000 EL Quito Park Pickleball 1,515 - - - - - 1,515 Joe's Trail Phase II 130,755 - - - - - 130,755 Joe's Trail Phase III 264,000 - - - - - 264,000 Trail Pet Stations 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 223,810 - - - - - 223,810 Village Oaks Bridge Reconstruction and Erosion Control 30,000 - - - - - 30,000 Hakone Gardens to Quarry Park Trail Gap Closure Phase 1 50,000 - - - - - 50,000 Park and Trail Fire Mitigation 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 Unallocated Park In-Lieu Funds 28,372 291,087 64,686 - - - 384,145 Total Park In-Lieu Projects 1,048,701 291,087 64,686 - - - 1,404,474 CIP Grant Street Projects Local Roadway Safety Plan (4,882) - - - - - (4,882) * Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement (19,217) - - - - - (19,217) * Citywide Signal Upgrade II 18 - - - - - 18 Saratoga Ave Sidewalk (34,146) - - - - - (34,146) * Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - Phase II Construction (91) - - - - - (91) * Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation (834) - - - - - (834) * 4th Street Bridge (31,057) - - - - - (31,057) * Quito Bridge Replacement 18,597 - - - - - 18,597 Quito Road Bridges - ROW Acquisition (9,619) - - - - - (9,619) * Total CIP Grant Street Projects (81,233) - - - - - (81,233) CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects Park and Trail Fire Mitigation 90,000 - - - - - 90,000 Total CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects 90,000 - - - - - 90,000 CIP Grant Administrative Projects CDD Software/ADA 39,736 - - - - - 39,736 General Plan Update (LEAP)(226,723) - - (9,469) - - (236,191) * Total CIP Grant Administrative Projects (186,987) - - (9,469) - - (196,455) CIP Grant ARPA/SLFRF Projects Park Sewer Lateral Replacement - - - (2,015) - - (2,015) Prospect Road Green Infrastructure - - (1,890) - - (1,890) Total CIP Grant ARPA/SLFRF Projects - - - (3,905) - - (3,905) Gas Tax Fund Projects Annual Roadway Improvements (104,750) - 216,312 - - - 111,562 Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvements 48,278 - - - - - 48,278 Big Basin Way Sidewalk Repairs (1,802) - - - - - (1,802) * Quito Road Bridges 7,085 - - - - - 7,085 Total Gas Tax Fund Projects (51,189) - 216,312 - - - 165,123 Total CIP Funds 7,196,656 322,073 366,562 (168,544) 3,346,395 (57,395) 11,005,748 60 CHART 1: CHANGE IN INVESTMENT POOL BALANCE BY MONTH 61 CHART 2 March June September December 1977 5.68 5.78 5.84 6.45 1978 6.97 7.35 7.86 8.32 1979 8.81 9.10 9.26 10.06 1980 11.11 11.54 10.01 10.47 1981 11.23 11.68 12.40 11.91 1982 11.82 11.99 11.74 10.71 1983 9.87 9.64 10.04 10.18 1984 10.32 10.88 11.53 11.41 1985 10.32 9.98 9.54 9.43 1986 9.09 8.39 7.81 7.48 1987 7.24 7.21 7.54 7.97 1988 8.01 7.87 8.20 8.45 1989 8.76 9.13 8.87 8.68 1990 8.52 8.50 8.39 8.27 1991 7.97 7.38 7.00 6.52 1992 5.87 5.45 4.97 4.67 1993 4.64 4.51 4.44 4.36 1994 4.25 4.45 4.96 5.37 1995 5.76 5.98 5.89 5.76 1996 5.62 5.52 5.57 5.58 1997 5.56 5.63 5.68 5.71 1998 5.70 5.66 5.64 5.46 1999 5.19 5.08 5.21 5.49 2000 5.80 6.18 6.47 6.52 2001 6.16 5.32 4.47 3.52 2002 2.96 2.75 2.63 2.31 2003 1.98 1.77 1.63 1.56 2004 1.47 1.44 1.67 2.00 2005 2.38 2.85 3.18 3.63 2006 4.03 4.53 4.93 5.11 2007 5.17 5.23 5.24 4.96 2008 4.18 3.11 2.77 2.54 2009 1.91 1.51 0.90 0.60 2010 0.56 0.56 0.51 0.46 2011 0.51 0.48 0.38 0.38 2012 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.32 2013 0.28 0.24 0.26 0.26 2014 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.25 2015 0.26 0.28 0.32 0.37 2016 0.46 0.55 0.60 0.68 2017 0.78 0.92 1.07 1.20 2018 1.51 1.90 2.16 2.40 2019 2.55 2.57 2.45 2.29 2020 2.03 1.36 0.84 0.63 2021 0.44 0.33 0.24 0.23 2022 0.32 0.75 1.35 2.07 2023 2.74 3.15 Quarterly Apportionment Rates Local Agency Investment Fund 62 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 1, 2023 DEPARTMENT:Public Works PREPARED BY:Emma Burkhalter, Associate Engineer SUBJECT:Appeal –TSC Approval of Mendelsohn Lane Speed Tables RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Conduct a public hearing and de novo review of the appeal and adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal and approving the Traffic Safety Commission’s September 14 decision to install two speed tables on Mendelsohn Lane. BACKGROUND: On September 14, 2023, the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) approved the construction of two speed tables on Mendelsohn Lane at locations indicated by the traffic engineer (Attachment C). This decision followed a lengthy public process, detailed in Attachment D,that began in 2017 with the TSC’s consideration of a request from Ilaria Keogh for speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane (Attachment E). Each request that is brought forward to the TSC for consideration is identified with a Traffic Matrix (TM) number. Ilaria Keogh’s request is TM 392. The City subsequently received notice from the Santa Clara County Fire Department (County Fire) and the Saratoga Fire District requesting that all approved speed hump or speed table plans be approved by County Fire prior to installation. The traffic engineer made the required striping and table height changes to the proposed speed table plan and County Fire approved the plans on October 25, 2023 (Attachment L). The resulting plans are included as Attachment C. On September 26, 2023, Tom Lerone submitted an appeal to the City Council to overturn the TSC’s September 14th decision. APPEAL: The appeal application (Attachment A)lists l2 reasons as to why the Appellant believes the City Council should overturn the TSC’s decision and not approve speed tables on Mendelsohn Lane. These points are summarized below with each issue followed by staff explanation: 1.This should not be a City-led process. 63 As background, beginning in 2021 the TSC developed a new system for consideration of speed humps, which includes a Resident-Led process and a City-Led process. The Resident-Led process is for streets where the 85th percentile speed is found to be greater than 5 and less than 10 MPH above the posted speed limit. When setting this range, the TSC had decided, based on the traffic engineer’s recommendation, that speeds in this range constituted a “quality of life” concern, rather than an objective safety concern, and that it was reasonable to leave the decision up to the residents of that street as to whether or not they wanted speed humps. Once 85 th percentile speeds exceed 10 MPH over the posted speed limit, the concern becomes a safety issue, and the TSC shifts focus from considering the impacts to residents of installing speed humps/tables, and instead begins looking at what happens if they do not install speed humps/tables (or another form of speed control). As a result, residents are not surveyed or given the option to “veto” the installation of humps/tables, but they are given an opportunity to provide comments and request specific accommodations (such as request to look into alternative locations for one or more proposed speed humps). While this process is called “City-Led”, the TSC is still in control of where or if to install speed humps/tables. The TSC-approved process is included as Attachment G. The City’s speed survey found that the 85th percentile speeds measured over six months after the installation of the incremental approach (striping) were 38.4 MPH in the northbound direction and 34.2 MPH in the southbound direction at a point just south of Rancho Bella Vista, and 36.1 MPH in the westbound direction and 32.8 MPH in the eastbound direction at a point just east of Piedmont Road, with both locations measured having vehicles traveling in at least one direction with a speed that exceeds the posted speed limit by over 10 MPH. This is illustrated on page 7 of Attachment I. Accordingly, these speeds met the criteria for making this a “City-Led” process and it was processed as such. The appeal states that the speed survey results should be averaged, however this approach is not consistent with traffic engineering standards and practices. 2. There is no safety need for speed humps on Mendelsohn. The appeal states that the absence of collisions on Mendelsohn indicates that speed humps are not necessary. The TSC, staff, and traffic engineers consider speeding to be a safety concern. It would not be advisable from a traffic safety or engineering perspective to disregard evidence of speeding because no collisions have yet occurred. 3. Speed impediments would slow response times for emergency vehicles and resident egress in emergency situations. County Fire has provided criteria for speed hump and speed table design that address this issue. The final plan, which County Fire approved on October 25, 2023, is in conformance with those standards. See Attachments C and L for the plans and County Fire approval respectively. 4. Speed humps would negatively affect the neighborhood. The TSC was made aware of the concerns about altering the character of the neighborhood and requested that the traffic engineer provide an alternative to speed tables that would also help to decrease speeds while having less impact on the residents. The alternative that was provided was “chokers”, which would consist of a raised median and two bulb-outs, one on each side of the street, for a short distance. These chokers provide a physical barrier which constricts the width of each lane, forcing vehicles to slow down. However, the TSC received no comments indicating any 64 residents were in favor of chokers over speed tables, and since chokers are not as effective at speed reduction as speed tables, staff and the traffic engineer continued to recommend speed tables. 5. The TSC did not consider the 2020 Speed Survey or the City of Saratoga Speed Hump Prioritization Process. Speed Surveys must be conducted every 5-7 years and are used to set speed limits. Residential roads have a 25 MPH speed limit by default and are therefore outside the scope of Speed Surveys. Mendelsohn Lane is a residential street and so was not considered in the Speed Survey. The Speed Hump Prioritization Process is a draft process that staff has prepared for consideration in the event that so many speed humps/tables are approved by the TSC that some would have to be delayed until funding was available. Mendelsohn Lane’s ranking on the Prioritization Process was never calculated, both because the draft process has not been approved by the TSC and because no TSC projects are competing with TM 392 for funding. 6. The TSC stated that they made essentially all of their decisions based only on the speed measurements. The TSC was asked to provide a solution to the speeding on Mendelsohn Lane. Speed measurements are a crucial part of providing that solution. The TSC applied the factors considered for all speed hump decisions in Saratoga. 7. Measurements and calculations used by the TSC appear to be done incorrectly. The TSC was asked to provide a solution to the speeding on Mendelsohn Lane. If the speeds were not taken at the “worst” (highest speed) locations, staff would not have adequately addressed the safety concern. The TSC used only the highest measurements because the fact that vehicles are traveling slower elsewhere on the street does not affect the safety hazard created by those traveling at the highest speeds. 8. The TSC seems to be ignoring substantial resident opposition in pursuit of pushing through a speed hump proposal. The TSC directed staff to solicit additional feedback from both the Area of Influence and Rancho Bella Vista. The TSC agenda packet included all comments received on this topic. There was no direction to include a survey, nor is a survey part of the City-Led process. 9. Feedback provided for the September 14 meeting was again not adequately considered by the TSC. 10. The TSC approved speed humps at the September 14 th meeting despite overwhelming opposition by affected residents and the many issues raised in feedback letters. The TSC received, reviewed, and encouraged the submittal of written comments. They also heard all verbal comments made at their meetings. The September 14 meeting was held as a hybrid meeting, which allowed residents who could not attend in person to attend virtually. All residents who attend public meetings are permitted to speak on any item. Draft minutes of the TSC meeting are included as Attachment J. 11. Concerns about the integrity of the process because of possible side conversations. 65 The TSC met twice between their regular meetings on May 11, 2023, and September 14, 2023. The first meeting was a regular meeting on July 13, 2023, and the second was a special meeting on August 22, 2023. Each meeting was properly noticed in accordance with the Brown Act. The August 22 meeting’s primary purpose was to come up with ways to reduce the TSC’s workload, which was identified as an issue during the Council/Commission joint meetings in March 2023. The only other item on the agenda was an opportunity for the current Commissioners (none of whom had served much longer than a year at that point) to learn more about the TSC’s established processes and procedures. This item was also meant to address a concern brought up at the July 13 meeting about the Commissioners’ lack of familiarity with TSC procedures. Mendelsohn Lane was not a topic of discussion at either meeting. 12. Speed humps would not be a good investment of city funds. The TSC had directed staff to collect resident feedback on the aforementioned chokers as a potential alternative to speed tables. None of the resident feedback indicated a preference for chokers over speed tables, so it was not discussed further. Based on recent speed table installations in Saratoga, staff estimates installing these two speed tables should cost roughly $35,000 to $40,000. The Appellant also lists residents who submitted written opposition to speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane. These comments can be found in Attachments H and I. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the installation of speed tables on Mendelsohn Lane per the approved plans (Attachment C), in addition to adopting the attached resolution which denies the appeal. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: All notice requirements for the appeal have been satisfied. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to property owners and residents and the hearing was advertised in the Saratoga News. ATTACHMENT(S): Attachment A – Appeal Application Attachment B – Resolution of the City Council to Deny the Appeal Attachment C – Final Speed Table Plan for Mendelsohn Lane Attachment D – Traffic Matrix 392 Background Attachment E – TM 392 Request for Speed Humps on Mendelsohn Lane Attachment F – 2020 Mendelsohn Lane Signage and Striping Plan Attachment G – Speed Hump Process Attachment H – April 2023 Notice to Residents, Responses, and Comments Attachment I – August 2023 Notice to Residents, Responses, and Comments Attachment J – TSC Draft Minutes – September 14, 2023 Attachment K – Comments Received in Response to Appeal Attachment L – County Fire Approval of Mendelsohn Lane Speed Table Plans 1706490.1 66 67 68 69 70 71 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION’S DECISION TO INSTALL SPEED TABLES ON MENDELSOHN LANE WHEREAS, on March 24, 2017, Ilaria Keogh submitted a request to the Traffic Safety Commission to address dangerous speeding on Mendelsohn Lane with a specific request for the installation of speed bumps referenced as Traffic Matrix #392; and WHEREAS, the resulting process included, implementation of a traffic calming plan as an alternative to speed tables, speed surveys, and numerous e-mails from affected residents, all as described in the Staff Report accompanying this resolution; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2023, the Traffic Safety Commission approved two speed tables for installation on Mendelsohn Lane; and WHEREAS, on September 26, 2023, an appeal to the City Council was filed by Tom Lerone (“Appellant”); and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2023, following a duly noticed public hearing where the City Council conducted a de novo review of the appeal, at which all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, the City Council considered the application, speed data, traffic engineer recommendation, public comments, and other materials, exhibits, and evidence presented by City staff, the appellant, the applicant, and other interested parties. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby denies the appeal, affirms the decision of the Traffic Safety Commission of the City of Saratoga on September 14, 2023, and approves the installation of two speed tables on Mendelsohn Lane and further finds, determines and resolves as follows: The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 1st day of November 2023 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor ATTEST: 72 Resolution No. XX Page 2 Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk 1706483.1 73 Bonnie Brae WayINSTALL HUMP MARKINGS AT LEAST 50 FT INADVANCE OF SPEED HUMPMendelsohn LnHUMPHUMPW84(CA)W17-1W13-1P (15 MPH)W17-1W13-1P (15 MPH)PLACE IN FRONT OF THE TREEON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OFDRIVEWAYMendelsohn LnPiedm o n t Rd INSTALL HUMP MARKINGS AT LEAST 50 FT INADVANCE OF SPEED HUMPHUMPHUMP W84(CA)W17-1W13-1P (15 MPH)Mendelsohn LnBonnie Brae WayRancho Bella VistaPiedm o n t Rd Mendelsohn LnHUMPHUMPHUMPHUMPMendelsohn LaneTraffic Calming PlanCity of SaratogaFigure 1CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLYLEGENDPROPOSED SPEED HUMPN.T.S.W84(CA)W17-1PROPOSED SIGNW13-1P (15 MPH)74 Mendelsohn LaneTraffic Calming PlanCity of SaratogaFigure 2CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLYSPEED TABLE DETAILCENTER OF ROADWAYCENTER OF TRAVEL LANE12" WHITE12"6 FT1.6 FT3 INPLAN VIEWSECTION B-B3 FT(MAX)7 FT7 FTSECTION A-ABBAA 1.6 FT10 FTPARABOLICFLAT3 IN75 Attachment D – Traffic Matrix 392 Background On May 11, 2017, the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) heard a request for speed bumps from Ilaria Keogh as Traffic Matrix #392 (TM 392). Ms. Keogh’s email requesting to be heard at the TSC meeting is Attachment E to the staff report. While speed bumps are not suitable for public roads, speed humps (wider than bumps with a rounded top) or speed tables (flat top) are viable options for speed control on roads with speed limits of 25 or 30 MPH. (This request had been heard by the TSC in 2013 by a different resident, and at the time, City staff worked with the neighbors but ultimately there was no consensus among the neighbors about where the speed humps should be installed, so the City did not move forward with the project.) At the May 11, 2017 meeting, the TSC directed staff to refresh striping on Mendelsohn Lane, and to revisit placing speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane. In 2018, Mendelsohn Lane residents submitted a petition showing support by most Mendelsohn Lane residents to install speed tables. City staff communicated to Mendelsohn Lane residents to inform them of the installation plans. When some residents responded that they were opposed to the speed tables, this item was brought back to the TSC in September 2019. On September 12, 2019, the TSC again reviewed the request and the feedback from residents and directed staff to prepare a traffic calming plan, that did not include speed humps or tables, and send it to the neighborhood for comment. On March 12, 2020, the TSC approved the striping and signage plan (Attachment F to the staff report) prepared by the City’s traffic engineering consultant, Fehr and Peers (traffic engineer). The striping was installed in late 2020, but due to a miscommunication with the contractor, the signs were not installed at that time. On July 8, 2021, the TSC was asked to review this request again, and, after being informed by staff that the signage was still outstanding, directed staff to wait until the signage had been installed, and then collect speeds and bring this item back to a future TSC meeting. On September 9, 2021, the TSC approved a speed hump process (Attachment G to the staff report). When the signage was finally installed in November of 2021, City staff planned to wait to measure the new speeds until after six months had passed, as per the newly approved speed hump process. On December 1, 2022, based on speed data collected in November 2022, the TSC moved to enter the “City-Led” leg of the speed hump process, with the 2020/2021-installed striping being considered the “incremental approach” recommended in step C1. City staff moved forward with step C4, “City drafts speed hump plan and Area of Influence” and brought these items to the March 2023 meeting. On March 22, 2023, the TSC approved the draft plan and Area of Influence (step C5), and staff sent out the plan to the Area of Influence residents for informational purposes in late March 2023. This notice, resident responses, and comments received from other residents is included as Attachment H to the staff report. On May 11, 2023, the TSC heard feedback from residents requesting that Rancho Bella Vista, a cul-de-sac off of Mendelsohn Lane, north of the two proposed speed humps, should be given the opportunity to vote on the speed humps. Since there are no surveys or voting in the City-Led process, the TSC directed staff to send out another round of notices to get feedback from both the 76 Area of Influence and Rancho Bella Vista. This letter was sent out at the beginning of August 2023, and included notice of the upcoming September 14, 2023 meeting. The letter, responses, and additional comments received are included as Attachment I to the staff report. 77 From:M. Leah Cabute To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:FW: Traffic Safety Question or Concern - Speeding on Mendelsohn Date:Tuesday, October 3, 2023 12:12:30 PM -----Original Message----- From: Ilaria Keogh Sent: Sunday, April 9, 2017 6:40 AM To: Tim Harris <tharris@saratoga.ca.us>; Ray Cosyn <rcosyn@saratoga.ca.us>; Jonathan Choi <jchoi@saratoga.ca.us>; Mitch Kane <mkane@saratoga.ca.us>; Christopher Coulter <ccoulter@saratoga.ca.us>; David McIntyre <dmcintyre@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: Mainini Cabute <mcabute@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Re: Traffic Safety Question or Concern - Speeding on Mendelsohn Dear Traffic Commission, I sent the email below to all of you over 2 weeks ago, but not one person has bothered to send me a response. Is there someone else I need to contact about traffic issues in Saratoga? Thanks, Ilaria > On Mar 24, 2017, at 2:52 PM, Ilaria Keogh wrote: > > Dear Traffic Commission, > > I am a Saratoga resident and reside at > Our street has a posted speed limit of 25, however, it is not respected. Cars regularly go TWICE as fast. It is extremely dangerous as Mendelsohn is quite curvy and a driver has no way of knowing who will be around the bend…children, walkers, hikers (we are in the Montalvo area), pets….Just yesterday I almost got run over as I was raking my front yard by the sidewalk (my house is right at the bend). > I have 3 children and I do not allow them to walk anywhere because of the speeding cars - this is a residential street and it shouldn’t be an issue! > > I am writing to find out what I need to do to request that speed bumps be installed on our street, as they are all over Saratoga, including Three Oaks Way, a continuation of Mendelsohn... > One of my neighbors said that a few years ago they got a notice that speed bumps would be installed, but then nothing happened...We cannot wait until someone gets hurt or killed! > > How do we, as residents, request speed bumps? > > Thanks for your attention, > > Ilaria Keogh > > > 78 Mendelsohn LnBonnie BraeWayRancho Bella VistaPiedm o n t Rd Bonnie BraeLane 13'12'50'TAPER12' 13'50'TAPER60'60'12' 12' 12' 12'Mendelsohn LaneTraffic Calming PlanCity of SaratogaFigure 1CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLYR1-1"AT LINE"W1-6(R)W1-6(L)InstallWhite Reflector(Type G)InstallYellow Reflector(Type D)LEGENDWhite Flexible Delineator PostWhite Reflector (Type G)Yellow Reflector (Type D)79 March 2023 Speeding concern raised by Resident or City Traffic Engineer collects volume & speed data Traffic Engineer presents data and possible traffic calming measures at TSC meeting TSC recommends entering Speed Hump Process Are 85th percentile speeds at least 10mph above posted speed limit?* Possible incremental approach per TSC Data collected after 6 months Did speeds decrease to less than 5 mph above posted speed limit?* No further action Do residents want Resident-Led Speed Hump TSC may implement alternate traffic calming measure or no further action City drafts speed hump plan and Area of Influence TSC approves plan and Area of Influence City sends out survey to TSC/City-determined Area of Influence Does speed hump have 80% approval, including 100% from bump- adjacent properties? TSC may implement alternate traffic calming measure or no further action Does TSC recommend incremental approach? Data collected after 6 months Did speeds decrease to less than 10 mph above posted speed limit? City drafts speed hump plan and Area of Influence TSC approves plan and Area of Influence City sends plan to TSC/City- determined Area of Influence for informational purposes Do any Area of Influence residents have concerns? TSC hears concerns at next meeting Does TSC recommend moving forward with speed hump? Speed hump approved for construction pending funding TSC may implement alternate traffic calming measure or no further action Speed hump approved for construction pending funding TSC recommends alternate traffic calming measure or no further action *Lower speed threshold applies to roadways segments within 500 feet of schools and on roadways without sidewalks near pedestrian generators (parks, senior center, the Village, etc.). Resident-Led Speed Hump Process Residential Speed Hump Process Applicable to Local and Collector Streets with Posted Speed Limits of 30 MPH or Less* I II III IV No V Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 VI Yes No Speed hump approved for construction pending funding VI C1 City-Led Speed Hump Process Process VI APPROVED BY TSC ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 Yes No 80 Speed Hump Process Index TSC: Traffic Safety Commission. 85th Percentile Speed: the speed at or below which 85 percent of all vehicles are observed to travel past a monitored point. Incremental Approach: a preliminary traffic calming measure with minimal impact to nearby properties (e.g. striping). Area of Influence: the set of addresses identified as being directly affected (influenced) by the proposed installation of speed hump(s), required signage, and any other proposed traffic calming. Bump-Adjacent Properties: any property where the proposed speed hump touches a portion of the property’s boundary. Appeal Process: informal process for residents in the Area of Influence to voice objections to the proposed speed hump plan at a designated TSC meeting. Requests to appeal the proposed speed hump plan may also be submitted in writing a minimum of one week in advance of the designated TSC meeting. 81 Incorporated October 22, 1956 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Belal Aftab Kookie Fitzsimmons Chuck Page Tina Walia Yan Zhao Dear Resident, The City of Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission was asked to review a traffic safety concern on Mendelsohn Lane and provide a solution for the speeding that was occurring. Based on the traffic engineer’s findings that the prevailing speeds on Mendelsohn Lane were upwards of 36 MPH, the Commission recommended the installation of two speed humps. You are receiving this letter because you are within the determined Area of Influence for these speed humps. The attached map shows the two speed humps that are proposed, along with any pavement markings, striping, and/or signage that will be installed concurrently. Per the Commission’s Speed Hump Process, City staff would like to invite you to share any concerns you may have about this proposed plan, in writing, on or before Thursday, April 20, 2023. The Traffic Safety Commission will perform a final review of the proposed plans at their next regular meeting on Thursday, May 11, 2023, at 6:30 PM. Due to the extent of the speeding on Mendelsohn Lane, only input from residents within the Area of Influence is being considered at this time. A map of the approved Area of Influence is also attached to this letter. Written concerns may be emailed to eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us, delivered in person to City Hall, or mailed to: Traffic Safety Commission Attn: Emma Burkhalter 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 by April 20, 2023. Written concerns must include your name(s), street address, mailing address (if different), and contact information. All other comments, including comments of support, may be submitted via the methods above and/or given verbally at the May 11th meeting. If you have any questions about the survey or the Commission, please contact Traffic Safety Commission Liaison, Emma Burkhalter, at (408) 868-1274 or by email at eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us. More information about the Commission can be found at www.saratoga.ca.us/tsc. Sincerely, Public Works Department City of Saratoga 82 83 84 85 From:Christine Rutti To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Traffic concern on Mendelsohn Date:Monday, March 27, 2023 10:30:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms. Burkhalter, Our family has lived at since 1988. We raised 3 children here. At no time in the past 33 years have we had an issue regarding the traffic. Occasionally a car exceeds the speed limit but it is infrequent enough to be of no concern. This is a non issue and installing speed bumps doesn't accomplish a thing except denigrating the neighborhood and wasting taxpayer money. We do not need speed bumps on Mendelsohn. Thank you, Peter & Christine Rutti 86 87 88 From:Tom Lerone To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Speed humps on Mendelsohn Date:Wednesday, April 12, 2023 10:03:47 AM Attachments:TSC meeting notes 91219.pdf RBV Speed bump responses 21413.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Emma, This is in follow up to your letter regarding proposed speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane. We are strongly opposed to the proposal. A similar proposal has come up three times: in 2013, 2017 and 2019 and was rejected each time. The attached notes were read at the Traffic Safety Commission meeting on September 12, 2019 and the first page discusses the reasons we do not believe physical speed barriers on Mendelsohn are needed or desirable. All of the issues raised still apply so we were extremely surprised and upset to see the issue of speed barriers being proposed for the fourth time. One issue raised in the notes and closing paragraph was safety concerns related to the sharp turn where Mendelsohn changes direction. An action item coming from the meeting was to develop an alternative traffic calming plan to address that area. In November 2020 Mendelsohn residents were sent a traffic safety plan developed by the City traffic engineer, which was implemented a few months later. Those changes greatly improved visibility and safety at the curved section of Mendelsohn. In addition, centerline and shoulder striping was added along all of Mendelsohn; the uphill lane width on the Los Gatos section was widened several feet to address a pedestrian safety concern; the sidewalk from Rancho Bella Vista to Saratoga Los Gatos Road was repaired and resurfaced; and handicapped access was added at the Mendelsohn-Rancho Bella Vista corners, all of which improving safety. The second page of the notes addresses issues on how resident feedback has been handled, going from request for confidential feedback in 2013 to referencing an hoc and selective petition gathering in 2019. This new proposal doesn't reference any basis or new information since the 2019 decision. If anything, the substantial improvements discussed in the preceding paragraph have made Mendelsohn safer than it has ever been. One final point is that the "Area of Influence" map continues to exclude all other Rancho Bella Vista residents. Rancho Bella Vista can only be accessed via Mendelsohn and the same considerations would apply to those residents. Attached FYI is a statement signed by all Rancho Bella Vista residents in 2013, all in opposition to speed bumps. There has been minimal turnover on our street and we would expect a similar result if residents were surveyed again now. Please provide this information for consideration by TSC members. I'll also mail you hard 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 From:Larry Pott To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Traffic safety commission-Mendelsohn Lane speed humps Date:Sunday, April 16, 2023 8:39:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Traffic Safety Commission, C/O Emma Burkhalter, The information you sent lacked actual signage digital graphics (size/color and placement). The actual marked locations were rather vague as well. Since we live in the area of influence I would like to see “exactly what would be installed either on the roadway and/or standing up on the roadway as well as the exact locations of all items”? Until I see this more clearly I am against your proposed plan as I will not want something installed in my back-front yards area of view. From what I could ascertain it seemed to me you could move the hump and signage East towards Saratoga Los Gatos road more directly at which are not in the area of influence and would be less cumbersome to all neighbors. So if you would like to email or send more exact information including xxx- marks the spot and digital references I would be more likely to support and/or change my current vote of no-confidence based on insufficient information. Thanks for your consideration. Larry Pott Sent from my iPhone 97 98 99 From:Shie-rei Huang To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Mendelson Lane Date:Monday, April 3, 2023 7:42:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Emma, This is Shierei Huang, owner of . If I have a vote, I would vote against adding speed bumps on Mendelson Lane. This lane is short and drivers naturally have to slow down when entering or exiting this lane from and to Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Speeding on this Lane generally is not a problem. Most people know to slow down on this short and curlly residential street. A driver who speeds most likely is intentional. Speed humps will not stop such drivers. They also may drive high clearance vehicles or trucks, which they are not bothers by the speed humps. On the contrary, they may enjoy going over humps in high speed. . As a resident in this neighborhood, I also have concerns about the car noises due to all drivers having to stop and accelerate at bumps Thanks, -Shierei 100 From:James Lindsay To:John Cherbone; Emma Burkhalter Cc:Crystal Bothelio Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, April 5, 2023 12:57:27 PM From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 12:40 PM To: Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Mark Weisler Phone Number Email Address Subject Speed Bumps on Mendelsohn Lane Comments Dear Council, It has come to my attention that the Saratoga government is considering speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane. I am opposed to the idea for reasons given below. First of all let me somewhat qualify myself by saying that I am a commercial rated pilot, former motorcycle racer, and motorist for many decades so I have a pretty good ability to estimate vehicle speed. I've lived on Hill Avenue for decades and the route to my home is via Mendelsohn Lane so I feel I have standing in this matter. I need to use Mendelsohn to get to my home. Indeed, we have a problem with speeding on residential streets but not just on Mendelsohn. [1] I am in favor of enforcing speed laws, especially in residential areas. I believe radar technologies offer a superior way to enforce these laws. Photo radar is much less expensive to enforce than sworn officers and is more objective. 101 Speed bumps: * Unnecessarily cause wear and damage to vehicle suspension and tires. * Compromise safety as cars, motorcycles, and bicyclists maneuver over the bumps or try to avoid them, maybe even encroaching on sidewalks and pedestrians. * Punish every single driver, including law abiding ones, every time they bounce over a speed bump. * Unnecessarily cause air pollution. It is well known that a steady speed produces less pollution than during acceleration. By imposing speed bumps government would be causing more, and unnecessary, pollution as a vehicle accelerates after slowing for a speed bump. This is against everything Saratoga City Council and the California government stand for. * Increase fuel consumption as vehicles accelerate after slowing for a bump. * Are uncomfortable and may distract drivers from their main task of driving. * Contribute to noise pollution as well as air pollution. * Shift traffic to nearby streets. For example, the speed bumps on Three Oaks Way have shifted discretionary traffic to Farwell making the residents of Farwell exposed to more than their "fair share" of vehicle traffic. * Would harm my property value. I don't like that. The timing of this issue is interesting considering that we have had for some time a young man I allege was living at driving a Porsche at somewhat high speeds on Mendelsohn Lane, Montalvo Road, and other streets during day and night hours. I tried to take video of his speeding but was never quick enough to do so. I'm sure his lawlessness generated some complaints. But the house in which he lived was sold in March of this year and the Porsche is no longer here. It would be quite an irony to put in speed bumps now that a contributor to the residential speeding problem is no longer in our neighborhood. It does not appear that the City of Saratoga government has given serious consideration to photo radar or other ways of enforcing speed laws and explained their decision making process to the residents of Saratoga. Photo radar speed detection and forwarding of excessive speed events to law enforcement is well established in other areas and has been for decades. Saratoga should use radar to enforce speeding laws rather than atavistic speed bumps. [1] A few days ago, while walking on Piedmont with friends who witnessed the event, a small BMW sedan sped down the street at a speed of at least 55 mph. Piedmont has no shoulders and no 102 sidewalks. Again, this illustrates that the speeding problem is not limited to Mendelsohn. Very sincerely, Mark Weisler, Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 103 From:Venkat Ratnam To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Proposed speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane .. Date:Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:45:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Ms. Burkhalter, I received a letter from the City of Saratoga about the proposed two speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane and since I am within the area of influence. A map was not attached to the letter. As a result, I don't know where the speedbumps are going to be installed. Please email it to me. The most dangerous part is where Mendelsohn curves (where Bonnie Brae Lane meets it). You need to have a speed bump installed on either side of the curve. That's where people speed the most. In addition, there should be one each on both ends of Mendelsohn. Additionally, the road is very bad where Mendelsohn curves and where Bonnie Brae Lane meets. Lot of trucks make it through that curve and the condition of the road is very bad. It needs to be paved. Thanks! Venkat Venkataratnam 104 105 Walking East toward Hwy 9 / Three Oaks Way In addition, there is flashing cross walk at the end of Mendelsohn near Hwy 9 / Three Oaks Way, but it does not connect to any sidewalk path on Mendelsohn Lane. 106 As a side note, the 107 From:Dana Evan To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Mendelsohn Rd Speed Bump Proposal Date:Tuesday, April 18, 2023 10:33:36 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good morning Emma, Thank you for sending your recent letter regarding this proposal. I am supportive but would suggest two speed bumps on Mendelsohn- one after the intersection of Piedmont between that location and the curve where the Bonnie Brae/Hill intersection is and then another half way down the straight section of Mendelsohn before the Hwy 9 intersection. Thank you, Dana Evan Saratoga Sent from my iPhone 108 From:Tom Lerone To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Re: Speed hump follow up Date:Wednesday, May 3, 2023 2:41:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Emma, Thanks for the information and look forward to getting info on how and where speeds were measured. In looking at the Residential Speed Hump Process and your April letter, a few observations: A key measurement point (item V) is whether 85th percentile speeds are at least 10 MPH above the posted speed limit. If no, it becomes a resident-led speed hump process, if yes, it becomes a city-led speed hump process. The resident-led process requires the city to send out a survey to residents in an Area of Influence (item R7) and receive responses to the survey showing at least 80% approval including 100% from bump-adjacent properties (item R8). The city-led process only requires the TSC to hear concerns at a TSC meeting. Your April letter referenced speeds upwards of 36 MPH or 11 MPH above the limit. Even assuming the measurements were done correctly, with only a one mile per hour variance to the process limit it would seem appropriate to conduct a survey with a similar approval requirement before proceeding. (the closing paragraph of your April letter made reference to a survey but that may have been an oversight). From a safety standpoint, Mendesohn is safer now than ever before following the city investment in excellent traffic calming measures completed in November 2021, which addressed safety on the curved section of the street, addition of signage, centerline and shoulder striping, widened lane widths on the Los Gatos direction section, as well as pedestrian and handicapped sidewalk improvements. All of the reasons bumps were not approved in 2013, 2017 and 2019 are still valid. As long time residents we are not aware of a single Mendelsohn accident involving cars or pedestrians. Regards, Tom Tom Lerone 109 From:Dan Lankford To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Speed Bumps on Mendelsohn Ln Date:Friday, May 5, 2023 2:09:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Emma, This subject has been discussed multiple times in the past, and there have been a few modifications to the lane markings on Mendelsohn in an attempt to slow traffic. In spite of previous efforts there continues to be a substantial number of drivers that ignore the 25mph speed limit. Some cars appear to be traveling over 45 MPH or more. I STRONGLY support speed bumps on Mendelsohn ln. Thanks! Dan Lankford 110 From:nancyt0111@aol.com To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Mendelsohn Traffic/Safety Issue Date:Saturday, May 6, 2023 4:48:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms. Burkhalter, I am a resident at and understand a Traffic Commission meeting is being held this week to discuss adding speed bumps on Mendelsohn to hopefully slow traffic. I just want to share that I completely support this initiative after living here for 27 years and witnessing first hand how dangerous the speeds have become up and down our street. It has concerned me for several years, but is now a major issue and definitely in need of intervention. Please note that I offer my full support and thank you in advance for your assistance in keeping our neighborhood safe and sound. Thank you so much, Nancy Tkalcevic 111 Incorporated October 22, 1956 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Belal Aftab Kookie Fitzsimmons Chuck Page Tina Walia Yan Zhao Dear Resident, The City of Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission was asked to review a traffic safety concern on Mendelsohn Lane and provide a solution for the speeding that was occurring. The traffic engineer found that the 85th percentile speeds on Mendelsohn Lane were 36.1 MPH east of the curve and 38.4 MPH north of the curve, which is still in excess of 10 MPH above the posted speed limit, even after the installation of preliminary traffic calming measures. A map of the measured 85th percentile speeds is attached. Since the measured speeds represents an unsafe level of speeding, the Commission has recommended the installation of two speed humps, which are expected to reduce the 85th percentile speed at each location by over 10%, bringing the 85th percentile speed to a more acceptable level. The attached plan shows the two speed humps that are proposed, along with any pavement markings, striping, and/or signage that will be installed concurrently. As part of the speed hump process, the Commission has requested additional feedback from residents in the Area of Influence and on Rancho Bella Vista. In addition to comments about the proposed speed humps, the Commission would also like to hear your thoughts on chokers as a potential alternative speed control measure: Chokers (image attached) consist of a short segment of three sets of raised curbs, one along each edge line of the road and one along the centerline. These curbs physically narrow the roadway and vehicles are forced to slow to proceed through them. Chokers typically reduce speeds by up to 10%. Please provide your comments in writing on or before Thursday, August 24, 2023. The Traffic Safety Commission will perform an additional review of the proposed plans at their next regular meeting on Thursday, September 14, 2023, at 6:30 PM. Due to the extent of the speeding on Mendelsohn Lane, only input from residents within the Area of Influence and Rancho Bella Vista is being considered at this time. A map of the approved Area of Influence is also attached to this letter. Written concerns may be emailed to eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us, delivered in person to City Hall, or mailed to: Traffic Safety Commission Attn: Emma Burkhalter 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 by August 24, 2023. Written concerns must include your name(s), street address, mailing address (if different), and contact information. 112 All other comments may be submitted via the methods above and/or given verbally at the September 14th meeting. If you have any questions about this letter or the Commission, please contact Traffic Safety Commission Liaison, Emma Burkhalter, at (408) 868-1274 or by email at eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us. More information about the Commission can be found at www.saratoga.ca.us/tsc. Sincerely, Public Works Department City of Saratoga Enclosures 113 Speed Hump Example: Choker Example: 114 115 116 117 118 From:Ilaria Keogh To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:traffic calming measures on Mendelsohn Date:Saturday, August 5, 2023 12:06:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Commissioners, I received the letter and docs the other day and I do not understand why Rancho Bella Vista residents now get to have a say. Can someone explain the reasoning behind this? If you are going to expand the area of influence then you have to include all of Mendelsohn and the adjacent streets of Bonnie Brae (both), Hill, and Piedmont. So, I hope you will reconsider the area of influence so that it is more of a fair and equitable process that doesn’t give special preference to those who loudly and aggressively express their opposition, especially when they are not directly affected by the the speeding problem and can easily avoid any traffic calming measure that is not to their liking (simply take a right out of RBV and voilà!). I am writing in support of any and all traffic measures that will slow down vehicles on Mendelsohn, I trust that the traffic engineers can use their expertise and knowledge to solve this problem in the most appropriate way. My house is at the curve and my family and I are directly affected by speeders on a daily basis, along with all the walkers, runners and bikers who enjoy our beautiful neighborhood. We will be happy with either traffic measure the City decides to implement, because as your letter states that “the measured speeds represent an unsafe level of speeding”, so doing nothing would be irresponsible. Thank you, Ilaria Keogh 119 From:Hassan Jalalian To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Mendelsohn Ln Speed Bump Position Date:Monday, August 7, 2023 3:15:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Emma, I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to formally express my opposition to the installation of any type of speed bumps in our neighborhood (Mendelsohn). As a resident and member of the community, I have spent significant time and effort providing concerns both in writing and in person, including attending the last TSC meeting. However, I feel that our concerns were not adequately acknowledged or discussed during the meeting. This lack of recognition has left me feeling unheard and concerned about the decision-making process. I strongly believe that speed bumps are not the most effective solution to address traffic-related issues in our neighborhood. If there is an issue! Additionally, I have repeatedly requested information about the budget available in the City of Saratoga to address various community needs (Ex. New asphalt on Mendelsohn Ln and Rancho Bella Vista, Street lighting) , but unfortunately, I have not received any response to my inquiries. I want to emphasize that my opposition to speed bumps is rooted in my genuine concern for the well-being of our community. I believe that the City can focus on other key issues as stated above that not only ensures the safety of our residents but also preserves the character of our neighborhood. I kindly request that my position be formally recorded and considered in any future discussions or decisions related to TSA. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to further engagement and collaboration with the community and local authorities to find an amicable resolution. Sincerely, Hassan Jalalian 120 From:Rosemary Adamson To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:Adamson MD, David; Tom Lerone; Dan; Peter Rutti; Eva Miranda Subject:RE: TSC Residential Speed Hump Process Date:Tuesday, August 8, 2023 5:40:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. August 8, 2023 > Dear Emma, > > I am writing in response to the request for input on the subject of speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane. > > We do not want to see speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane. My husband and I are residents on Rancho Bella Vista, the only cul-de-sac off Mendelsohn Lane. Our street is one of many that join with Mendelsohn Lane en-route to Highway 9 (Saratoga-Sunnyvale road), a main route to connect with Freeways. Mendelsohn Lane is in fact, the only egress for many residents in the Montalvo area. It is a very important escape route and route for emergency vehicles to get to Highway 9 and on to where they need to go. Speed bumps would hamper their response time and delay important actions. We believe that it is not the solution to a perceived problem by one resident on the street. > > The neighborhood is delighted with your response to a request last year to repair and improve Mendelsohn Lane for safer pedestrian walkways, wider passage for vehicles and clear markings and night lighting on the roadway. It is an important street for the Montalvo neighborhood. We all agree that this improves the ability for emergency response vehicles to move with ease along this route. The importance of this street in terms of safe passage in any emergency requires the least complications for their safe journey out of the Montalvo neighborhood. > > I hope that you will consider this important aspect when discussing your plan. It is important that the whole neighborhood be given an opportunity to weigh in on this issue. > > Sincerely, > > David and Rosemary Adamson, > > 121 122 Ph: (408) 868-1274 | eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: Sent: Saturday, May 6, 2023 4:48 PM To: Emma Burkhalter <eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Mendelsohn Traffic/Safety Issue CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms. Burkhalter, I am a resident at and understand a Traffic Commission meeting is being held this week to discuss adding speed bumps on Mendelsohn to hopefully slow traffic. I just want to share that I completely support this initiative after living here for 27 years and witnessing first hand how dangerous the speeds have become up and down our street. It has concerned me for several years, but is now a major issue and definitely in need of intervention. Please note that I offer my full support and thank you in advance for your assistance in keeping our neighborhood safe and sound. Thank you so much, Nancy Tkalcevic 123 From:Tom Lerone To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:Daniel MIranda; Eva Miranda; David Adamson; Rosemary Adamson; Peter Rutti; Pete+Chris Rutti; Hassan Jalalian; Charles Aring; Christine Lerone Subject:Mendelsohn speed hump response Date:Saturday, August 19, 2023 5:01:29 PM Attachments:TSC meeting notes 91219.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Emma, This is in response to your request for feedback on the Traffic Safety Commission proposal to install speed humps, or an alternative of Chokers, on Mendelsohn. We are opposed to installing speed humps or Chokers on Mendelsohn. In response to your April letter requesting feedback on the same speed hump proposal, I provided the attached notes from a 9/12/19 TSC meeting laying out reasons why we do not believe physical speed barriers on Mendelsohn are needed or desirable. Since 2019 the city has made excellent safety improvements on Mendelsohn. These included adding signage in both directions around the curve; adding hash marks and bumps narrowing the lane and expanding the shoulder buffer heading up and around the curve; completing centerline and shoulder striping along Mendelsohn; widening the uphill lane by several feet in the Los Gatos direction to address a pedestrian concern and improve traffic flow; repairing and resurfacing the sidewalk from Rancho Bella Vista to Saratoga Los Gatos Road; and adding handicapped access at the Mendelsohn-Rancho Bella Vista corners. All of these improvements have enhanced safety and made Mendelsohn safer than it has ever been. My notes from the 2019 meeting were primarily focused on the negative impacts to residents, e.g., having to navigate bumps on a daily basis; altering the character of our neighborhood; potentially decreasing property values; and having a negative effect on quality of life. One area I did mention was slowing down emergency vehicles. In light of recent events and further study on the issue of emergency response, I think this may be a key factor in deciding if speed barriers on residential streets, in particular those in high fire risk areas, improve or worsen safety. Any delays in arrival of emergency vehicles and ability of residents to evacuate quickly could adversely impact outcomes in an emergency. There are a number of adjoining streets which need to traverse Mendelsohn so timely access for emergency personnel to connect with those streets is essential. We have lived on Rancho Bella Vista since 1980 and are not aware of a single instance of cars colliding or any pedestrian accident on Mendelsohn. For all of the above reasons we believe speed humps should again be rejected as was the case in 2013, 2017 and 2019. In terms of the decision process we believe that all affected residents should be surveyed, and provide Yes or No responses, so the TSC has better input from the community on speed 124 125 126 127 From:Margie Montgomery To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Mendelshon Lane Speeding Date:Monday, August 21, 2023 8:58:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Emma, Thank you for speaking with me on the phone last week. As per your request, I am emailing you my concerns. I have lived at the corner of Mendalsohn Lane for 32 years. I have seen it all... the racing, the speeding, the running aground on my property, the slamming of breaks to make the turn, almost running me down watering my plants. The "putting it thru the gears" after they leave "their" neighborhood. Your own research shows how unsafe the driving habits are on Mendelsohn. I think it is incumbent for your office to protect those of us who's homes are directly on Mendelshon. I am sorry, Rancho Bella Vista should not have a vote. If you include them then you have a whole lot of others to include.... They are not Directly affected. If we don't slow down the cars, I fear the worst. None of us want a dangerous situation right outside our neighborhood door. I hope you keep the vote to those who really experience the problem, and install the speed Humps. Sincerely, Marjorie Montgomery 128 129 Traffic Safety Commission Traffic Safety on Mendelsohn Lane Dear Commissioners, I have lived at for over 27 years; our home is adjacent to the proposed location of a speed hump. I strongly encourage you to address the dangerous conditions on Mendelsohn Lane that the City has identified and install either speed humps or chokers as soon as possible. Many of our neighbors have been attempting to find a solution to the increasing incidence of speeding since 2017. In 2019, we went door to door asking residents on Mendelsohn if they would support speed humps. Only 4 out of the 22 we talked to had opposition. (One of those has since changed her mind.) After the most recent study was completed, we were told that since the measurement revealed a traffic safely concern, this was no longer a question for neighbors to weigh in on. I am confused why we are once again soliciting opinions. I walk Mendelsohn from end to end usually four times a day, so I can anecdotally confirm the results of your study. People speed - a lot. The striping of the road helped keep cars off the sidewalk at the bend in the road, but it did not go far enough. There are several vocal neighbors in opposition to the traffic safety measures. I do not know why the Area of Influence was expanded to Rancho Bella Vista (or for that matter any home north of Bonnie Brae) since those residents would have a shorter, more direct route to highway 9 that does not involve going over a speed hump. Residents on other neighboring streets, such as Piedmont, will experience a much greater impact. Those concerned about damage to their cars caused by speed humps must plan to drive well over the posted speed limit; I drive a sedan and have never experienced damage going over a speed hump. As to your question about speed humps vs. chokers, I have no personal experience with chokers so would trust your experience as to which would be most effective to reduce speeding. Just please do the right thing to keep our neighborhood safe and finally take action. Catherine Thermond 130 Date: August 23, 2023 To: Traffic Safety Commission (TSC), City of Saratoga RE: Speed Bump/Choker Proposal for Mendelsohn Lane I am writing in regards the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) plan to install speed bumps or chokers on Mendelsohn Lane as proposed in the recent letter sent by the Public Works Department, City of Saratoga. I am opposed to the plan to install speed bumps or chokers, as it creates a greater safety issue for residents. In particular: As Mendelsohn Lane is in the Very High Fire Hazard Zone (1), there should be fewer, not more road barriers that increase Fire Department response times for residents. In the event of a fire, Mendelsohn Lane is the only ingress/egress road for the Fire Department and residents on Piedmont Road, Madrone Hill Road, Rancho Bella Vista and Villa Montalvo Arts Center (one way exit only for staff and visitors). It is my hope the City of Saratoga will apply best practices learning from other communities to improve overall resident safety (Traffic Calming Fact Sheet (2)) and reduce risks. Given the well documented fire danger throughout California, the difficulty firefighters face responding to and controlling fires in Very High Fire Hazard areas and Santa Clara County’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Annex 6, S-FC8.1 Strategic Goal: To improve road systems), I am requesting: 1. A moratorium be placed on any new speed bumps in Saratoga's Very High Fire Hazard Zones until the Fire Department can independently assess the impact of speed bumps on emergency response routes in these zones. Please Note: "Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps, 1997, states humps should never be placed on emergency response routes.” Cities, such as Berkeley California , Boulder Colorado, and Portland Oregon have placed moratoriums on speed bumps due to safety issues. 2. If the Fire Department assessment finds any increase in response times due to speed bumps, then a permanent exemption be created to the TSC Speed Bump process to prohibit speed bumps from all Very High Fire Hazard Zones and emergency response routes necessary to reach those areas. Please see the attached, Problems Associated with Traffic Calming (3) which documents research conducted by many organizations and cities across the US, including in Berkeley, Sunnyvale and Roseville CA. They found that installing speed bumps/chokers increases fire department and ambulance response times, which will cost resident lives. 3. Similar to the TSC’s Safe Routes to School plan, discussed in the August 22nd TSC Meeting, the TSC should take a holistic view of the impact of speed bumps on resident and fire emergency response routes throughout the City of Saratoga. Given the recent fires in Maui and 2017, 2018 and 2020 California fires all resulting in double digit loss of life with people caught trying to flee 131 in their cars, it is paramount the TSC not evaluate speed bumps as one-off single decisions, but evaluate the total impact of adding speed bumps along critical emergency routes. Finally, I am asking for my neighbor’s safety and my family’s safety, do not install any speed bumps or chokers on Mendelsohn Lane or in any other Very High Fire Hazard Zones. Respectfully Submitted, Eva Miranda (cross street Mendelsohn), Resident since 1996 Attachments: (1) Saratoga Fire District Map of Fire Hazard Zones: Very High Fire Hazard Zone (2) National Motorists Association Traffic Calming Fact Sheet: Traffic Calming Fact Sheet (3) National Motorists Association Article: Problems Associated with Traffic Calming 132 Member Supported Driver Advocacy ome ʫ ssues ʫ Tra!ic Calming ʫ Problems Associa ed Wi h Tra!ic Calming Problems Associated With Tra!ic Calming RESOURCES: NMA Tra!ic Calming Fact Sheet ( PDF ) Free to down oad, pr nt & d str bute By Kathleen Calongne Tra !c calm ng dev ces, such as speed humps and tra!c c rcles are spread ng to commun t es across the Un ted States, w thout regard to the r r sks. The U.S. Department of Transportat on (USDOT) has avo ded the exam nat on of the problems assoc ated w th ntent onally mpos ng vert cal and hor zontal deflect on on veh cles and veh cle passengers, n order to encourage the prol ferat on of dev ces on c ty streets. Deflect on dev ces bu lt to slow passenger veh cles, create even greater delays to emergency response veh cles. The longer wheel-base, st ! suspens on, h gh veh cle we ght, as well as the sens t ve equ pment and njured v ct ms transported by these veh cles, requ res dr vers to slow almost to a stop to negot ate the dev ces safely. An uneth cal attempt has been made to s lence the object ons of rescue personnel to delays to emergency response by deflect on dev ces. F re ch efs, as c ty appo ntees, fear profess onal retr but on and o"en w ll not vo ce concern unt l the level of r sk becomes ntolerable. Emergency calls are not the rare events some members of transportat on and c ty sta! would l ke to bel eve. The C ty of Houston, Texas for example, responds to an average of 150,000 emergency med cal calls and 100,000 f re calls per year. There s an average of 250,000 deaths from sudden card ac arrest (SCA) alone each year n the Un ted States. Amer can Heart Assoc at on (AHA) stat st cs nd cate that 90% of these nc dents occur outs de of the hosp tal env ronment. By compar son, there are approx mately 5,000 pedestr an deaths per year n the Un ted States. Few of these occur on local ne ghborhood streets. A ten-year study of pedestr an deaths by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv ces, 1982 – 1992 found 35% of pedestr an v ct ms were ntox cated. Nat onal H ghway Tra!c Safety Adm n strat on (NHTSA) stat st cs, Safety Facts 2000, found s m lar results w th ntox cat on on the part of 31% of pedestr an v ct ms. AHA stat st cs for SCA, show surv vab l ty s d rectly related to the response t mes of c t es. For example, an AHA study n 1996 showed that Seattle w th a response t me of less than 7 m nutes saved 30% of ts SCA v ct ms. New York, w th an average response t me of 12 m nutes saved only 2%. Wh le delay from nd v dual dev ces s somet mes measured, the cumulat ve e!ect of series of devices s o"en gnored. Ser es of dev ces turn seconds of delay nto m nutes, as veh cles fa l to rega n cru s ng speed between the dev ces. Calm ng dev ces mpose permanent, 24-hour delays to emergency response, unl ke tra!c congest on wh ch occurs per od cally. A study conducted by the f re department of Aust n, Texas, 1997, showed an ncrease n the travel t me of ambulances of up to 100% transport ng v ct ms. Members of c ty counc ls and transportat on d v s ons o"en portray delay to emergency response by calm ng dev ces as s mply a tradeo! for ncreased safety from speed ng cars. They avo d mak ng the analys s wh ch shows wh ch r sk s greater. Ronald Bowman, a sc ent st n Boulder, Colorado developed an analys s to compare these r sks. The results show that even 133 m nor delay to emergency response by calm ng dev ces mposes far greater r sk on the commun ty than veh cles, speed ng or not. The result of Bowman’s analys s, showed a r sk factor of 85 – 1 from an add t onal one m nute of delay (pred cted to result from the nstallat on of all the dev ces proposed for the C ty of Boulder at the t me) before one l fe m ght be saved by the dev ces — f t can be shown that the dev ces do save l ves. Bowman’s analys s, based on the curve of surv vab l ty for v ct ms of card ac arrest and severe trauma (AHA) has been ver f ed by a profess onal mathemat c an. The Bowman analys s was appl ed to the C ty of Aust n, Texas by Ass stant F re Ch ef, Les Bunte, w th s m lar results. The results of these analyses show that deflect on dev ces are a tradeo! of the percept on of ncreased safety from speed ng veh cles for the real r sk to c t zen surv vab l ty from delay to emergency response. Wh le the Inst tute of Transportat on Eng neers’ (ITE) Gu del nes for the Des gn and Appl cat on of Speed Humps, 1997, states humps should never be placed on emergency response routes, humps and phys cal dev ces of all k nds have been nstalled on cr t cal emergency response routes n c t es where these projects ex st. The prol ferat on of dev ces has resulted n temporary or permanent morator ums on dev ces n c t es such as Berkeley Cal forn a, Boulder Colorado, Portland Ma ne and Portland Oregon. People w th d sab l t es compla n of last ng pa n and njury caused by travel ng over deflect on dev ces n veh cles. S gn f cant test mony about the phys cal and psycholog cal barr er deflect on dev ces make to access to publ c r ghts-of-way has been g ven to the U.S. Access Board n Wash ngton D.C. Calm ng dev ces have been nstalled on streets to d v de commun t es along rac al and soc oeconom c l nes. The U.S. Department of Hous ng and Development (HUD) dent f ed gates nstalled as part of a tra!c calm ng project n Houston, Texas as d scr m natory, order ng them removed. Gates were replaced w th speed humps to create a s m lar, though less obv ous, barr er between ne ghborhoods. Wh le calm ng dev ces are bu lt on the prem se they w ll reduce acc dents, a comprehens ve study comm ss oned by the ITE and the Federal H ghway Adm n strat on (FHWA) on tra!c calm ng projects n the Un ted States concludes: “Tra!ic calming in the U.S. is largely restricted to low volume residential streets. Collisions occur infrequently on such streets to begin with, and any systematic change in collision rates tends to get lost in the random variation from year to year. This limits our confidence in drawing inferences about safety impacts of tra!ic calming.” (Tra!ic Calming: State of the Practice, Reid Ewing, 1999, P. 123) The USDOT def nes tra!c calm ng dev ces as geometr c des gn features of the roadway, rather than tra!c control dev ces. The USDOT recommends standards for the des gn and warrants for the use of dev ces that are approved tra!c control dev ces n the Manual on Un form Tra!c Control Dev ces (MUTCD). The def n t on of tra!c calm ng dev ces as geometr c des gn features of the road has allowed dev ces to prol ferate on c ty streets as a dec s on of local governments. An ncrease n acc dents has occurred a"er some nstallat ons. Exper mental speed humps placed on a street at a school n Portland, Ma ne reg stered an ncrease n acc dents of 35%. Acc dents ncreased 100% a"er the nstallat on of an exper mental tra!c c rcle n Boulder, Colorado. However, the c rcle n Boulder and the humps n Portland rema n on the street today. 134 People across the Un ted States are oppos ng the nstallat on of deflect on dev ces on c ty streets that damage veh cles, njure veh cle passengers, ncrease pollut on and gas consumpt on and delay emergency response. I have researched tra!c calm ng projects s nce 1996, and have comp led my research nto a 400-page report on the “Problems Assoc ated w th Tra!c Calm ng Dev ces.” ————————————————————————————————————– These were the resources used for th s art cle: ARTICLES Reuben Castenada and Steven Gray, “Maryland Boy, 13, D es n F re at Fr end’s Sleepover,” THE WASHINGTON POST, June 15, 1998 (F ref ghter Stottlemeyer descends nto basement to rescue ch ld as flashover occurs forc ng h s ex t from the home.) Jen Chaney, “Fatal f re renews speed hump debate,” GAITHERSBERG GAZETTE, July 8, 1998 (Impact of delay caused by humps on street on rescue of ch ld.) Dw ght Dan els, “Enc n tas protesters’ parked veh cles h nder lay ng of speed bumps,” THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE, Aug. 13, 1998 Ed tor al, “Meet ng a r standards Ma ne’s obl gat on too,” PORTLAND PRESS HERALD, October 17, 1997 (Rul ng of EPA) Ed tor al, “Street F ghts,” THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, July 12, 1994 (Closures foster exclus v ty rather than commun ty.) Dan Feldste n, “Brown has 911 gate removed,” THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, August 18, 1998 (“Closure den es emergency access.”) Dan Feldste n, “Subd v s on struggles w th great barr er r ",” THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, February 22, 1999 Kr sten Green,”It’s ne ghbor vs. ne ghbor over Santee speed bumps,” THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE, March 7, 2000 Kr sten Green, “D sabled woman w ns f ght to remove speed bumps on her street,” THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE, May 12, 2000 Jean-Mart n Kuntscher, “Speed bumps cause ten t mes more a r pollut on,” ALLIANCE INTERNATIONALE DE TOURISME, FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L’AUTOMOBILE, September 6, 1994 L sa Marshall, “C rcles called hazards,” THE DAILY CAMERA, December 12, 1996 Paul Marston, “Humps ncrease exhaust fumes,” UK NEWS, ELECTRONIC TELEGRAPH, January 14, 1998 Bruce N chols, “Houston h ts the brakes on speed-humps,” THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, (“Deterrent for dr vers ra ses worr es about pol ce, f re response.”) August 1, 1999 Amy Re nholds, “Wh tt er attempts med at on… Ne ghbors square o! on tra!c ssue” THE DAILY CAMERA, January 21, 1997 Amy Re nholds, “Sl p-sl d ng away at P ne St. tra!c c rcle”, THE COLORADO DAILY, November 20, 1996 135 Jud th Scherr, “Berkeley’s bumpy battle,” BERKELEY DAILY PLANET, March 27, 2000 (Berkeley Comm ss on on D sab l ty takes stand aga nst humps.) Mark Shanahan, “Federal government pulls funds from tra!c-slow ng exper ment,” PORTLAND PRESS HERALD, August 18, 1998 Matt Schwartz, “HUD labels D an Street gate d scr m natory, asks removal,” THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, October 15, 1998 Joanne B. Walker, “Speed bumps, tables meet legal obstacle,” ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, August 1998 (Judge Bennett rules n favor of 2 c t zens who have f led su t aga nst c ty for plac ng dev ces on streets used for tra!c control wh ch are not approved tra!c control dev ces n the Manual on Un form Tra!c Control Dev ces.) John W ll ams, “Street Warfare” (Intersect on seal ng br ngs rac sm calls.) THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, July 10, 1994 John W ll ams, “Probe of b as and street clos ngs looks at use of federal money,” THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE, December 16, 1994 REPORTS / PAPERS Access ble R ghts-of-Way: S dewalks, street cross ngs, other pedestr an fac l t es, U.S. Arch tectural and Transportat on Barr ers Compl ance Board, U.S. Access Board, November 1999. “All Veh cle VOC and NOX Em ss on Factors by Speed, Summer and W nter,” graph prov ded by Ron Severence, Ma ne Department of Env ronmental Protect on, 1997 An Analys s of Leadersh p, Pol t cs and Eth cs n the Stevens Avenue Tra!c Calm ng Project, Part III, Eth cs n the Stevens Avenue Project” by Scott Landry, Scot Mattox, Sara & Celeste V gor, May 14, 1998 (Graduate paper for Musk e Inst tute at Un vers ty of Ma ne Law School) Boulder F re Department Master Plan, Kev n Kle n for C ty of Boulder CO, 1996 Bu ld ng a True Commun ty F nal Report, Publ c R ghts-of-Way Access Adv sory Comm ttee, U.S. Access Board, January 10, 2001 Deaths Expected from Delayed Emergency Response Due to Ne ghborhood Tra!c M t gat on, Ronald R. Bowman, Apr l 3, 1997 An Evaluat on of the Speed Hump Program n the C ty of Berkeley, October 1997 (Damage to veh cles, mpact on ambulance and f re serv ces and people w th d sab l t es.) Gu del nes for the Des gn and Appl cat on of Speed Humps, Inst tute of Transportat on Eng neers, 1997 The Impacts of Tra!c Calm ng Measures on Veh cle Exhaust Em ss ons, Un ted K ngdom,Transport Research Laboratory Report 482, PG Boulter, AJ H ckman “Motor-Veh cle-Related Deaths Involv ng Intox cated Pedestr ans” – Un ted States, 1982-1992,” Morb d ty and Mortal ty Weekly Report, Vol. 43 / No. 14 911 Emergency Gate Rev ew, F re Ch ef Les Tyra, C ty of Houston F re Department, November 17, 1998 Poss ble Ne ghborhood Tra!c Calm ng Methods, Report to c ty counc l of Sunnyvale, CA, February 4, 1997 (Potent al l ab l ty.) 136 Speed Hump/UC Plan Presentat on Outl ne, dra" report, Susan Sanderson, Transportat on Planner, C ty of Berkeley, (Emergency response concerns from prol ferat on of speed humps. Humps not the tool felt they were.) 1995. Sudden Card ac Arrest, The Amer can Heart Assoc at on, 1996 A Survey of Tra!c Calm ng Pract ces n the Un ted States, Inst tute of Urban and Reg onal Development by Asha We nste n and El zabeth Deak n, Un vers ty of Cal forn a at Berkeley, March 1998, (Confl ct n ne ghborhoods.) Stevens Avenue Tra!c Calm ng Project, DeLuca-Ho!man Assoc ates Inc., May 27, 1998, Portland, Ma ne (Increased acc dents and pollut on from tra!c calm ng project.) Tra !c Calm ng: State of the Pract ce, Re d Ew ng, ITE/FHWA, 1999 Tra !c Calm ng and veh cle em ss ons: A l terature rev ew, Transport Research Laboratory Report 307, Un ted K ngdom, P. G. Boulter and D. C. Webster, 1997 FEDERAL DOCUMENTS Amer cans w th D sab l t es Act, T tle II, State and Local Government, Just ce regulat ons, 28 CFR, 35.151, “New construct on and alterat ons.” Clean A r Act, EPA, T tle 1, Part A, A r Qual ty and Em ss on L m ts, Sec. 113 Federal L m ts Manual on Un form Tra!c Control Dev ces, M llenn um Ed t on, USDOT/FHWA, 2000 Tra !c Safety Facts 2000, Nat onal H ghway Tra!c Safety Adm n strat on, USDOT TIME TRIALS “An Analys s of Speed Hump E!ects on Response T mes,” C ty of Aust n, TX F re Department, January 20, 1999 “The E!ects of Speed Humps and Tra!c C rcles on Respond ng F re-Rescue Apparatus n Montgomery County, Maryland,” Montgomery County F re and Rescue Comm ss on, August 1997 The Influence of Tra!c Calm ng Dev ces on F re Veh cle Travel T mes,” Portland Bureau of F re, Rescue and Emergency Serv ce, January 1996 Memorandum from Nels Taht , Adm n strat ve Analyst, C ty of Rosev lle, CA F re Department (T me tr als on streets w th ser es of speed humps), June 4, 1991 LETTERS Letter from Earl Noe, “I have d sabled your car… because you have so l ttle regard for laws,” THE BOULDER PLANET, October 9-15, 1996 (Opponent of dev ces has t res slashed.) Letter from Karen Cra g, Cha r, Comm ss on on D sab l ty, Berkeley CA to Berkeley Mayor and C ty Counc l, November 10, 1998 (Problems of the d sabled w th vert cal deflect on dev ces.) Letter from Spec al Trans t of Boulder, CO to Boulder C ty Counc l, Apr l 3, 1997 (Problems of d sabled r ders w th vert cal and hor zontal deflect on dev ces.) Letter from Steven Ben ngo, D v s on Transportat on Planner, USDOT, to Comm ss oner John Melrose, Ma ne DOT, August 13, 1998, (Resc nds funds for Portland’s tra!c calm ng project because of ncreased em ss ons.) LEGAL DOCUMENTS 137 © 2023 Na o a Mo or s s Assoc a o ss es S a e by S a e Reso rces B og Co ac o Pr vacy Po cy A!dav t of Settlement for Permanent D sab l ty for f re f ghter, George Gosbee, Montgomery County, MD, 1998 (Settlement of $ 3,000 per month for l fe for njury susta ned when h t speed hump travel ng to scene of emergency.) Appellant’s Br ef n, Slager v. Duncan and Montgomery County MD to U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth C rcu t (Unpubl shed op n on, sets no precedent by rules of the court.) F nal Judgment, Twel"h C rcu t Court of the State of Flor da, June 29, 1998 (Judge Robert B. Bennet rules n favor of W ndom and Hartenst ne of Sarasota, FL) Op n on of Attorney General, State of Maryland, No. 86-021, Apr l 2, 1986 (Potent al l ab l ty.) Op n on of Thomas R. Powell, Sen or Ass stant C ty Attorney, The C ty of W ch ta, KS Apr l 1, 1986 (Potent al l ab l ty.) OTHER Hous ng D scr m nat on Compla nt, f led by Calv n Hummer, Pres dent, Meadow Walk Town Home Assoc at on, Houston TX, May 28, 1997 “The Other P ne Intersect ons,” Ronald Bowman, 1996 (Graph show ng ncrease n acc dents at ntersect ons w th tra!c c rcles on P ne St., Boulder CO.) Program Appl cat on for CMAQ (Congest on M t gat on and A r Qual ty) funds from C ty of Portland, July 1994. (C ty agrees to remove temporary measures f CMAQ determ nes em ss ons are not lowered by project.) VIDEO “Tra!c Calm ng Dev ces,” 1996, Portland Bureau of F re, Rescue and Emergency Serv ces, 55 SW Ash St., Portland, OR 97204 Get In Touch: (800) 882 2785 ma@mo or s s org Join: Become A Member Connect: Search: 138 Prepared by the National Motorists Association (www.motorists.org) Traffic Calming Fact Sheet The term “traffic calming” is simply a device to put a favorable spin on tactics used to obstruct, divert and slow traffic. Although proponents usually couch their complaints in terms like “speeders” and “reckless drivers,” the true irritant for “traffic calming” advocates is “heavy” traffic. Their desired objective is to divert traffic to other streets outside their neighborhood. The devices employed to accomplish this diversion of traffic include stop signs, speed humps and bumps, lane narrowing obstructions, and absurdly low speed limits. Increased traffic on residential streets is often caused by misguided and ill-informed management of the main arterials and collector streets. These streets are designed to carry most of the traffic, keeping it off of residential streets. The solution to this problem is not to further obstruct traffic flow by pushing the problem into someone else’s neighbor-hood. The real solution is to upgrade and improve the traffic handling capabilities of main thoroughfares. This means implementing physical improvements, as well as raising speed limits and synchronizing traffic controls to accommodate actual vehicle speeds. If main streets provide convenient access between home, work and shopping destinations, motorists will use them, versus alternate routes through residential neighborhoods. There are several specific reasons why traffic calming should be avoided: 1) Traffic obstruction devices can increase response time for emergency vehicles. When seconds matter, having to slow to pass over speed bumps and humps or navigate narrow roadways can mean the difference between life and death, or the loss of one’s home. The fact that some of these devices can seriously damage emergency vehicles and other vehicles along the roadway is also a concern. 2) Traffic obstruction devices can increase congestion on other streets and create problems in other neighbor-hoods. If traffic obstruction devices divert traffic to other streets, they may compound congestion problems that already exist in those areas. If not successful in diverting traffic to other streets, traffic obstruction devices will compound congestion problems on the streets on which they are installed. 3. Traffic obstruction devices will increase vehicle wear and tear, air pollution, and noise. Braking and accelerating in response to speed bumps, speed humps, stop signs, and traffic signals increases fuel con-sumption and emissions. This can contradict other efforts to reduce emissions and contribute to a community becoming or remaining a “non-attainment” air quality zone, thereby being subjected to federal mandates and restrictions. 4. Traffic obstruction devices can increase street maintenance costs. Speed bumps and humps impede plowing and street cleaning equipment. Removable devices may soon be available, al-though they will require additional labor to install and remove them. Municipalities must maintain and repair stop signs and traffic signals, at taxpayer expense, of course. 5. Traffic obstruction devices increase a community’s liability for accidents attributed to such devices. 6. Traffic obstruction devices may cause physical discomfort, even pain, for disabled persons or persons with physical ailments. Being jolted or jostled by speed bumps and humps can be painful for persons with injuries or painful illnesses. 7. Traffic obstruction devices create neighborhood friction. Not all persons (not even most persons) on a given street will appreciate having to run an obstacle course every time they drive to or from home. Some traffic obstruction opponents blow their horns or yell verbal insults when having to slow or stop for speed bumps or humps. Frequently, the response to unnecessary stop signs is to ignore them. 139 To: City of Saratoga Traffic Safety Commitee (TSC) Members Fr: Daniel Miranda (homeowner at since 1994) Date: August 24, 2023 Re: Concerns with City Led Speed Hump Process and the proposed Speed Humps/Chockers for Mendelsohn Lane Atn: Jason Mount (Chair) Robert Eng (Vice Chair) Chi-Kuang Chu Alec Gulesserian Stephen Li Emma Burkhalter (TSC Liaison) I have atended and par�cipated in both the Regular TSC mee�ng on 5/23/2023, and the Special TSC mee�ng on 8/22/2023 that was posted and conducted with barely 24-hour no�ce to the public. I will not be able to atend the next scheduled mee�ng on 9/14/2023, when it is an�cipated that the TSC will perform a review and poten�ally approve the construc�on of speed hump/chokers on Mendelsohn Lane. However, I respec�ully request that the Commitee considers my opposi�on to the City-Led Speed Hump process you are employing and the proposed installa�on of speed humps/chokers on Mendelsohn Lane, for the mul�ple reasons summarized below. To begin with, I feel it is cri�cal that the TSC adhere to and honor its exclusive mission, as established by the Saratoga City Council. RESOLUTION NO. 05-032 – MISSION The exclusive mission of the Traffic Safety Commission shall be to investigate, review, and analyze issues, and make recommendations to the City Council and City staff regarding traffic safety. The Commission shall work to increase awareness of, and attention to, the traffic safety needs of the community by improving communications and involvement between the community, and the City government on services, needs and programs. Unfortunately, in an email response to me from Emma Burkhalter dated 8/14/2023, and again verbally at the Special TSC mee�ng, we are told that none of the items listed below, or anything else is considered or even looked at, if 85th Percen�le Speeds are at least 10mph above the posted speed limit in Emma’s own view and that of an outsourced Traffic Engineer. So again, in the true spirit of the TSC Mission, I respec�ully ask and resubmit my concerns listed below for formal considera�on by the TSC: 140 1. A cri�cal por�on of the TSC flow chart is pasted below. It calls for you to use the 85th percen�le speeds (plural as in all) to determine if this is to be either a Resident-Led or City-Led Process. Four (4) speed data points were calculated as illustrated on the speed map provided by TSC, shown below. Two (2) above 35 mph and two (2) below 35 mph. The weighted average of all data points collected together is below 35 mph. Specifically, in total at the 85th percen�le: 620 vehicles were below 35 mph 480 vehicles were above 35 mph. The data points and the math all indicate that this should be a Resident-led process, unless you are somehow jus�fying a City-led direc�ve by elimina�ng and not coun�ng over half of the data points collected and published. 141 2. You answer that TSC did not consider, the 2020 Speed Survey, published on your website which does not list Mendelsohn as one of the many areas studied in Saratoga, to ensure that TSC is in line with where the study says City resources should be spent. Again, you exclude any objec�ve published data that is not convenient to your singular objec�ve of spending money to add speed humps on Mendelsohn. 3. You answer that TSC did consider unanimous opposi�on by all residents present at the May 11th TSC mee�ng. However, we are all surprised and disappointed that you reneged on the commitment we thought we all heard that the TSC would conduct a survey of all residents in the expanded area of influence (similar to the prior TSC survey conducted a few years ago when this issue last came up and was squashed by a majority of residents in opposi�on). 4. You answer that TSC does not consider speeding cita�ons issued or accidents occurred, unless speeding data alone is not enough to warrant entering the speed bump process. However, your Speed Hump Process flowchart does state that you must adhere to the City funding process. Your TSC published, City of Saratoga Speed Hump Priori�za�on Process via this online link and pasted below, states that Speed related collisions in the last 3 years, is in fact a “Priori�za�on Element”, which you cannot ignore. So why not look at cita�ons and accidents from the start, unless again you're not interested in hearing other priori�es that don’t support your preconceived no�on to promote speed humps regardless? 142 5. Mendelsohn Lane, is an important gateway street between the Saratoga Fire House and the Very Highest Fire Zone in the city of Saratoga. Response travel �me by Fire and Emergency services are super cri�cal and depend on main access roads like Mendelsohn Lane. Evacua�ons and escape routes by passenger vehicles from residents living in the High Fire Zone, depend on Mendelsohn Lane for quick passage. All employees or visitors at Villa Montalvo use Mendelsohn as the only exit road. It seems hard to jus�fy the safety tradeoff being proposed by adding speed humps or chockers anywhere on Mendelsohn Lane. Trying to even consider it without any input from Saratoga Fire is neglect and dangerous for all. 143 These are just a handful of the many other considera�ons that are being consciously excluded from the TSC’s City-Led process. The mo�on under considera�on by TSC is guided solely and exclusively by their interpreta�on, calcula�on, and data collec�on and manipula�on under the City-Led 85th Percen�le Speeds self- imposed process. Essen�ally, this is a blatant case of trying to use the persuasive power of sta�s�cs to bolster a weak argument, or lack of any other argument presented in favor at any TSC mee�ng that I have atended thus far. I’ll end by asking each TSC member if they would reasonably do any of the following in their own personal lives. • Allow a surgeon to perform life-altering surgery based on a single test result that did not include all the data collected, even though you feel fine and have had no symptoms over the last 30 years. OR • Fly on a plane with a pilot who could stare at only one gauge on the cockpit instrument panel and not even look around or listen to ground control or anything else. If you hesitate to answer yes to either of the above, surely you cannot say Aye in favor of any mo�on to approve speed humps or chokers on Mendelsohn Lane. Sincerely, Daniel Miranda 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 From:Ilaria Keogh To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:John Cherbone Subject:Re: Traffic Safety Commission Meeting 05/11/2023 Date:Wednesday, May 17, 2023 9:59:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Emma, I was unable to attend the meeting as I moving my daughter out of her college dorm that evening, but I am told the usual neighbors showed up in full force against the speed bumps. It feels like groundhog day! Every couple of years, Mendelsohn residents ask for the bumps, we are told about a process, we follow it and then these same people are able to stop it. Being that there are new TSC members every few years, they do not know the history and I wonder if they truly take the time to understand the issue or if they just listen to a loud minority. Last time I was told all I needed to do was to collect a majority of signatures, remember? I did! But then they were able to stop it. Now we have a traffic study that proves high speeds and it seems that they can stop this too...I would like to find out what kind of power these people have? Why is their minority wish more important than ours and our safety? Interestingly most of these people are not affected by the speed nor the humps, yet, they feel like they can keep controlling the TSC like they have been doing for years, simply because they don’t want the bumps! It’s unbelievable really. The Rancho Bella Vista residents are particularly ridiculous when they say they don’t want to take a right instead of left to avoid the bumps…seriously?! Was the TSC told that these people don’t even live near the bumps?! I am constantly amazed by the inefficiency of the city’s processes for this! I am the one who lives on the dangerous corner, I am the one (and my husband and teens) who have to be very careful when pulling out of our driveway. I have dozens of video clips of speeders from my security camera - I hate to say it, but I have been meticulously collecting them (along with my correspondence with the TSC) to prove the city’s negligence in dealing with this issue in case of an accident. My car also was crashed into a few years ago when parked - a mix of speed, reckless driving, wide road, no street lights…it was $5K in damages. Please share the clips below with the new TSC members. Thanks, ilaria Some sample clips: 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 verbally at the May 11th meeting and via email on May 28th, that determines the 85th percentile speed of 34.8 MPH on Mendelsohn, taking into account all the measurements taken by the Traffic Engineer, and therefore making this a Resident-led Speed Hump Process? 2. Did the TSC consider, the 2020 Speed Survey, published on your website which does not list Mendelsohn as one of the many areas studied in Saratoga, to ensure the TSC is in line with where the study says City resources should be spent? 3. Did the TSC consider, that no one present at the May 11th meeting stood up and spoke in favor of speed humps, while 4 or 5 residents stood up in protest of the speed bumps on Mendelsohn? Or are you tossing out those concerns and asking them to be resubmitted redundantly at the next meeting. 4. Did The TSC consider, the number of speeding citations issued on Mendelsohn? I requested this at the last meeting but don’t remember getting a straight answer. Kindly provide us with number of speeding citations issued on a monthly basis for the last three years? I do remember something about a fatal accident being mentioned by someone on your team. Can you provide the specifics on that event as well? 5. I have a travel conflict and cannot attend the next meeting scheduled for September 14th. I understand that several of my neighbors in the area of influence also cannot attend. We respectfully ask that the Mendelsohn Speed Hump issue be removed from the next meeting agenda and rescheduled to a future date to give all concerned the opportunity to potentially be present. Thanks in advance for your prompt attention to these questions. Sincerely, Daniel Miranda 164 165 attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Emma. Following up your email yesterday, I'm forwarding my May 28 email which makes several references to the "survey" you were preparing in follow up to the May 13 TSC meeting. Surveys were discussed at the meeting, and in my other emails and phone communications with you, so were very disappointed to see a survey wasn't included. I added John Cherbone to the distribution as he was included in your email yesterday. All of those copied on this email, and many others, already sent written communications spelling out opposition to speed humps or other additional speed control measures in response to your April letter so resending those should not be necessary. We were very surprised at the May 13 meeting that there was no acknowledgment by TSC members of the input they received, so it wasn't clear if they were familiar with our submissions. The only discussion at the meeting was when we verbally covered our reasons for opposition, and no one spoke in favor. Attached to this forwarded email is a 2013 survey done for Rancho Bella Vista residents. We could initiate a similar survey now but think the city should survey everyone in the expanded Area of Influence. We also request that the Mendelsohn issue be removed from the next meeting agenda as many in the Area of Influence will not be able to attend due to travel conflicts, and taking into account time to get any survey feedback. One final point, as discussed before, is the speed hump issue should not be considered a City-led process in accordance with the TSC policy as the average of measured 85th percentile speeds on Mendelsohn, weighted for associated vehicle counts, is less than 10 mph over the posted speed limit. Thank you and the TSC for your consideration. Tom Tom Lerone 166 On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 4:00 PM Tom Lerone <t > wrote: Hi Emma, Following up our recent discussion, a couple follow up questions/suggestions: As discussed, I believe my calculation of the 85th percentile speed of 34.8 MPH on Mendelsohn, taking into account all the measurements taken by the Traffic Engineer, is correct and therefore this would become a Resident-led Speed Hump Process. I know you said my email was forwarded to the TSC but do you think it would be useful for me to send a note to the TSC using the "share your thoughts and feedback" link on the TSC website? I think this question on the relevant speed hump process should be addressed prior to the July TSC meeting. Regarding the survey letter you'll be drafting, there should be a separate Yes or No question regarding whether residents are for or against Speed humps. Attached is the survey form the city sent in 2013. Similar survey responses will be necessary to determine the resident support level for installing speed humps. You said the letter may also discuss alternative speed control approaches so not sure if that would be just for information purposes if speed humps are not installed or if you'll be asking for written resident feedback? In either event I don't think we should confuse residents on the primary purpose of the survey which is to determine if they support moving ahead with speed humps. Thanks Tom Tom Lerone 167 On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:20 PM Tom Lerone wrote: Hi Emma, When I got home from the TSC meeting last night, I did a spreadsheet to calculate the Mendelsohn average 85th percentile speed taking into account the number of cars measured, as discussed at the meeting. Attached is the Excel spreadsheet file and a pdf which shows the average speed of 34.8 MPH or 9.8 MPH over the limit so Mendelsohn can not be treated as a City-Led process. Per the Speed Hump Process Mendelsohn would be subject to the Resident-led process. Since some residents were in favor of speed bumps in 2019 - before the traffic calming measures - it probably is a good idea to send out surveys. As approved at the meeting the area of influence should be expanded to at least include Rancho Bella Vista residents. I expect this will put the issue of speed bumps on Mendelsohn to bed permanently! Please confirm receipt of this email and when you have notified all TSC members and the Traffic Engineer of the change in process. I can also provide the same information to the TSC via the feedback option on their website. Regards, Tom 168 Tom Lerone <Speed Hump Process.pdf> 169 170 Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2023 6:03 PM To: Thomas Lerone Cc: christine Lerone James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us>; Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us>; Lauren Blom <lpettipiece@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Re: Mendelsohn speed hump issue Dear Christine and Tom, Thank you for your email. I understand your frustration and realize that this may not be the entire neighborhood’s sentiment. Staff has confirmed for me that the City Traffic Engineer found that the 85th percentile speeds on segments of Mendelsohn Lane are still 10 miles per hour above the posted speed limit, even after the installation of preliminary traffic calming measures. Therefore, the Traffic Safety Commission and staff are using the City-Led Speed Hump Process (attached). Taking a weighted average is not part of the Speed Hump Process. We are at the step in the process where the City sends out the proposed plan to the Area of Influence for comments and the Commission will hear any concerns at their September 14 meeting. Please note that Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council if desired. I hope this helps clarify things a bit more! Sincerely, Kookie From: Thomas Lerone Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:16 AM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: christine Lerone Subject: Mendelsohn speed hump issue CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Kookie, I was hoping you could give us some guidance on an issue that has been plaguing our neighborhood for the past 10 years regarding speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane. Proposals were rejected in 2013, 2017 and 2019, only to be raised again this April. Most of our neighbors are still strongly opposed to speed humps, which seem to be driven by one neighbor, but it keeps coming back on the TSC agenda regardless of numerous written submissions in opposition, showing up to and speaking at meetings and many communications with Emma Burkhalter which were to be passed onto the TSC. The city recently made modifications to the street which seem to be very effective and we feel strongly that enough has been done to avert any traffic issues on this very quiet road. One key point to note is the TSC considers this latest proposal to be a City-led process and therefore said they will not survey residents; however we believe it should be a Resident-led process in accordance with the TSC Residential Speed Hump Process as the weighted average of measured 85th percentile speeds on Mendelsohn is below 10 mph over the speed limit. We had a meeting with many like minded neighbors Sunday night and were asked to contact you in this 171 regard. Any guidance you could provide would be much appreciated! Thank you. Christine and Tom Lerone 172 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:M. Leah Cabute; Emma Burkhalter Subject:Online Form Submittal: Traffic Safety Concern Form Date:Monday, August 14, 2023 2:51:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Traffic Safety Concern Form Directions Please include complete responses for each question to help the City determine the specific traffic safety issue occurring, the location of the issue, and how best to reach you. After reviewing your submission, City staff will reach out to you regarding next steps. First Name Peter Last Name Rutti Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Email Address Street name and cross street(s) where the traffic safety concern is occurring: Mendelsohn Lane Description of traffic safety concern: Strongly opposed to putting speed humps on this street to restrict speed for many reasons...air pollution, noise pollution, safety factors for residents ie fire, health safety etc. Suggestions to address the traffic safety concern: use other traffic calming measures....consider using sheriff to monitor at very intermittent times and issue tickets for the infrequent speeders rather than punishing the entire neighborhood with humps on a full time basis. I am unaware of any accidents on this road or deaths or injuries in the 35 years that I have lived here. If humps were installed and accidents began to occur as they often do with this technique...the city could see a large increase in litigation related to these humps. Think of better ways to spend our $$$. 173 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 174 From:Kookie Fitzsimmons To:evamiranda; Suwanna.kerdkaew@sccfd.org Cc:twhitley@saratogafire.org; ckao@saratogafire.org; ezambetti@saratogafire.org; ekraule@saratogafire.org; James Lindsay; Leslie Arroyo; Crystal Bothelio; Emma Burkhalter; John Cherbone Subject:Re: Concerns about Speed Bumps in Very High Fire Hazard Zones Date:Tuesday, August 15, 2023 12:44:15 PM Dear Eva, Thank you for providing this information and sharing your concerns. The Traffic Safety Commission has been carefully reviewing this issue and will be making a decision at their September 14 meeting. Your comments, with the attachments, will be provided to them as part of the meeting materials. Please note that Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council if desired. Sincerely, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor City of Saratoga From: evamiranda Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 12:37 PM To: Suwanna.kerdkaew@sccfd.org <Suwanna.kerdkaew@sccfd.org>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: twhitley@saratogafire.org <twhitley@saratogafire.org>; ckao@saratogafire.org <ckao@saratogafire.org>; ezambetti@saratogafire.org <ezambetti@saratogafire.org>; ekraule@saratogafire.org <ekraule@saratogafire.org> Subject: Concerns about Speed Bumps in Very High Fire Hazard Zones CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Attention: Suwanna Kerdkaew, Fire Chief and Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor of Saratoga I am writing in regards to a letter sent by the Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission (attached). I am opposed to the Saratoga City plan to install speed bumps or chokers on Mendelsohn Lane as proposed in the letter, as it creates a greater safety issue for the City of Saratoga and its residents, in particular: Mendelsohn Lane is in the Very High Fire Hazard Zone, there should be fewer, not more road barriers that inhibit the Fire Departments ability to reach the residents in our area. Given the well documented fire danger throughout California and the difficulty firefighters face controlling fires in Very High Fire Hazard areas, I am requesting: 1. Create an exemption to the Saratoga City plans / process to prohibit speed bumps from all Very High Fire Hazard Zones and roads necessary to reach those areas. Please see the attached, Problems Associated with Traffic Calming which documents the research from many other US communities. Installing speed bumps/chokers will increase fire department and ambulance response times, which can costs lives of residents. It also inhibits residents ability to escape from fire danger. 175 176 177 178 179 From:Venkat Ratnam To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Re: Installation of speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane ... Date:Thursday, September 7, 2023 11:22:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Emma, I am writing to request that the city install speed bumps on Mendelsohn Ln. Mendelsohn Ln is the only way our family has access to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. My wife and I use Mendelsohn Ln several times on a given day and we have always seen people speeding and driving much faster than the speed limit. This is extremely unsafe for drivers that use it regularly as well as for people that regularly walk on that road. Please remember we don't have sidewalks on some sections of that road (on both ends). I have seen many times how some pedestrians get scared and move to a side when they see a vehicle speeding. There is a long and straight stretch of that road that is used by some drivers almost like a racetrack. You can also see where the road curves and that's where you see some drivers speeding and coming out of nowhere. This is more so with people that don't live in the vicinity or those that live in the vicinity but are in some kind of rush. Installing speed bumps just reminds people to slow down regardless of whether they are an occasional or regular user of the road. Lot of people (that don't reside here) that want to use Hill Ave or Bonne Brae Way to access Villa Montalvo also use Mendelsohn Lane. The only criteria that the city should use to install speedbumps is to determine whether people are speeding. You have already established that drivers speed on that road. The city should install speedbumps at the earliest. Thank you! Regards, Sreela and Venkat Venkataratnam 180 181 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Emma Burkhalter Date: September 7, 2023 at 6:49:17 PM PDT To: Emma Burkhalter <eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Traffic Safety Commission Meeting 09/14/2023 Dear Saratoga Community Members, Attached is the agenda for the September 14, 2023 Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) Meeting. You are receiving this agenda because you have reached out to the City with a traffic safety concern and the City has placed your concern item on the September agenda for TSC review. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. and will be held both in-person and via Zoom. The in-person meeting will be held at LGS Recreation (19655 Allendale Ave) in the Patio Room. The Zoom meeting information is on the attached agenda and also included below. All meeting attendees will have a maximum of 3 minutes to speak on an agenda item. The Chair of the Commission will explain the Zoom process at the beginning of the meeting. The meeting process includes the Commission Chair introducing the item and asking the traffic engineer to describe the traffic safety issue. The Chair will then ask the public to raise their virtual or physical hand if anyone is interested in speaking on the item. After the public speaks, the TSC will discuss the item and determine a recommendation to improve the traffic safety issue. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the meeting. Members of the public can observe and participate in the meeting by: 1. Attending in-person at 19655 Allendale Ave, Saratoga, CA 95070. 2. Using the Zoom website at https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87056515247 or App Webinar ID: 870 5651 5247 and using the tool to raise their hand in the Zoom platform when directed by the Chair to speak on an agenda item; OR 182 3. Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833, entering the Webinar ID: 870 5651 5247 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair. Respectfully, Emma Burkhalter, PE Associate Engineer Public Works Department | City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA | 95070 Ph: (408) 868-1274 | eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey 183 184 185 From:Henry Coles To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:Ilaria Keogh; Catherine Thermond Subject:Mendelsohn Speed Humps Date:Monday, September 11, 2023 5:28:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Please forward to the TSC for the upcoming meeting on 9/14. Dear Saratoga TSC, I ride my bike on Mendelsohn on a regular basis on my way to Peach Hill Road. Regarding the speed hump plan for Mendelsohn Lane I have the following observations and a suggestion. The data shows that Mendelsohn has a significant safety issue with the 85th percentile speed of 10MPH or more above the speed limit. This puts the situation in the special safety-issue-case of the solution being City-driven. Speed humps have been installed and are effective on many streets in Saratoga including: Allendale, Chester, Pierce, Elva, Herriman and now Reid Lane. I'm in favor of the TSC approving the speed hump plan for Mendelsohn. Also, thank you for your work to get the speed humps installed on Reid Lane. As far as I can tell they are very effective, and I feel much safer when I'm riding my bike or walking on the street. The noise seems also reduced. No longer do we have noise from cars traveling at high speeds. In my opinion, the value of my property on Reid has increased because of the recent speed hump addition. Thank you for your consideration. -Henry Coles 186 1 TO: City of Saratoga Traffic Safety Committee RE: Speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane DATE: September 12, 2023 Sir/Madam: We are writing as residents of Saratoga, CA, where we have lived for 26 years. We oppose the proposed installation of speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane for multiple reasons, listed below. In addition, we fully support the communications you have received from others in our community who are opposed to speed humps on Mendelsohn. 1. There is no safety need for speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane a. We are not aware of any accidents on Mendelsohn Lane b. We are not aware of any speeding tickets or efforts to catch speeders and hand out tickets c. Mendelsohn Lane is not on the Saratoga Speed Survey of 2020 d. The recent speed survey, when calculated using all the data, shows an average speed of less than 10 mph over the limit when calculated using the average of the 85th percentile speed over the two measurements taken in both directions. 2. Speed humps will decrease the safety of Saratoga residents a. Our neighborhood is in a very high fire safety zone; speed humps will slow the egress of the many people who live in this very high fire safety zone, increasing the risk of loss of life b. Speed humps will slow the response of fire and other emergency responders should a fire occur and result in an increased risk of loss of life and property c. An increased number of burglaries besets our area. Speed humps will slow police response, resulting in an increased risk of injury to people and property loss. 3. Speed humps don’t work. Please see https://ww2.motorists.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/traffic-calming-fact-sheet.pdf which shows that speed humps don’t work because they a. Increase the response time for emergency vehicles b. Increase congestion on other streets c. Increase vehicle wear and tear, air pollution, and noise d. Increase street maintenance costs e. Increase a community’s liabilities for accidents attributed to such devices f. Can cause discomfort and pain for disabled persons or those with physical ailments g. Create neighborhood friction. 4. Speed humps on Mendelsohn are a poor economic decision for Saratoga because they a. Cost a lot of money to install b. Increase street maintenance costs c. Damage fire, police, and other city vehicles. 5. The vast majority of residents in the affected area do not want speed humps 187 2 a. A 2013 survey confirmed that residents did not want the proposed speed humps b. Many residents have spoken against and written opposing speed humps. c. In addition to the multiple letters received opposing speed humps on Mendelsohn, a recently-signed list of 8 additional families opposed to speed humps has been submitted, making well over a dozen families in the immediate area of the proposed speed humps who have voiced strong opposition to speed humps or other road installations. 6. The process of coming to this decision has been seriously flawed a. The calculations to demonstrate that this is a city-led process appear to be incorrect, using selected data for the calculations, not the entire data set. This appears to be “cherry-picking” of the data to obtain a pre-determined result and to prevent this from being a Resident-led process. At the meeting attended August 7th, the process and methodology could not be clearly explained despite a request to know what the methodology was. The process and confirmation that the process is standardized for all speed hump calculations, and that this methodology represents the standard approach in California should be available to Saratoga residents who are affected by proposed speed humps. b. Requests for a survey of those affected have been denied, despite the stated mission of the Traffic Safety Committee: “…by improving communications and involvement between the community, and the City government on services, needs, and programs.” c. The absence of fire department participation in traffic safety decisions that affect the safety of Saratoga residents is curious and would seem entirely inappropriate and likely to increase the risk of harm to persons and property. This is especially so since this area is designated a very high fire hazard area. d. The absence of police department participation in traffic safety decisions that affect the safety of Saratoga residents is additionally curious and would seem entirely inappropriate and likely to increase the risk of harm to persons and property, especially given the increased criminal activity in our neighborhood. e. How is it that a committee dedicated to safety and is also concerned about traffic has not consulted with police and fire experts regarding the trade-offs of speed bumps with increasing risk to people and property by delayed response times? f. The decision not to delay this item on the September meeting agenda because most affected residents could not attend that meeting, despite specific requests for a delay is inexplicable. g. The calling of an emergency meeting on very short notice for August 22, 2023, to discuss limiting the Area of Influence (AOI) significantly so as to disenfranchise Saratoga residents affected by this decision was curious and inconsistent with the committee’s stated mission to include Saratoga residents affected by their actions. 188 3 7. After attending the special meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee on August 22, 2023, many additional questions arise: a. Why has this issue come up 4 times in the last 10 years? We are only aware of one person living in the area who wants speed humps, and for reasons others don’t find compelling. Who else wants speed humps on Mendelsohn, and why? How have they influenced the TSC staff to bring this item up multiple times? b. If the speed used is not the average of the four 85th percentile speeds that were obtained from recordings of travel in each direction at two different places, then what is the method that is used? It is not transparent either on the website or how it was explained at the TSC meeting. It is clear that a number of those at the meeting did not understand the 85th percentile and how the calculations were performed. In an email, we were told that the two highest speeds were used and at the meeting only the single highest 85th percentile speed was used. What is the standard methodology used in California? In Saratoga? If so, why—this seems like cherry-picking the data. And is this method used every time in every situation or are the data analyzed differently in different situations? Why was this method used for Mendelsohn Lane? How can we access the actual raw data to ensure that the calculations were done correctly, especially when we have received different answers of how the calculations were performed? c. It was evident that an individual at the meeting knew a lot about speed humps and was a strong proponent of speed humps. How did he know that 62% of the TSC agenda items were about speed? How did he know that, “the calculations are always correct?” He told us that he knew that one person on Mendelsohn Lane who wanted a speed hump so she could back her car out of her driveway easier. It is difficult to understand how this person has standing since he is clearly not in the Area of Influence. Yet he suggested at the meeting that the TSC should consider reducing the percentage of people in favor of speed humps so that even a large majority of people opposing would not have their wishes followed. And he even wanted to make it more difficult for a property owner having the speed hump at his property line being to veto the speed hump. Yet this person proposing the increased use of speed humps lives miles away from Mendelsohn Lane and has been promoting speed humps for 30 years. Is one person with no elected or appointed status determining the speed hump policy for Saratoga? The committee should provide an explanation of how and why any individual completely unaffected by proposed speed humps appears to have so much influence over committee actions and decisions. d. It was evident from the discussion and from communications and interactions between this individual and the Saratoga staff and TSC members that longstanding relationships were in place. What are the relationships between this individual not in the Area of Influence with the consultant engineer for Saratoga, with the Saratoga staff, and with the TSC? Disclosures of these relationships are essential to avoid the current appearance of potentially multiple conflicts of interest. The relationship(s) are opaque yet of much concern regarding potential undue influence. e. The above point is emphasized by the fact that an email from this individual to the Saratoga staff added an agenda item to the meeting at 3:49 pm on Monday, September 21. The public notice of the meeting came out at 5:07 pm, just over an hour later. Who 189 4 requested this special meeting? How did this individual know there would be a special meeting if the agenda were not yet public? What type of relationship with the City of Saratoga enabled him to put an item on the agenda of a meeting that had not yet been announced? What is the role of the Chair in setting the agenda? f. Given the mission of the TSC to improve communications and involvement with the community, how is it that a 25-hour notice of a meeting is sufficient? g. The traffic engineer consultant stated that in addition to the speeds obtained, other factors had to be taken into consideration in making a recommendation and that some situations were nuanced. In this letter, there are noted many factors that make it clear that a more holistic approach would result in a decision not to install speed humps. In the Mendelsohn Lane situation, since the speed involved is possibly only slightly over the 10 mph at the 85 percentile, why are these many other compelling factors not being considered? h. How is it that the consultant engineer, Saratoga staff, and TSC do not take into account published information about the disadvantages of speed humps in their metrics or discussions? i. At the May meeting the impression was made that a survey would be done. Understanding as we do now the “nuance” and “other factors” that are taken into account by the consultant engineer, why was a survey not done? j. Who performs the economic analysis of the best way to spend our tax dollars when speed humps are expensive and create ongoing costs of road maintenance, and repairs to Saratoga vehicles, not to mention the increased wear and tear on the vehicles traversing the speed bumps daily? And what about other needs in the Saratoga budget that need more funding? For all the above reasons, this current proposal to install speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane is being challenged by Saratoga residents who are being affected. Besides the legitimate arguments against these speed humps, there appears to all of us that there are continued serious attempts to pre-determine the outcome of this process, and this is very disturbing. Sincerely David and Rosemary Adamson 190 From:Kelly Moran To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:In favor of speed bumps Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:35:14 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Emma, I am writing to request that the city install speed bumps on Mendelsohn Ln. Mendelsohn Ln is the only way our family has access to Piedmont Road. My family and I (husband, 9 and 5 yr old) use Mendelsohn Ln several times a day and we always see people speeding and driving much faster than the speed limit. This is extremely unsafe for drivers that use it regularly as well as for people that regularly walk on that road. We ride bikes, walk, jog several times a week. There is a long and straight stretch of that road that is used by some drivers almost like a racetrack. You can also see where the road curves and that's where you see some drivers speeding and coming out of nowhere. This is more so with people that don't live in the vicinity or those that live in the vicinity but are in some kind of rush. Installing speed bumps just reminds people to slow down regardless of whether they are an occasional or regular user of the road. Lot of people (that don't reside here) that want to use Hill Ave or Bonne Brae Way to access Villa Montalvo also use Mendelsohn Lane. The only criteria that the city should use to install speedbumps is to determine whether people are speeding. You have already established that drivers speed on that road. The city should install speedbumps at the earliest. Thank you! Kelly 191 From:Lingling Sun To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Speed bump on Mendelsohn Lane Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:54:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.Dear Traffic Safety Commission, I am writing to ask that you approve the plans to install speed bumps on Mendelsohn. As your traffic studies have continued to show, year after year, speeding is a problem on Mendelsohn.With 3 kids, I have been driving on Mendelsohn many times a day for many and have seen just howdangerous it can be - for cars and also people walking. Speed bumps work everywhere else in Saratoga and I don’t understand why we cannot have themhere, so we can all be safer. Thank you! Lingling 192 From:Sarvesh Jagannivas To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Speed bumps on Mendelsohn Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:09:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms Emma: I live on Bonnie Brae Way. With regards to your upcoming consideration of the question of speed bumps on Mendelsohn - I am very much in support. Regards, Sarvesh Jagannivas 193 From:Dan Lankford To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Speed Bumps on Mendelsohn Date:Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:26:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Emma, Just a quick note to express our STRONG support for speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane! A number of different approaches have been tried, but we still get cars exceeding 40 MPH (and sometimes more!) on Mendelsohn. Speed bumps similar to the two on Austin Way would be a great idea. Thanks! Dan Lankford & Linda Crosta 194 Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission Minutes – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES September 14, 2023 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Jason Mount (Chair), Robert Eng (Vice Chair), Alec Gulesserian, Stephen Li ABSENT: Chi-Kuang Chu STAFF PRESENT: Franziska Church, Emma Burkhalter, John Cherbone, Macedonio Nuñez III. REPORT ON POSTING OF AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 7, 2023. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public may address the Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on the agenda. The law generally prohibits the Commission from discussing or taking actions on these items. The Commission may choose to place the topic on a future agenda. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 07-13-2023 TSC Minutes – Draft 08-22-2023 TSC Special Meeting Minutes - Draft Recommended Action: Approve July 13, 2023 Minutes and August 22, 2023 Minutes ENG/MOUNT MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 2023 AND AUGUST 2023 MINUTES. MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ENG, GULESSERIAN, LI, MOUNT. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: CHU. VI. SHERIFF'S REPORT TO THE COMMISSION Sheriff’s Report • July-August citation summary and collision statistics • List of Vehicle Codes VII. OLD BUSINESS 195 Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission Minutes – Page 2 of 3 1. TSC Matrix 392 – Mendelsohn Ln August Mailing and Responses Comments Comments (09/12/2023) Comments From Previous Agendas ENG/MOUNT MOVED TO INSTALL THE SPEED TABLES AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ENG, GULESSERIAN, LI, MOUNT. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: CHU. Recommended Action: Hear resident feedback and approve plan for construction. 2. TSC Matrix 502 – Ravenwood Dr Plans Comments Comments From Previous Agendas Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. ENG/GULESSERIAN MOVED TO BEGIN THE RESIDENT-LED SPEED HUMP PROCESS AT STEP R5 (CITY DRAFTS SPEED HUMP PLAN AND AREA OF INFLUENCE). MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ENG, GULESSERIAN, LI, MOUNT. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: CHU. VIII. NEW BUSINESS 3. TSC Matrix 564 – Braemar Dr Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. GULESSERIAN/LI MOVED TO PROCEED WITH TRAFFIC ENGINEER’S RECOMMENDATION OF INSTALLING SPEED LIMIT SIGNS AND ADDING STREET TO THE RADAR FEEDBACK TRAILER ROTATION. MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ENG, GULESSERIAN, LI, MOUNT. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: CHU. 4. TSC Matrix 565 – Farwell Ave Comments (09/13/2023) Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. MOUNT/ENG MOVED TO ADD STREET TO RADAR FEEDBACK TRAILER ROTATION AND CAPTURE NEW SPEED DATA WITH THE TRAILERS IN PLACE. IF THE 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED IS REDUCED BY MORE THAN 3 MPH, INSTALL PERMANENT RADAR FEEDBACK SIGNS WITHOUT 196 Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission Minutes – Page 3 of 3 FURTHER DIRECTION FROM TSC. OTHERWISE, BRING BACK TO TSC FOR REVIEW. MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ENG, GULESSERIAN, LI, MOUNT. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: CHU. 5. TSC Matrix 566 – Vickery Ave Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. ENG/LI MOVED TO ADD DOUBLE YELLOW CENTERLINE STRIPING THROUGH THE S-CURVE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER. MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ENG, GULESSERIAN, LI, MOUNT. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: CHU. 6. Reschedule November Meeting Recommended Action: Reschedule for either November 2nd or November 16th MOUNT/ENG MOVED TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 2ND IN PLACE OF THE REGULAR NOVEMBER TSC MEETING. MOTION PASSED (4- 0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ENG, GULESSERIAN, LI, MOUNT. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: CHU. IX. STAFF AND COMMISSION UPDATES 7. Staff and Commission Updates a. TSC Project Updates b. City Events c. TSC Handbook d. Announcements Recommended Action: Accept updates. X. COMMISSION ITEMS LI REQUESTED SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL’S CIRCULATION PLAN BE SENT TO THE COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND ITEM BE ADDED TO JANUARY 2024 TSC MEETING TO DISCUSS THE CIRCULATION PLAN. THE DOCUMENT IS ATTACHED TO THESE MINUTES. XI. ADJOURNMENT - 9:50 PM Respectfully Submitted by Emma Burkhalter, Public Works staff for the City of Saratoga 197 From:Britt Avrit To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:Leslie Arroyo; James Lindsay; John Cherbone Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 2:43:24 PM Hi Emma, Can you please include this as an attachment to the Staff Report for the Appeal? Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 2:37 PM To: Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us>; Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Lingling Sun Phone Number Email Address Subject Speed Bump Comments Dear City Council Members, I hope you will uphold the decision of the Traffic Safety Commission regarding speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane. We have been asking for them for 10 years - It is a matter of safety! My family and I live right where Hill, Bonnie Brae Ln and Mendelsohn meet, so I use Mendelsohn many times a day and 198 speeding is a dangerous issue, especially at the curve. We have a speed bump (on Bonnie Brae Ln), right outside my window and it is not bothersome nor loud. It is very helpful in making people slow down! We have a lot on Villa Montalvo traffic in our area and also many walkers and hikers. Speed bumps would make it safer for everyone. thank you for your consideration!! Lingling Sun Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 199 From:Britt Avrit To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:Leslie Arroyo; James Lindsay; John Cherbone Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 2:43:48 PM Hi Emma, Can you please include this as an attachment to the Staff Report for the Appeal? Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 1:31 PM To: Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us>; Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Lori Timmons Phone Number Email Address Subject Speed bumps on Mendelssohn Lane Comments I am so happy that the Traffic Safety Commission has voted in favor of speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane. I live at , and have witnessed MANY cars come speeding up toward my house as we are entering or exiting our property. It is very scary and i hope these speed bumps get installed ASAP!!! 200 Email Subscription Unsubscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 201 From:Britt Avrit To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:Leslie Arroyo; James Lindsay; John Cherbone Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, October 18, 2023 7:57:55 AM Hi Emma, Can you please include this as an attachment to the Staff Report for the Appeal? Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 8:47 PM To: Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us>; Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Kelly Ciccone Phone Number Email Address Subject Mendelsohn Speed Bumps Comments To whom it may concern, I understand the Traffic Safety Commission unanimously approved the speed bumps on Mendelsohn however, a neighbor filed an appeal with the city. People are constantly speeding on that road so I don't understand why any neighbor would disagree 202 with speed bumps. IMendelsohn Ln is the only way our family has access to Piedmont Road. My family and I (husband, 9 and 6 yr old) use Mendelsohn Ln several times a day and we always see people speeding and driving much faster than the speed limit. This is extremely unsafe for drivers that use it regularly as well as for people that regularly walk on that road. We ride bikes, walk, jog several times a week. There is a long and straight stretch of that road that is used by some drivers almost like a racetrack. You can also see where the road curves and that's where you see some drivers speeding and coming out of nowhere. This is more so with people that don't live in the vicinity or those that live in the vicinity but are in some kind of rush. Installing speed bumps just reminds people to slow down regardless of whether they are an occasional or regular user of the road. Lot of people (that don't reside here) that want to use Hill Ave or Bonne Brae Way to access Villa Montalvo also use Mendelsohn Lane. The only criteria that the city should use to install speedbumps is to determine whether people are speeding. You have already established that drivers speed on that road. The city should install speedbumps at the earliest. Thanks for your consideration, Kelly Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 203 From:Britt Avrit To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:Leslie Arroyo; James Lindsay; John Cherbone Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Friday, October 20, 2023 8:23:02 AM Hi Emma, Can you please include this as an attachment to the Staff Report for the Appeal? Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2023 6:49 PM To: Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us>; Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Ritu Rama Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject speed bumps Comments To whom it may concern: We have been actively working for over 5 years now to control the traffic on Mendelson and Montalvo. After 3 years we finally had the roads painted. 204 However, we had aligned in the traffic commission meeting to put up speed bumps on Mendelson and now it feels like we are back to square one with regards to having the city complete what it had agreed to. We understand that there is one neighbor who may have appealed and now this may go back on the docket. This is so ridiculous that we keep moving back on these efforts. We need to use our time more efficiently and there is no reason this should be discussed again. At this point action needs to be take. Enough years have passed. Enough injuries have occurred. Thank you, Ritu Ram Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 205 From:Britt Avrit To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:John Cherbone Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 24, 2023 2:44:13 PM Hi Emma, Can you please include this as an attachment to the Staff Report for the Appeal? Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 2:41 PM To: Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Sunny Yue Liu Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Support speed bumps Comments I reside at and am reaching out to wholeheartedly endorse the proposal for installing speed bumps on our street. Over the years, excessive speeding has become a persistent issue here on Mendelsohn, posing a significant safety risk. This concern is not unfounded; a stark reminder is an incident from a few years back when a speeding vehicle collided with my nanny's car parked along the street. The constant worry 206 plagues me each time I reverse into Mendelsohn Lane from my driveway, anxious about the potential hazard of a car zooming past. The situation is urgent, and measures like speed bumps are imperative for the safety and peace of mind of all residents in our neighborhood. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 207 From:Britt Avrit To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:John Cherbone Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 24, 2023 3:13:43 PM Hi Emma, Can you please include this as an attachment to the Staff Report for the Appeal? Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 2:59 PM To: Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Sunny Liu Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Support for installing speed bumps on Mendelsohn ln Comments I reside at and am reaching out to wholeheartedly endorse the proposal for installing speed bumps on our street. Over the years, excessive speeding has become a persistent issue here on Mendelsohn, posing a significant safety risk. This concern is not unfounded; a stark reminder is an incident from a few years back when a speeding vehicle collided with my nanny's car parked along the street. The constant worry 208 plagues me each time I reverse into Mendelsohn Lane from my driveway, anxious about the potential hazard of a car zooming past. The situation is urgent, and measures like speed bumps are imperative for the safety and peace of mind of all residents in our neighborhood. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 209 From:Britt Avrit To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:John Cherbone Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 24, 2023 4:05:18 PM Hi Emma, Can you please include this as an attachment to the Staff Report for the Appeal? Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 3:46 PM To: Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Henry Coles Phone Number Email Address Subject Comments on Mendelsohn Appeal Comments October 24, 2023 To: Honorable Saratoga City Council From: Henry Coles, Subject: Comments on Grounds for Appeal for Mendelsohn Speed Humps Dear Saratoga City Council, 210 I ride my bike frequently on Mendelsohn and I support the decision of the Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) to install speed humps on Mendelsohn. Please reject this appeal. Over the last few years or so, the TSC has developed a process for handling traffic calming requests. The process has two branches: 1) Resident-Led and 2) City-Led. The branch can be selected based on the 85th percentile of speeds recorded. The City-Led process is supposed to be led by the City Staff, Traffic Engineering Consultants, and the Traffic Safety Commission. The City-Led process allows members of the public to voice their opinions but the TSC is not required to take actions or change the process based on the public input. Since the Grounds for Appeal contains incorrect information, I feel obligated to comment as follows: 1 – The measured 85th percentile speeds (10MPH above speed limit) put Mendelsohn on the City-Led branch of the process. The City-Led process for Mendelsohn was approved by the TSC on 12/1/2022. The day and direction with the highest 85th percentile speed is used for the determination. This was explained to Mr. Lerone by F. Church (Fehr & Peers) at the last Mendelson TSC meeting. Note: Nov. 30 West Bound 85th percentile speed is 3.6MPH above the level needed for a City- Led process classification. The appeal grounds for this item are not relevant because the average is not used. Note data below. Nov. 29, 2022 – Mendelsohn West Bound 85th percentile = 36.2MPH – max. recorded speed 45-50MPH Nov. 30, 2022 – Mendelsohn West Bound 85th percentile = 38.6MPH – max. recorded speed 50-55MPH 2 – There were collisions in 2016 and 2018. The incremental changes over time did not lower the 85th percentile speeds on Mendelsohn. 3 – The Fire Department was made aware of the speed hump plans for Mendelsohn. 4 – No references provided for “Studies have shown…” However, a Washington Post segment on Feb. 15, 2003 addresses property values. “…. in interviews with 15 long-term real estate agents in four jurisdictions, not one said they make a difference.” 5 – The TSC can select the factor(s) they want to consider. 6 – See #5 above. 7 – See #1 above, the highest 85th percentile speed is used. 211 8 – See #1 above. The process used is City-Led. Residents can voice opinions which the TSC graciously allowed them to do. The TSC is not required to act based on comments by the public during the City-Led process. 9 – The City Staff heard the request to move the meeting but indicated potential schedule conflicts may not allow it. Regarding “a reference point” see #8 above. 10 – The TSC meetings are open to the public. 11 – The Special Meeting notice was posted within 24 hours as required. The subject(s) of the Special Meeting did not include Mendelsohn. 12 – Providing safe streets for Saratoga residents is a common use of City funds. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 212 From:Margie Montgomery To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Fw: Mendelshon Lane Speeding Date:Tuesday, October 24, 2023 4:31:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Emma and the City Commission, I have enclosed my original letter to give to the Traffic commission. The speed along Mendelsohn Lane has been proven dangerous by your own reports. The people on Rancho Bella Vista have NO Sphere of Influence. They don't even have to drive over them if they choose not! You either have a Sphere of influence or NOT! If you don't follow your own guidelines, then by default, you have made a precedent for All issues in the city. Why is the concern for safety the last of the things to be considered? I also read the letter from the Fire Chief, if speed bumps are an issue for the trucks and getting to a fire, it reasons ALL speed bumps in the City need to immediately be removed! Somehow that logic doesn't ring true... I understand speed bumps are an inconvenience for all of us, but I for one, am willing to protect my neighborhood from a dangerous situation. Mendelshon is an exit street to many people up in the hills, lots of volume, I deserve the right to a safe street to live on and walk around. Do I not? I will look forward to the Commission meeting. Sincerely, Marjorie Montgomery ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Margie Montgomery To: eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us <eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 at 08:58:33 PM PDT Subject: Mendelshon Lane Speeding Dear Emma, Thank you for speaking with me on the phone last week. As per your request, I am emailing you my concerns. 213 I have lived at the corner of Mendalsohn Lane for 32 years. I have seen it all... the racing, the speeding, the running aground on my property, the slamming of breaks to make the turn, almost running me down watering my plants. The "putting it thru the gears" after they leave "their" neighborhood. Your own research shows how unsafe the driving habits are on Mendelsohn. I think it is incumbent for your office to protect those of us who's homes are directly on Mendelshon. I am sorry, Rancho Bella Vista should not have a vote. If you include them then you have a whole lot of others to include.... They are not Directly affected. If we don't slow down the cars, I fear the worst. None of us want a dangerous situation right outside our neighborhood door. I hope you keep the vote to those who really experience the problem, and install the speed Humps. Sincerely, Marjorie Montgomery Saratoga, CA 95070 214 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 24, 2023 5:31:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Margie Montgomery Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject speed bumps on Mendelsohn Comments I have enclosed my original letter to give to the Traffic commission. The speed along Mendelsohn Lane has been proven dangerous by your own reports. The people on Rancho Bella Vista have NO Sphere of Influence. They don't even have to drive over them if they choose not! You either have a Sphere of influence or NOT! If you don't follow your own guidelines, then by default, you have made a precedent for All issues in the city. Why is the concern for safety the last of the things to be considered? I also read the letter from the Fire Chief, if speed bumps are an issue for the trucks and getting to a fire, it reasons ALL speed bumps in the City need to immediately be removed! Somehow that logic doesn't ring true... I understand speed bumps are an inconvenience for all of us, but I for one, am willing to protect my neighborhood from a dangerous situation. Mendelshon is an exit street to many people up in the hills, lots of volume, I deserve the right to a safe street to live on and walk around. Do I not? I will look forward to the Commission meeting. Sincerely, Marjorie Montgomery ----- Forwarded Message ----- 215 From: Margie Montgomery To: eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 at 08:58:33 PM PDT Subject: Mendelshon Lane Speeding Dear Emma, Thank you for speaking with me on the phone last week. As per your request, I am emailing you my concerns. I have lived at the corner of Mendalsohn Lane for 32 years. I have seen it all... the racing, the speeding, the running aground on my property, the slamming of breaks to make the turn, almost running me down watering my plants. The "putting it thru the gears" after they leave "their" neighborhood. Your own research shows how unsafe the driving habits are on Mendelsohn. I think it is incumbent for your office to protect those of us who's homes are directly on Mendelshon. I am sorry, Rancho Bella Vista should not have a vote. If you include them then you have a whole lot of others to include.... They are not Directly affected. If we don't slow down the cars, I fear the worst. None of us want a dangerous situation right outside our neighborhood door. I hope you keep the vote to those who really experience the problem, and install the speed Humps. Sincerely, Marjorie Montgomery Saratoga, CA 95070 Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 216 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 24, 2023 7:23:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Mark Weisler Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Speeding on Mendelsohn Comments Dear Council, It has come to my attention that the Saratoga government is again considering speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane. I am opposed to the idea for reasons given below. First of all let me somewhat qualify myself by saying that I am a commercial rated pilot, former motorcycle racer, and motorist for many decades so I have a pretty good ability to estimate vehicle speed. I've lived on Hill Avenue for decades and the route to my home is via Mendelsohn Lane so I feel I have standing in this matter even though you do not include me in notifications concerning your policy making. I need to use Mendelsohn to get to my home. Indeed, we have a problem with speeding on residential streets but not just on Mendelsohn. [1] I am in favor of enforcing speed laws, especially in residential areas. I believe radar technologies offer a superior way to enforce these laws. Photo radar is much less expensive to enforce than sworn officers and is more objective. Speed bumps: -- Unnecessarily cause wear and damage to vehicle suspension and tires. -- Compromise safety as cars, motorcycles, and bicyclists maneuver over the bumps or try to avoid them, maybe even encroaching on sidewalks and pedestrians. -- Punish every single driver, including law abiding ones, every time they bounce over a speed bump. -- Unnecessarily cause air pollution. It is well known that a steady speed produces less pollution than during acceleration. By 217 imposing speed bumps government would be causing more, and unnecessary, pollution as a vehicle accelerates after slowing for a speed bump. This is against everything Saratoga City Council and the California government stand for. -- Increase fuel consumption as vehicles accelerate after slowing for a bump. -- Are uncomfortable and may distract drivers from their main task of driving. -- Contribute to noise pollution as well as air pollution. -- Shift traffic to nearby streets. For example, the speed bumps on Three Oaks Way have shifted discretionary traffic to Farwell making the residents of Farwell exposed to more than their "fair share" of vehicle traffic. -- Would harm my property value. I don't like that. The timing of this issue is interesting considering that we have had for some time a young man I allege was living at 20171 Rancho Bella Vista driving a Porsche at somewhat high speeds on Mendelsohn Lane, Montalvo Road, and other streets during day and night hours. I tried to take video of his speeding but was never quick enough to do so. I'm sure his lawlessness generated some complaints. But the house in which he lived was sold in March of this year and the Porsche is no longer here. It would be quite an irony to put in speed bumps now that a contributor to the residential speeding problem is no longer in our neighborhood. It does not appear that the City of Saratoga government has given serious consideration to photo radar or other ways of enforcing speed laws and explained their decision making process to the residents of Saratoga. Photo radar speed detection and forwarding of excessive speed events to law enforcement is well established in other areas and has been for decades. Saratoga should use radar to enforce speeding laws rather than atavistic speed bumps. [1] A few days ago, while walking on Piedmont with friends who witnessed the event, a small BMW sedan sped down the street at a speed of at least 55 mph. Piedmont has no shoulders and no sidewalks. Again, this illustrates that the speeding problem is not limited to Mendelsohn. Very sincerely, Mark Weisler, Hill Avenue Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 218 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 24, 2023 11:03:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Venkat Phone Number Email Address Subject Re: Speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane Comments Hello, I am writing to you again about the need to install speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane. We live on Winn Road and Mendelsohn Ln is the only way to get home. My wife and I use it several times a day. Even as late as this morning when I was driving back home after dropping off our daughter at school, I saw a car driving almost 45-50 mph in the opposite direction. It is extremely unsafe for the residents, other drivers and the many people that walk on the road when you have drivers speeding. Please remember there are many sections on this road that don’t have a sidewalk. Even though I don’t live on Mendelsohn Lane, I still support having the speed bumps because that’s the right thing for everyone’s safety. Thinking otherwise is being selfish. I support everyone that lives on Mendelsohn Lane because they are the ones that deal with speeding all the time. The right thing is for the city to install speed bumps. Safety over inconvenience. After all, speed bumps delay you just a couple of seconds to your destination. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 219 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 24, 2023 11:07:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Venkat Venkataratnam Phone Number Email Address Subject Re: Speed bumps on Mendelsohn lane Comments Hello, I am writing to you again about the need to install speed bumps on Mendelsohn Lane. We live on Winn Road and Mendelsohn Ln is the only way to get home. My wife and I use it several times a day. Even as late as this morning when I was driving back home after dropping off our daughter at school, I saw a car driving almost 45-50 mph in the opposite direction. It is extremely unsafe for the residents, other drivers and the many people that walk on the road when you have drivers speeding. Please remember there are many sections on this road that don’t have a sidewalk. Even though I don’t live on Mendelsohn Lane, I still support having the speed bumps because that’s the right thing for everyone’s safety. Thinking otherwise is being selfish. I support everyone that lives on Mendelsohn Lane because they are the ones that deal with speeding all the time. The right thing is for the city to install speed bumps. Safety over inconvenience. After all, speed bumps delay you just a couple of seconds to your destination. Thanks! Venkat Venkataratnam Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 220 From: To:Britt Avrit Cc:Miranda, Eva & Dan ); Tom Lerone Subject:ATTN: Britt Avrit, Office of Saratoga City Clerk Date:Wednesday, October 25, 2023 5:00:01 AM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png 20140RBV Speed humps Mendelsohn Adamson letter Saratoga City Council SENT 20231025.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. TO: Saratoga City Council ATTN: Britt Avrit, Office of Saratoga City Clerk RE: Speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane DATE: October 25, 2023 Sir/Madam: We are writing as residents of , Saratoga, CA, where we have lived for 26 years. We oppose the proposed installation of speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane for multiple reasons, listed below. In addition, we fully support the communications you have received from others in our community who are opposed to speed humps on Mendelsohn. 1. There is no safety need for speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane a. We are not aware of any accidents on Mendelsohn Lane b. We are not aware of any speeding tickets or efforts to catch speeders and hand out tickets c. Mendelsohn Lane is not on the Saratoga Speed Survey of 2020 d. The recent speed survey, when calculated using all the data, shows an average speed of less than 10 mph over the limit when calculated using the average of the 85th percentile speed over the two measurements taken in both directions. 2. Speed humps will decrease the safety of Saratoga residents a. Our neighborhood is in a very high fire safety zone; speed humps will slow the egress of the many people who live in this very high fire safety zone, increasing the risk of loss of life b. Speed humps will slow the response of fire and other emergency responders should a fire occur and result in an increased risk of loss of life and property c. An increased number of burglaries besets our area. Speed humps will slow police response, resulting in an increased risk of injury to people and property loss. 3. Speed humps don’t work. Please see https://ww2.motorists.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/traffic-calming-fact-sheet.pdf which shows that speed humps don’t work because they a. Increase the response time for emergency vehicles b. Increase congestion on other streets c. Increase vehicle wear and tear, air pollution, and noise d. Increase street maintenance costs e. Increase a community’s liabilities for accidents attributed to such devices f. Can cause discomfort and pain for disabled persons or those with physical ailments g. Create neighborhood friction. 4. Speed humps on Mendelsohn are a poor economic decision for Saratoga because they a. Cost a lot of money to install 221 b. Increase street maintenance costs c. Damage fire, police, and other city vehicles. 5. The vast majority of residents in the affected area do not want speed humps a. A 2013 survey confirmed that residents did not want the proposed speed humps b. Many residents have spoken against and written opposing speed humps. c. In addition to the multiple letters received opposing speed humps on Mendelsohn, a recently-signed list of 8 additional families opposed to speed humps has been submitted, making well over a dozen families in the immediate area of the proposed speed humps who have voiced strong opposition to speed humps or other road installations. 6. The process of coming to this decision has been seriously flawed a. The calculations to demonstrate that this is a city-led process appear to be incorrect, using selected data for the calculations, not the entire data set. This appears to be “cherry-picking” of the data to obtain a pre-determined result and to prevent this from being a Resident-led process. At the meeting attended August 7th, the process and methodology could not be clearly explained despite a request to know what the methodology was. The process and confirmation that the process is standardized for all speed hump calculations, and that this methodology represents the standard approach in California should be available to Saratoga residents who are affected by proposed speed humps. b. Requests for a survey of those affected have been denied, despite the stated mission of the Traffic Safety Committee: “…by improving communications and involvement between the community, and the City government on services, needs, and programs.” c. The absence of fire department participation in traffic safety decisions that affect the safety of Saratoga residents is curious and would seem entirely inappropriate and likely to increase the risk of harm to persons and property. This is especially so since this area is designated a very high fire hazard area. d. The absence of police department participation in traffic safety decisions that affect the safety of Saratoga residents is additionally curious and would seem entirely inappropriate and likely to increase the risk of harm to persons and property, especially given the increased criminal activity in our neighborhood. e. How is it that a committee dedicated to safety and is also concerned about traffic has not consulted with police and fire experts regarding the trade-offs of speed bumps with increasing risk to people and property by delayed response times? f. The decision not to delay this item on the September meeting agenda because most affected residents could not attend that meeting, despite specific requests for a delay is inexplicable. g. The calling of an emergency meeting on very short notice for August 22, 2023, to discuss limiting the Area of Influence (AOI) significantly so as to disenfranchise Saratoga residents affected by this decision was curious and inconsistent with the committee’s stated mission to include Saratoga residents affected by their actions. 7. After attending the special meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee on August 22, 2023, many additional questions arise: a. Why has this issue come up 4 times in the last 10 years? We are only aware of one person living in the area who wants speed humps, and for reasons others don’t find compelling. Who else wants speed humps on Mendelsohn, and why? How have they influenced the TSC staff to bring this item up multiple times? b. If the speed used is not the average of the four 85th percentile speeds that were obtained from recordings of travel in each direction at two different places, then what is the method that is used? It is not transparent either on the website or how it was explained at the TSC meeting. It is clear that a number of those at the meeting did not understand the 85th percentile and how the calculations were performed. In an email, 222 we were told that the two highest speeds were used and at the meeting only the single highest 85th percentile speed was used. What is the standard methodology used in California? In Saratoga? If so, why—this seems like cherry-picking the data. And is this method used every time in every situation or are the data analyzed differently in different situations? Why was this method used for Mendelsohn Lane? How can we access the actual raw data to ensure that the calculations were done correctly, especially when we have received different answers of how the calculations were performed? c. It was evident that an individual at the meeting knew a lot about speed humps and was a strong proponent of speed humps. How did he know that 62% of the TSC agenda items were about speed? How did he know that, “the calculations are always correct?” He told us that he knew that one person on Mendelsohn Lane who wanted a speed hump so she could back her car out of her driveway easier. It is difficult to understand how this person has standing since he is clearly not in the Area of Influence. Yet he suggested at the meeting that the TSC should consider reducing the percentage of people in favor of speed humps so that even a large majority of people opposing would not have their wishes followed. And he even wanted to make it more difficult for a property owner having the speed hump at his property line being to veto the speed hump. Yet this person proposing the increased use of speed humps lives miles away from Mendelsohn Lane and has been promoting speed humps for 30 years. Is one person with no elected or appointed status determining the speed hump policy for Saratoga? The committee should provide an explanation of how and why any individual completely unaffected by proposed speed humps appears to have so much influence over committee actions and decisions. d. It was evident from the discussion and from communications and interactions between this individual and the Saratoga staff and TSC members that longstanding relationships were in place. What are the relationships between this individual not in the Area of Influence with the consultant engineer for Saratoga, with the Saratoga staff, and with the TSC? Disclosures of these relationships are essential to avoid the current appearance of potentially multiple conflicts of interest. The relationship(s) are opaque yet of much concern regarding potential undue influence. e. The above point is emphasized by the fact that an email from this individual to the Saratoga staff added an agenda item to the meeting at 3:49 pm on Monday, September 21. The public notice of the meeting came out at 5:07 pm, just over an hour later. Who requested this special meeting? How did this individual know there would be a special meeting if the agenda were not yet public? What type of relationship with the City of Saratoga enabled him to put an item on the agenda of a meeting that had not yet been announced? What is the role of the Chair in setting the agenda? f. Given the mission of the TSC to improve communications and involvement with the community, how is it that a 25-hour notice of a meeting is sufficient? g. The traffic engineer consultant stated that in addition to the speeds obtained, other factors had to be taken into consideration in making a recommendation and that some situations were nuanced. In this letter, there are noted many factors that make it clear that a more holistic approach would result in a decision not to install speed humps. In the Mendelsohn Lane situation, since the speed involved is possibly only slightly over the 10 mph at the 85 percentile, why are these many other compelling factors not being considered? h. How is it that the consultant engineer, Saratoga staff, and TSC do not take into account published information about the disadvantages of speed humps in their metrics or discussions? i. At the May meeting the impression was made that a survey would be done. Understanding as we do now the “nuance” and “other factors” that are taken into account by the consultant engineer, why was a survey not done? j. Who performs the economic analysis of the best way to spend our tax dollars when speed humps are expensive and create ongoing costs of road maintenance, and repairs to Saratoga vehicles, not to mention the increased wear and tear on the vehicles traversing the speed bumps daily? And what about other needs in the Saratoga budget that need more funding? For all the above reasons, this current proposal to install speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane is being challenged by Saratoga residents who are being affected. Besides the legitimate arguments against these speed humps, there appears to all of us that there are continued serious attempts to pre- determine the outcome of this process, and this is very disturbing. 223 Sincerely David and Rosemary Adamson G. David Adamson, MD, FRCSC, FACOG, FACS 20195 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 220 Cupertino, CA, USA 95014-2380 Office: +1 (408) 647-9809 Secured by Paubox - HITRUST CSF certified 224 1 TO: Saratoga City Council ATTN: Britt Avrit, Office of Saratoga City Clerk RE: Speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane DATE: October 25, 2023 Sir/Madam: We are writing as residents of , Saratoga, CA, where we have lived for 26 years. We oppose the proposed installation of speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane for multiple reasons, listed below. In addition, we fully support the communications you have received from others in our community who are opposed to speed humps on Mendelsohn. 1. There is no safety need for speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane a. We are not aware of any accidents on Mendelsohn Lane b. We are not aware of any speeding tickets or efforts to catch speeders and hand out tickets c. Mendelsohn Lane is not on the Saratoga Speed Survey of 2020 d. The recent speed survey, when calculated using all the data, shows an average speed of less than 10 mph over the limit when calculated using the average of the 85th percentile speed over the two measurements taken in both directions. 2. Speed humps will decrease the safety of Saratoga residents a. Our neighborhood is in a very high fire safety zone; speed humps will slow the egress of the many people who live in this very high fire safety zone, increasing the risk of loss of life b. Speed humps will slow the response of fire and other emergency responders should a fire occur and result in an increased risk of loss of life and property c. An increased number of burglaries besets our area. Speed humps will slow police response, resulting in an increased risk of injury to people and property loss. 3. Speed humps don’t work. Please see https://ww2.motorists.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/traffic-calming-fact-sheet.pdf which shows that speed humps don’t work because they a. Increase the response time for emergency vehicles b. Increase congestion on other streets c. Increase vehicle wear and tear, air pollution, and noise d. Increase street maintenance costs e. Increase a community’s liabilities for accidents attributed to such devices f. Can cause discomfort and pain for disabled persons or those with physical ailments g. Create neighborhood friction. 4. Speed humps on Mendelsohn are a poor economic decision for Saratoga because they a. Cost a lot of money to install b. Increase street maintenance costs c. Damage fire, police, and other city vehicles. 225 2 5. The vast majority of residents in the affected area do not want speed humps a. A 2013 survey confirmed that residents did not want the proposed speed humps b. Many residents have spoken against and written opposing speed humps. c. In addition to the multiple letters received opposing speed humps on Mendelsohn, a recently-signed list of 8 additional families opposed to speed humps has been submitted, making well over a dozen families in the immediate area of the proposed speed humps who have voiced strong opposition to speed humps or other road installations. 6. The process of coming to this decision has been seriously flawed a. The calculations to demonstrate that this is a city-led process appear to be incorrect, using selected data for the calculations, not the entire data set. This appears to be “cherry-picking” of the data to obtain a pre-determined result and to prevent this from being a Resident-led process. At the meeting attended August 7th, the process and methodology could not be clearly explained despite a request to know what the methodology was. The process and confirmation that the process is standardized for all speed hump calculations, and that this methodology represents the standard approach in California should be available to Saratoga residents who are affected by proposed speed humps. b. Requests for a survey of those affected have been denied, despite the stated mission of the Traffic Safety Committee: “…by improving communications and involvement between the community, and the City government on services, needs, and programs.” c. The absence of fire department participation in traffic safety decisions that affect the safety of Saratoga residents is curious and would seem entirely inappropriate and likely to increase the risk of harm to persons and property. This is especially so since this area is designated a very high fire hazard area. d. The absence of police department participation in traffic safety decisions that affect the safety of Saratoga residents is additionally curious and would seem entirely inappropriate and likely to increase the risk of harm to persons and property, especially given the increased criminal activity in our neighborhood. e. How is it that a committee dedicated to safety and is also concerned about traffic has not consulted with police and fire experts regarding the trade-offs of speed bumps with increasing risk to people and property by delayed response times? f. The decision not to delay this item on the September meeting agenda because most affected residents could not attend that meeting, despite specific requests for a delay is inexplicable. g. The calling of an emergency meeting on very short notice for August 22, 2023, to discuss limiting the Area of Influence (AOI) significantly so as to disenfranchise Saratoga residents affected by this decision was curious and inconsistent with the committee’s stated mission to include Saratoga residents affected by their actions. 226 3 7. After attending the special meeting of the Traffic Safety Committee on August 22, 2023, many additional questions arise: a. Why has this issue come up 4 times in the last 10 years? We are only aware of one person living in the area who wants speed humps, and for reasons others don’t find compelling. Who else wants speed humps on Mendelsohn, and why? How have they influenced the TSC staff to bring this item up multiple times? b. If the speed used is not the average of the four 85th percentile speeds that were obtained from recordings of travel in each direction at two different places, then what is the method that is used? It is not transparent either on the website or how it was explained at the TSC meeting. It is clear that a number of those at the meeting did not understand the 85th percentile and how the calculations were performed. In an email, we were told that the two highest speeds were used and at the meeting only the single highest 85th percentile speed was used. What is the standard methodology used in California? In Saratoga? If so, why—this seems like cherry-picking the data. And is this method used every time in every situation or are the data analyzed differently in different situations? Why was this method used for Mendelsohn Lane? How can we access the actual raw data to ensure that the calculations were done correctly, especially when we have received different answers of how the calculations were performed? c. It was evident that an individual at the meeting knew a lot about speed humps and was a strong proponent of speed humps. How did he know that 62% of the TSC agenda items were about speed? How did he know that, “the calculations are always correct?” He told us that he knew that one person on Mendelsohn Lane who wanted a speed hump so she could back her car out of her driveway easier. It is difficult to understand how this person has standing since he is clearly not in the Area of Influence. Yet he suggested at the meeting that the TSC should consider reducing the percentage of people in favor of speed humps so that even a large majority of people opposing would not have their wishes followed. And he even wanted to make it more difficult for a property owner having the speed hump at his property line being to veto the speed hump. Yet this person proposing the increased use of speed humps lives miles away from Mendelsohn Lane and has been promoting speed humps for 30 years. Is one person with no elected or appointed status determining the speed hump policy for Saratoga? The committee should provide an explanation of how and why any individual completely unaffected by proposed speed humps appears to have so much influence over committee actions and decisions. d. It was evident from the discussion and from communications and interactions between this individual and the Saratoga staff and TSC members that longstanding relationships were in place. What are the relationships between this individual not in the Area of Influence with the consultant engineer for Saratoga, with the Saratoga staff, and with the TSC? Disclosures of these relationships are essential to avoid the current appearance of potentially multiple conflicts of interest. The relationship(s) are opaque yet of much concern regarding potential undue influence. e. The above point is emphasized by the fact that an email from this individual to the Saratoga staff added an agenda item to the meeting at 3:49 pm on Monday, September 21. The public notice of the meeting came out at 5:07 pm, just over an hour later. Who 227 4 requested this special meeting? How did this individual know there would be a special meeting if the agenda were not yet public? What type of relationship with the City of Saratoga enabled him to put an item on the agenda of a meeting that had not yet been announced? What is the role of the Chair in setting the agenda? f. Given the mission of the TSC to improve communications and involvement with the community, how is it that a 25-hour notice of a meeting is sufficient? g. The traffic engineer consultant stated that in addition to the speeds obtained, other factors had to be taken into consideration in making a recommendation and that some situations were nuanced. In this letter, there are noted many factors that make it clear that a more holistic approach would result in a decision not to install speed humps. In the Mendelsohn Lane situation, since the speed involved is possibly only slightly over the 10 mph at the 85 percentile, why are these many other compelling factors not being considered? h. How is it that the consultant engineer, Saratoga staff, and TSC do not take into account published information about the disadvantages of speed humps in their metrics or discussions? i. At the May meeting the impression was made that a survey would be done. Understanding as we do now the “nuance” and “other factors” that are taken into account by the consultant engineer, why was a survey not done? j. Who performs the economic analysis of the best way to spend our tax dollars when speed humps are expensive and create ongoing costs of road maintenance, and repairs to Saratoga vehicles, not to mention the increased wear and tear on the vehicles traversing the speed bumps daily? And what about other needs in the Saratoga budget that need more funding? For all the above reasons, this current proposal to install speed humps on Mendelsohn Lane is being challenged by Saratoga residents who are being affected. Besides the legitimate arguments against these speed humps, there appears to all of us that there are continued serious attempts to pre-determine the outcome of this process, and this is very disturbing. Sincerely David and Rosemary Adamson 228 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, October 25, 2023 9:58:26 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name ilaria keogh Phone Number Email Address Subject speed humps on Mendelsohn Comments We live at Mendelsohn, we are right at the curve where excessive speeds are most dangerous and make backing out of our driveway an issue. Speeding has been a problem for all the years we have lived here, I have witnessed it myself (and shared many clips from our security cameras with the TSC) and it has been documented by traffic studies conducted by the TSC. Though it is a nice residential street, Mendelsohn is quite wide which seems to encourage people to go way faster than the allowed 25 mph and exhibit reckless behaviors (On 9/3/2018 someone crashed into our car parked in front of our house, police report is available). Mendelsohn also gets quite a bit of traffic from Montalvo visitors and employees (exiting from Piedmont) and it is a favorite street for walkers and bikers, which makes speeding a significant safety issue. The traffic calming measures employed so far (the knock down signs were all run over within a month!) have not been successful. The new road striping is great, but it has not curbed speeding unfortunately (as shown by the latest traffic study with speeds actually increasing). The excessive speeds recorded in the last traffic study have triggered the city-led process, so I urge the City Council to follow the process and stand by the unanimous decision taken by the Traffic Safety Commission and install speed bumps for everyone’s safety. Thank you! Michael and Ilaria Keogh Mendelsohn Lane Email Subscription Field not completed. 229 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 230 From:Emma Burkhalter To:Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Input for November 1 City Council Meeting Date:Wednesday, October 25, 2023 11:15:48 AM Attachments:Letter to city council.docx From: Catherine Thermond Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 7:19 PM To: Emma Burkhalter <eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Input for November 1 City Council Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Emma, Thank you so much for all your work on the Mendelsohn issue. I really appreciate the time and work city staff has put into this and even more so, your patience with our community. Attached is my letter to the council about the appeal. Cathie Thermond 231 Traffic Safety on Mendelsohn Lane Dear Council Members, I have lived at Mendelsohn Lane for over 27 years; our home is adjacent to the proposed location of one of the two proposed speed humps. I strongly encourage you to address the dangerous conditions on Mendelsohn Lane that the City has identified and accept the Traffic Safety Commission unanimous recommendation to install speed humps. Many of our neighbors have been attempting to find a solution to the increasing incidence of speeding since 2017. In 2019, we went door to door asking residents on Mendelsohn if they would support speed humps. Only 4 out of the 22 we talked to had opposition. After the most recent study was completed, we were told that since the measurement revealed a traffic safely concern, this was no longer a question for neighbors to weigh in on. Mitigation efforts, including the striping of the road, helped keep cars off the sidewalk at the bend in the road, but it did not reduce speeding. I was confused why we once again solicited opinions and continued to have the issue on the Commission agenda. There are several vocal neighbors in opposition to the traffic safety measures. Many of the most vocal do not even live on Mendelsohn but convinced the commission that the Area of Influence should be expanded to include those living on Rancho Bella Vista. These residents (or for that matter any home north of Bonnie Brae) would never need to go over a speed hump since those residents have a shorter, more direct route to highway 9. In fact, according to the last proposed drawing I saw, only eight residences cannot avoid going over a speed hump to get out of the neighborhood. Those against the speed humps do not address the traffic safety issue. In fact, at least one of the opposition organizers admitted to me that people speed excessively on Mendelsohn. They are concerned about damage to their cars caused by speed humps, as they must plan to drive well over the posted speed limit. Others are concerned about the aesthetics in our neighborhood. The new design of speed humps as installed on Reid, appears to do no damage to vehicles and doesn’t require adding lots of signage. Also, they express concern that first responders will be delayed with the speed bumps, a statement that city staff addressed after meeting with those responders. There is no significant impact on responsiveness. I appreciate the time and effort that has been put into studying this situation. We have an effective process and policy in place to keep residents safe. Please support the thoughtful and thorough work of your Traffic Commission and City staff and install the speed humps as soon as possible. Catherine Thermond 232 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, October 25, 2023 11:07:14 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Hilary Rodoni Phone Number Email Address Subject Speed Bumps on Mendelsohn Comments We were thrilled to learn that the Traffic Commission approved the installation of speed bumps. We have lived on Mendelsohn since 1982 and vehicle speed, coming off our end of Mendelsohn, has always been a concern. My kids were never permitted to ride their bikes to their friend's house ( even to Mendelsohn) for fear they might be hit by a speeding car One of my kids was hit while crossing the street in front of our house and was hospitalized for months. A car that was parked across the street was hit and I believe was declared a total loss Speed bumps are needed and welcomed by our family Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 233 From:Leslie Arroyo To: Cc:DL - Council; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Emma Burkhalter Subject:RE: ATTN: Britt Avrit, Office of Saratoga City Clerk Date:Thursday, October 26, 2023 8:25:18 AM Dear Mr. Kress, Thank you for your email and feedback regarding the Mendelsohn Lane speed bumps. Our City Clerk has provided this comment to staff to be included as an attachment to the Staff Report for the Appeal. We hope you can join us for the November 1 City Council meeting. Sincerely, Leslie Leslie Arroyo Assistant City Manager City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1269| larroyo@saratoga.ca.us From: David Kress Sr Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2023 6:24 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: RE: ATTN: Britt Avrit, Office of Saratoga City Clerk CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi my name is Dave Kress and I reside at Madrone Hill Rd. I am writing you to support the appeal of installation of speed humps along Mendelsohn Lane. I have reviewed the Summary of Grounds for Appeal document and support each point. Mendelsohn Ln is the sole ingress and egress to our property which is inside the WUI. I am particularly concerned where the city is planning to install traffic slowing devices in the WUI without consulting with the Saratoga Fire Department. I highly question where the city spent money to take 4 speed measurements on Mendelsohn, only to disregard two of the measurements to conclude the 85th percentile is traveling 10mph over the speed limit, which bypasses a resident-led process in favor of a city-led process. If the decision was made to expend city money for four speed measurements, it follows the four measurements should be used in decision making. As I understand it, this is the fourth iteration of a recommendation for speed humps along 234 Mendelsohn in the past 10 years, with the prior three recommendations rejected due to opposition by residents in the Area of Influence, the last being in 2019. Now it seems speed measurement data has been manipulated to force the issue into a city-led process, where the city is not only bypassing the consultation of residents in the area, but the city’s own Fire Department…..in an area designated a very high fire hazard zone. That’s bad. I have driven, biked or walked Mendelsohn Ln nearly every day for the past 10 years. In driving Mendelsohn, I have never paid attention to my speed. Today, before writing you, I drove it while paying attention to speed. I tried driving at the speed of the alleged 85th percentile (35mph). I find it very hard if not impossible to believe that is the 85th percentile speed. I encourage you to take the test drive yourself. If you approach the corner when Mendelsohn changes direction (which I understand is the specific area of traffic safety concern) at 35mph, you will not make the corner. You will crash. If the 85th percentile speed on Mendelsohn is truly 35mph, there should be plenty of records or car crashes and/or incidences with pedestrians. In my 10 years driving, biking and walking Mendelsohn, I’ve never seen or heard of a traffic safety incident. Why appropriate the city’s limited resources for speed humps on a road which doesn’t have a record of traffic safety issues? I understand “speed calming” measures were taken at the corner of Mendelsohn – signage, widened shoulders, striping and bumps. The signage is poor – a single arrow sign at the apex of the corner. The posted speed limit on Mendelsohn is 25mph. You cannot safely take that corner at 25mph, let alone 10mph over. If speed calming is the objective, there should be arrow signs posted ~100ft BEFORE the corner with 15mph speed limit. Speed humps on Mendelsohn are not necessary. They put all our homes at risk via impacting fire, police and other emergency response, as well as homeowner evacuation. Any approval of speed humps on Mendelsohn should follow a Resident-led process. It’s the right thing to do. We live in the area, we’re all concerned about traffic safety, yet the reality is Mendelsohn Rd has no record of being a traffic safety problem. I’m sure a resident here or there has complained – amid the vast majority of residents who feel otherwise. Speed bumps have been proposed and rejected three times due to resident opposition. Compromise and put up better signage at the corner which provides advance warning and 15mph limit around the corner. Thanks for listening and considering Dave Kress Madrone Hill Rd 235 BLDG PERMIT No. 416923PLAN REVIEW No. PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS Plans and Scope of Review: This project shall comply with the following: The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2022 edition, as adopted by the City of Saratoga Municipal Code (SMC) and, California Code of Regulations (CCR). The scope of this project includes the following: Proposed 2 new speed tables on City public roadway. Plans Status: Plans are APPROVED with the following conditions. Plan Review Comments: 1. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 2. Traffic calming devices: Traffic calming devices and the design thereof shall be approved by the fire code official prior to installation. Installation shall be in accordance with CFC Sec. 503 and SD&S A-2 PAGE 1-3. This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6] City Y E PLANS Y E SPECS Y E NEW Y E RMDL CONST. TYPE BY PAGE SEC/FLOOR OCCUPANCY LOADAREA City Of Saratoga Public Works ApplicantName SPEED TABLE NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION Y E AS 1OF1 DATE 10/25/2023STG Ip, Kenny PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public Utility TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Traffic Calming Mendelsohn Lane & Bonnie Brae Way Saratoga 236 Saratoga City Council Meeting November 1, 2023 Mendelsohn Lane Speed Hump Appeal 237 •No known instances of car collisions or pedestrian accidents •Prior Speed Hump proposals were rejected by Residents in 2013, 2017 and 2019 •Recent safety improvements to Mendelsohn Lane •Added signage, striping and bumps at turn •Clean up and widening of road shoulders to improve flow and pedestrian safety •The City of Saratoga’s published Speed Hump Funding Prioritization Chart indicates it is not a priority •No known accidents or citations •Very low traffic volume •Not adjacent to a school or park •Mendelsohn Lane was not considered a priority for study in The 2020 Speed Survey No Safety Need for Speed Humps on Mendelsohn Lane 2238 •Process does not include key Data: •Ignores accidents and speed citations, location of the street in High Fire Zone, Resident Emergency Evacuation Routes •Limits Resident participation by restricting “Area of influence” to a small area •Input from the “hump-adjacent” properties, who are against humps, is ignored •Excludes Fire Department participation •Does not Follow Best Practices: Speed humps are not recommended on critical Emergency Response Routes due to delayed response times •Should not be a “City Led” Process - Issues with 85th Percentile Speed data collection and usage •Speed data collected at the bottom of a hill •Selective use of speed data Current “City Led” Speed Hump Process is Flawed 3239 Why cherry-pick volume and speed data and not use all the data collected? 4240 •Located in Very High Fire Zone •Emergency Response Route for BOTH fire houses •Resident Evacuation Route for: •Piedmont Road •Madrone Hill Road •Rancho Bella Vista •Villa Montalvo Mendelsohn Lane 5241 1.”Develop an emergency response route classification map at the onset of the planning process. Emergency vehicle response times should be considered where vertical speed control mechanisms are used.” (1) 2.Involve the Fire Department in the initial planning stages of the process (2) 3.”Speed Humps should never be placed on emergency routes” (2) 4.Include Resident input early to determine if there is support for the Speed Bumps (3) •Austin requires 60% and sets up Member Neighbor groups to participate in plan development •Oakland requires 67% of resident support Best Practices For Speed Hump Processes 6 (1) - National Association of City Transportation Officials (NATCO) https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/vertical-speed-control-elements/speed-cushion/; (2) US Department of Transportation/Institute of Transportation Engineers (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ePrimer_modules/module5.cfm#:~:text=Speed%20humps%20were%20found%20to,second%20delay%20in%20Berkeley%2C%20California.&text=By%20this%20time %20in%20the,of%20the%20delay%20varied%20significantly) (http://www.edmecka.com/Forms/tfc_calm.pdf), International Fire Code (https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/IFC2021P1/part-iii-building-and- equipment-design-features/IFC2021P1-Pt03-Ch05-Sec503.4) https://www.oaklandca.gov/services/apply-for-a-speed-bump and National Institute of Health (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922345/#REF18 );(3) http://www.edmecka.com/Forms/tfc_calm.pdf;https://www.oaklandca.gov/services/apply-for-a-speed-bump 242 Best Practice: City of Oakland Speed Bump Process 243 Best Practice: City of Oakland Speed Bump Process Best Practices •Includes Fire up front •Excludes bumps on emergency Routes •Includes all impacted residents •Clear decision criteria Bonus + Reduces Staff Workload + Resident directed and led 244 Best Practice: City of Oakland Speed Bump Process Mendelsohn Lane - Fire Department not included upfront - An emergency response route -No resident input to determine if 2/3 support ? Grade of street over 7% 245 1.Mendelsohn Lane does not pass the Speed Hump Funding Prioritization •No known accidents or citations•Very low traffic volume•Not adjacent to a school or park•Not considered a priority in The 2020 Speed Survey 2.The TSC “City Led” Process did not follow prevailing best practices by:•Not Including the Fire department in the initial planning•Not Using a map of Emergency Response Routes to Consider the impact on Emergency Response Times•Not considering Resident Input•Recommends Speed Bumps be placed on an Emergency Vehicle Routes•Decision relies solely on the problematic 85th Percentile Calculation 3.Mendelsohn Lane fails to pass other Speed Bump Processes which do follow best Practices (Oakland Speed Bump Process) 4.Process ignores Saratoga’s Mission and Values Grant the Appeal to the TSC ”City Led” Decision 246 Thank You 11247 1.Mendelsohn Lane does not pass the Speed Hump Funding Prioritization •No known accidents or citations•Very low traffic volume•Not adjacent to a school or park•Not considered a priority in The 2020 Speed Survey 2.The TSC “City Led” Process did not follow prevailing best practices by:•Not Including the Fire department in the initial planning•Not Using a map of Emergency Response Routes to Consider the impact on Emergency Response Times•Recommending Speed Bumps be placed on an Emergency Vehicle Route•Not considering Resident Input•Decision relies solely on the problematic 85th Percentile Calculation 3.Mendelsohn Lane fails to pass other Speed Bump Processes which do follow best Practices (Oakland Speed Bump Process) Closing: Please Grant our Appeal 248 "We are now looking at the whole neighborhood and allowing everyone to be involved and vote on a plan. Whereas before, the Speed Hump Program was too isolated." - Joan Hudson, City of Austin Public Works and Transportation Department 249 1.Place a moratorium on any new speed humps in Saratoga until the •Saratoga Fire Department can independently identify the critical Emergency Response Routes in Saratoga, and •assess the impact of existing Speed Humps on emergency response times. 2.Revise the Saratoga’s Speed Bump Process to follow current Best Practices : •Do not place any Speed Bumps on Emergency Routes – US DOT, Institute of Transportation Engineers, National Institutes of Health, International Fire Code •Include the Fire Department in the initial Planning Phase •Include Resident Input – Adopt The City Oaklands 2/3rds support rule –Include Residents in the decision on their streets! Or, simply Adopt The City of Oakland Speed Bump Process – it incorporates all the best practices above. Closing: In addition to our Appeal, we request two (2) additional actions from the City Council: 250 Traffic Calming Programs & Emergency Response: A Competition of Two Public Goods - University of Texas, Austin, http://www.edmecka.com/Forms/tfc_calm.pdf "Often, traffic-calming devices are used as a first, “knee jerk” reaction to a problem rather than a last resort. In many instances, there is quick response by the local government to the out crying of a few people who perceive there is a major problem. The local entity then records a quick set of speed and volume data, and devices are then put in place. As cautioned by Reid Ewing, a leading expert in traffic calming, speed, volume, and accident studies, these can be easily skewed. Therefore, full, in-depth, comprehensive analyses needs to be performed of the entire area to determine the problem. In addition there is often a lack of periodic efforts to increase enforcement by the police.” Reid Ewing, Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, (Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers) includes in depth reports on over 20 US Cities. Also, 12 books including Basic Quantitative Research Methods for Urban Planners, published by Routledge as an APA Planning Essential; master’s degrees in Engineering and City Planning from Harvard University, and a Ph.D. in Urban Planning and Transportation Systems from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Closing: Comment on the 85th Percentile Calculation 15251 US Dept of Transportation, Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Non-Personal Passenger Vehicles (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ePrimer_modules/module5.cfm#:~:text=Speed%20humps%20were%20found%20to,second%20delay%20in%20Berkeley%2C%20California.& text=By%20this%20time%20in%20the,of%20the%20delay%20varied%20significantly. ) a)The Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps published by Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), which provides guidelines for the most common traffic calming measure, has detailed many of the existing studies relating to emergency response delay associated with vertical traffic calming measures. The document recommends not installing speed humps on roadways that are primary or routine emergency vehicle routes. b)In 2012, the International Fire Code (IFC)was updated to specifically address traffic calming and to better ensure coordination with the fire department during traffic calming implementation. IFC Section 503.4.1 states that traffic calming measures placed on fire apparatus access roads "shall be prohibited unless approved by the fire code official." (https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/IFC2021P1/part-iii-building-and-equipment-design-features/IFC2021P1-Pt03-Ch05-Sec503.4) c)“Develop an emergency response route classification map at the onset of the planning process. Emergency vehicle response times should be considered where vertical speed control mechanisms are used.” National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/vertical-speed-control-elements/speed-cushion/ National Institute of Health, Effects of Speed Humps on Ambulance Delay (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922345/#REF18 ) •“Emergency response vehicles have been shown to increase the time to reach their destination [17]. Such that an ambulance or a fire truck loses as much as 10 seconds while passing a standard speed bump [18]. For this reason, speed bumps are not recommended on emergency vehicle routes [7].“ •‘While traffic calming devices allow vehicles to slow down their speeds, they also cause emergency vehicles to waste time on their way to their destinations [13]. The delay experienced by ambulances reaching the emergency case or taking it to the hospital is a serious threat.” “In severe trauma patients, the inability of the ambulance to reach the case within 4 minutes reduces the likelihood of survival by 30% [4]. Each minute of delay in the ambulance response time increased the mortality risk by 8-17% in all emergencies [5]. In another study, each 1-minute reduction in ambulance response time increased the survival rate by 5.2% [6]” •“For pedestrian safety, instead of speed bumps and speed humps, roundabouts, alternative traffic lanes, chokers, speed signs, stop lights, and speed cameras can be used [3,12]” Appendix A: Supporting References on Speed Hump impact on Emergency Vehicle Routes 16252 Appendix B: Speed Hump impact on Emergency Vehicle Routes Travel Times 17 Vehicle Type Time (Seconds)Source Fire Trucks 6.5 – 15 Dept of Transportation, https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ePrimer_modules/module5.cfm#:~:text=Speed%20humps%20were%20found%20t o,second%20delay%20in%20Berkeley%2C%20California.&text=By%20this%20time%20in%20the,of%20the%20delay%20v aried%20significantly Institute of Traffic Engineers, The influence of traffic calming on emergency response times https://www.proquest.com/openview/724f8f4ec8906681bcea9e720f86939b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=42116 University of Texas – Austin, A Competition of Two Public Goods, http://www.edmecka.com/Forms/tfc_calm.pdf Ambulance (10 – 16 ) double for return trip to hospital National Institute of Health (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9922345/#REF18 •A policy analysis was conducted specifically for the [Speed Bump] conflict that had arisen in Austin, Texas. Based on quantitative processes, this analysis showed that Austin would lose an additional 37 lives per year with patients of sudden cardiac arrest if the Fire and EMS Departments experienced a 30 second delay in response times due to traffic calming. The analyses also concluded that at best, only one pedestrian life could be saved each year from traffic calming as pedestrian fatalities rarely occurred within residential neighborhoods. A risk/benefit analyses also demonstrated that traffic-calming devices have more of a negative impact than a positive impact to the community. Traffic Calming Programs & Emergency Response: A Competition of Two Public Goods.(http://www.edmecka.com/Forms/tfc_calm.pdf ) •We are now looking at the whole neighborhood and allowing everyone to be involved and vote on a plan. Whereas before, the Speed Hump Program was too isolated." - Joan Hudson, City of Austin Public Works and Transportation Department 253 City of Berkeley – https://newsarchive.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/98legacy/05-29-1998b.html•In Berkeley, as in a number of other cities around the country, the fire department objected to the proliferation of speed bumps, saying they impaired its ability to respond to emergencies. The city responded by declaring a temporary moratorium on new bump installation while it reevaluated its policies. City of Austin – (http://www.edmecka.com/Forms/tfc_calm.pdf ) Traffic Calming Programs & Emergency Response: A Competition of Two Public Goods. This professional report examined the history and the positive and negative aspects of traffic calming programs. Negative impacts upon emergency services were substantiated by various emergency response time tests conducted by leading U.S. Fire Departments. Information was also obtained on injuries that have occurred to firefighters from traffic calming devices as well as documented mechanical damages to emergency vehicles. •Traffic calming programs were found to contribute to air pollution as verified by several previous environmental studies conducted specifically for traffic calming devices. This report also revealed the enormous potential for civil liabilities for local governments, particularly with the violation of the American with Disabilities Act. In general, most U.S. local governments placed their traffic calming programs in moratorium due to all of the conflicts that were generated. •A policy analysis was conducted specifically for the conflict that had arisen in Austin, Texas. Based on quantitative processes, this analysis showed that Austin would lose an additional 37 lives per year with patients of sudden cardiac arrest if the Fire and EMS Departments experienced a 30 second delay in response times due to traffic calming. The analyses also concluded that at best, only one pedestrian life could be saved each year from traffic calming as pedestrian fatalities rarely occurred within residential neighborhoods. A risk/benefit analyses also demonstrated that traffic-calming devices have more of a negative impact than a positive impact to the community. •The approaches chosen by local governments to meet these objectives are centered on two distinct strategies that may be used separately or together. “These initiatives involve passive or ‘soft’ strategies and active or ‘hard’ strategies. Passive strategies are less restrictive in nature and use subtle or psychological means to influence drivers to behave in a desired fashion.”7 Examples of this strategy include traffic signals, signs, markings at pedestrian crossings, educational programs and traditional policing, through citations and fines, for enforcement. •To reduce the conflict, and ensure at least a balance of these two public goods, a set of recommendations was formulated for the City of Austin policy makers and for those of other communities who had similar circumstances. •Five Other Local Governments “Sarasota, FL, has been sued, and lost; the decision is being [was] appealed. Berkeley, CA, has a total moratorium in effect. Eugene, OR, has a moratorium on speed humps, while Howard County, MD, has a moratorium on speed humps and most other vertical measures. San Jose, CA, has stopped funding comprehensive neighborhood traffic calming plans.”2 Director Wayne Tanda, Department of Streets and Traffic with the City of San Jose was quite blunt with their posture. According to Tanda, “San Jose decided to stop penalizing 95 percent of the its drivers for problems caused by the other five percent.” Appendix C: Other Supporting References 18254 Appeal – TSC Approval of Mendelsohn Lane Speed Tables 255 Speed Hump Process 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:November 1, 2023 DEPARTMENT:Community Development Department PREPARED BY:Bryan Swanson, Community Development Director SUBJECT Housing Element Update & Policy Options RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Review and consider policy options. 2. Review recommendations from the Planning Commission. 3. Receive public comments. 4. Provide direction to staff for responding to comments from California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the third Draft Housing Element. BACKGROUND: On July 28, 2022, the City submitted the initial draft of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element to HCD for their 90-day review. On October 26, 2022, the City received HCD’s comment letter and prepared responses and revisions to the draft, which was resubmitted to HCD on January 26, 2023. On March 17, 2023, the City received a second letter from HCD where a number of new comments were introduced including the need for additional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis, more information on Land Use Controls, additional analysis to satisfy Assembly Bill 2339 (Emergency Shelters), and further justification/clarification on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and Senate Bill (SB) 9 units projections. At the May 17, 2023 City Council Meeting, the Council approved the responses to comments received from HCD on the second draft of Saratoga's 2023-2031 Housing Element. The third draft was submitted to HCD on May 30, 2023. On July 27, 2023, the City received additional HCD comments on the third draft. These comments noted that the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sites are geographically concentrated, and more actions are required to provide housing mobility throughout the city, including lower density areas. While HCD is not requesting that the RHNA sites be moved, they have indicated that the City must work to identify additional housing opportunities in other areas of the city, particularly lower density single-family neighborhoods. Other HCD comments included further incentivizing the potential for lot consolidation and analyzing the City’s existing mixed-use and multi-family development standards that could pose a constraint on the ability to achieve maximum densities. 273 DISCUSSION: Many of HCD’s comments on the third draft can be addressed by providing additional information and pointing to information already in the draft Housing Element and by performing additional technical analysis. However, the comments also point to what HCD staff believe are several shortcomings of Saratoga’s current proposed Housing Element. To have a certified Housing Element, HCD has indicated that new and/or modified Housing Element policies/programs are required. At their October 11, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the new and/or modified policies/programs and provided recommendations for the Council to consider as described below. Housing Mobility Policies HCD has indicated that the Housing Element must identify additional sites or adopt a comprehensive package of new policies/programs that does not rely solely on state ADU and SB 9 laws, to increase housing supply and mobility throughout the city, including in lower density single-family areas. Given the lack of available properties within low-density single-family neighborhoods of Saratoga, City staff is recommending new policies to address this comment. Staff has researched policies from other similar Bay Area cities’ certified Housing Elements and has identified options for new Housing Element policies that address HCD’s request to increase housing opportunities in the City’s single-family neighborhoods: 1. Three Primary Dwellings - The City could consider allowing up to three primary dwellings on a conforming lot in certain residential zoning districts subject to adopted objective standards. This could include converting a home to a tri-plex or allowing up to two ADUs on property with an existing home. Los Altos Hills adopted a similar policy to apply to certain areas of their single-family residential districts that are lower in fire hazards and have adequate sewer and water services available. The City could consider this change for properties designated as Residential Low Density (R-1-20) and Residential Very Low Density (R-1-40) in the General Plan that are located outside of the very high fire hazard severity zone. These areas are shown in Attachment C. This policy would encourage more housing options in lower density areas of the city. Approximately, 1,424 parcels are zoned R- 1-20 or R-1-40 outside of the high fire severity zone. Planning Commission recommendation: City Council adopt this policy as presented. 2. SB 9 regulations - The City could modify its SB 9 regulations to make SB 9 more widely available. Los Altos Hills keyed this change to their SB 9 monitoring program, providing that the City would implement changes if monitoring finds that SB 9 targets are not being satisfied. To do this, the City could take the following actions: A. Saratoga’s current SB 9 regulations require that lot splits continue to use the allowable floor area and site coverage of the original parcel and be divided proportionally. On smaller lots or on lots that have already used up most of their allowable floor area or site coverage, this significantly disincentivizes SB 9 projects, as development on the new parcel may be limited to a total of 1,600 square feet, which must also include two garage parking spots. Expanding the minimum floor area and/or site coverage allowed for SB 9 274 lot split projects, perhaps by scaling them to the size of the new lots, could encourage the development of more units in low-density areas. B. The current SB 9 code limits units built pursuant to SB 9 to one story and eighteen feet, sixteen feet if the unit is in the setback required by the underlying zoning. Allowing taller homes could encourage more development of these units. C. The current code requires an enclosed (garage) parking space for each unit, with exceptions for units near transit. Expanding the exceptions or eliminating the enclosure requirement could reduce the cost of development and as noted above, free up scarce floor area and site coverage. D. The current code requires each new lot to have a width 50 percent of the width of the original parcel. Allowing more flexibility in lot dimensions could make lot splits feasible on more lots and make development under SB 9 more attractive to the owners of those lots. E. The City could also consider the following revisions to the SB 9 code provisions: i. Waive application fees for SB 9 projects and ADUs. ii. Allow an ADU and Junior ADU on each new lot allowing for up to 8 units instead of the 6 allowed under the current ordinance. iii. Streamline approval of single-family homes under a certain size by allowing them to move forward under the SB 9 ministerial review process. Planning Commission recommendation: City Council to adopt policies A - E as presented, except that the Planning Commission suggested revising 2.E.ii, as shown below: 2. E. ii - Allow two Junior ADUs on each new lot allowing for up to 8 units instead of the 6 allowed under the current ordinance 3. Housing on religious institution sites and shared housing - The City could allow higher density affordable housing on religious institution sites and encourage shared housing: A.Housing on religious institution sites - SB 4 allows religious institutions (such as churches, synagogues, and mosques) to build 100 percent affordable housing on their property by-right but allows up to 20 percent of the units to be for moderate-income households and five percent may be for staff of the institution. The City could adopt a policy to expand on what SB 4 allows by allowing by-right construction of housing on religious institution property, but with a lower affordability requirement, such as by requiring that only 20 percent or 40 percent of units be set aside for affordable housing. Attachment E shows the location of religious institutions in Saratoga. Allowing housing development on religious institution sites subject to objective standards could enable more types of housing throughout the city. B.Shared housing - The City could research and pursue a shared housing program that allows and encourages the sharing of housing units provides a more affordable housing option for fixed-income seniors, young adults, and others in the community who cannot afford their own home or apartment while allowing homeowners to supplement their 275 income or to better age in place. The program could include coordination with non- profits and other organizations to increase awareness and potentially facilitate matching tenants with existing homeowners. An example of such program is provided below: Shared Housing Program: The City will facilitate the provision of shared housing opportunities in Saratoga by posting resources on the City’s website and publicizing through the Saratoga Senior Center. The City will establish a homeshare exchange through the Planning Division to match home providers with home seekers, targeting single-parent households, and extremely low, very low-, and low-income populations. Quantified Objective/Metric: The City will publish a list of shared housing opportunities on the website and distribute information through the City’s social media and Saratoga Senior Center. The program will seek to connect 10 persons in Saratoga annually through the Shared Housing program. Time Frame: Establish program in 2024 Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Financing Source: General Fund Planning Commission recommendation:City Council adopt these policies as presented. 4. Encouraging and streamlining housing applications - Saratoga could also adopt the following new policies to help streamline and encourage housing development applications: A. The City could allow for more than one Junior ADU per structure subject to objective design standards, as Los Altos Hills has done. B. Encouraging and streamlining ADU applications would also contribute to this goal. Saratoga could develop and offer pre-approved model plans for ADUs that meet building and fire codes, height and size requirements, including designs that are ADA accessible. C. The City could also develop and implement a marketing and outreach program to advertise the ability of homeowners to create ADU and SB 9 units on their properties, to increase awareness and encourage more development in lower density areas. D. Eliminating the requirement for story poles, as Los Altos Hills has done, would reduce the application timeline, costs, and subjectivity of development. Los Altos Hills program is developing a streamlined story pole requirement or allowing renderings instead. Planning Commission recommendation: City Council adopt the policy as presented except that the Planning Commission recommended eliminating the requirement of story poles for single story homes and change the requirement for two-story homes to require story poles OR provide visual representation, such as a digital model. Other HCD Comments Lot consolidation - To expand opportunities for additional housing development, the Housing Element includes Program 1.2-4, which includes incentives to encourage the consolidation of small parcels to accommodate housing developments. Because the City does not have recent examples of lot consolidations occurring, HCD is requiring that the program be enhanced. They have suggested to clarify that the City would work with affected landowners to develop and 276 implement the program. In addition, the City could add a provision to track the program’s progress. If by mid-way through the RHNA cycle (2027), trends indicate a potential shortfall in meeting the estimated units in the Village East area, the City could consider additional efforts to incentivize lot consolidation and/or identify additional sites to expand site capacity to the extent necessary to accommodate the RHNA. If the policy is not modified, certain sites may need to be removed from the City’s current inventory of RHNA sites and additional sites would need to be identified. Planning Commission recommendation: City Council adopt the policy as presented. Existing Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Development Standards - HCD directed the City to provide additional analysis to demonstrate that development at the maximum densities allowed under the City’s Mixed-Use Development Standards and Multi-Family zoning districts is feasible. Staff will be reviewing the height, coverage, and parking requirements to ensure there are no constraints to achieving the maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre for mixed-use projects using those standards. A similar review of the R-M standards will also be conducted. Planning Commission recommendation: City Council adopt the policy as presented. BUILDER’S REMEDY PROJECT INFORMATION California Government Code Section §65589.5 “The Housing Accountability Act”, contains provisions, known as the “Builder’s Remedy”, that generally prohibits a city from disapproving or conditioning in a manner that renders infeasible a housing project in which at least 20 percent of the overall units are set aside “for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, even if the project is inconsistent with the city’s zoning regulations and/or the General Plan. The Builder’s Remedy only applies when a city does not have an adopted housing element that is substantially compliant with Housing Element Law. Saratoga’s Housing Element became noncompliant on January 31, 2023, the deadline for cities and counties in the Bay Area to adopt a new element compliant with the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation and new Housing Element requirements. To date, the City has received three applications that are subject to the Builder’s Remedy. Each project is subject to an independent review, including review under the California Environmental Quality Act. More information on the Builder’s Remedy is included in Attachment F. The three projects are: Allendale/Chester Site.On September 19, an application was submitted for an 11.57- acre site located at the intersection of Allendale and Chester Avenues. The site has an Agriculture zoning designation. The project will include 199 condominiums within 32 separate buildings of which 40 would be affordable. A total of 498 parking spaces are proposed which would include 398 spaces within garages. The residential buildings will be three stories and 38 feet tall. The site has been identified as a Housing Element opportunity site to be rezoned as R-1-20,000 with a residential density of 24 housing units. Pierce Road near Saratoga Heights Drive.On July 20, an application for a project to subdivide a 74.45-acre vacant site on Pierce Road near the intersection of Saratoga Heights Drive. The project would include 21 single-family homes with four of the single- 277 family homes available for low-income households. The site is zoned Hillside Residential and is not a Housing Element opportunity site. 20851 Wardell Road:On July 18, an application was submitted for a 7.5-acre site located at 20851 Wardell Road. The project would include 74 units within 16 buildings of which 15 units would be designated as affordable for low-income households. This property is designated as a Housing Element opportunity site and currently zoned Hillside Residential (HR). The draft Housing Element is proposing the rezoning of the property to R-1-12,500. The location of these Builder’s Remedy projects is shown in Attachment G. These projects will be described in section 6 of the Housing Element. The City’s housing production numbers for the housing element are included in Attachment H. Members of the public have suggested that the City “self-certify” its Housing Element. As background, state law requires that housing elements be submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) for review. HCD reviews the drafts and makes written findings determining whether the element substantially complies with Housing Element Law. Before adopting the element, the city’s legislative body must consider the findings made by HCD and, if those findings determine that the housing element is not substantially compliant, the city may take one of two actions: (1) change the draft element to substantially comply or (2) adopt the draft element without changes, with written findings that explain the reasons the legislative body believes that the draft element is substantially compliant despite HCD’s findings to the contrary. HCD subsequently reviews the adopted element, reports its findings to the city, and issues additional findings post-adoption. HCD may also notify the Office of the Attorney General of a city’s noncompliance. Self-certification is the term that some have used to describe option 2. If such self-certification means that the city has a substantially compliant housing element regardless of HCD’s position, then the Builder’s Remedy would no longer apply in a city that has adopted a self-certified housing element. In a letter to a jurisdiction that self-certified, HCD stated that such self- certification does not make the housing element substantially compliant: “a local jurisdiction does not have the authority to determine that its adopted element is in substantial compliance but may provide reasoning why HCD should make a finding of substantial compliance. A local jurisdiction is ‘in compliance’ as of the date of HCD's letter finding the adopted element in substantial compliance.”1 The City Council could choose to adopt the most recent draft housing element and find that it substantially complies with the Housing Element Law, despite HCD’s determination that it is not substantially compliant. The City could then take the position that Builder’s Remedy applications are subject to disapproval on the ground that they are inconsistent with the General Plan and/or the applicable zoning. This approach could invite at least two forms of litigation: a Builder’s Remedy applicant could sue claiming that because the housing element is not substantially compliant, the General Plan 1 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/la-canada- flintridge-ta-032223.pdf 278 and zoning cannot be applied to reject the project and an organization or the state could sue the City claiming that the adopted housing element is invalid under state law. In one recent case, a pro-housing organization sued the City of La Canada-Flintridge, claiming that the housing element was insufficient and that the city’s self-certification was ineffective. The trial court held that the city of La Cañada Flintridge’s housing element, which had been self- certified by the city, did not substantially comply with Housing Element Law. The court closely examined whether the city’s housing element met the statutory requirements, in part because HCD had not certified the element. The court additionally held that self-certification did not mean that the city had a substantially compliant housing element for purposes of specific provisions of the Housing Element Law. It did not consider the effect of self-certification on Builder’s Remedy applications. The decision is not binding on other courts but could indicate how courts will approach a self-certification. Several provisions in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) could affect the likelihood of litigation, possibility of success, and potential consequences of litigation in connection with self- certification. For example, the HAA explicitly expresses the legislature’s intent that it be interpreted in favor of the approval of housing; courts may look to this intent language to guide their decisions. Other provisions in the Act shift the burden of proof for disapproval of certain projects to local agencies and impose a more stringent standard of review for such disapproval than traditionally exists for local agency decisions. Additionally, under the Act, local agencies that that are sued for disapproving certain projects, including Builder’s Remedy applications, may have to pay attorney’s fees to the developers, groups, or individuals that filed the suit. Next Steps Feedback and direction from the City Council will be incorporated into a revised draft Housing Element and posted on the Housing Element website for a minimum of seven (7) days for public comments prior to resubmittal to HCD. Once the draft Housing Element has been updated to address all HCD comments, public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council will be scheduled for final review and adoption of the General Plan and Housing Element, together with updates to the Zoning Ordinance to establish the new Mixed-Use Districts and adoption of the Objective Design Standards. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A city-wide postcard was sent on September 28, 2023, and public notification of this meeting was published in the Housing Element Newsletter, Saratoga Source, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Nextdoor. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Planning Commission Staff Report (w/o attachments 1-7) and Draft Minutes Attachment B - HCD Comment Letter dated July 27, 2023 Attachment C - Map of RLD & RVLD designated properties Attachment D – Map of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Attachment E – Map of religious institutions Attachment F – Builders Remedy Frequently Asked Questions Attachment G – Location of Builder’s Remedy projects 279 Attachment H – Housing Element unit analysis table Attachment I – Public Comment 280 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: October 11, 2023 Subject: Housing Element Update & Policy Options Address/APN: Citywide Owner / Applicant: City of Saratoga From: Bryan Swanson, Community Development Director STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Review policy options for responding to comments from California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the third Draft Housing Element. 2. Receive public comments. 3. Provide comments to City Council on policy options for the Housing Element for resubmittal to HCD. BACKGROUND: Since adoption of the California Housing Element Law in 1969, the State of California has required cities and counties to designate sufficient land at sufficient densities to provide their share of projected housing needs for people of all income levels through the General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element is a blueprint for future housing development and must be updated every eight years and is subject to review and approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). On July 28, 2022, the City submitted the initial draft of the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element to HCD for their 90-day review. On October 26, 2022, the City received HCD’s comment letter and prepared responses and revisions to the draft, which was resubmitted to HCD on January 26, 2023. On March 17, 2023, the City received a second letter from HCD where a number of new comments were introduced including the need for additional Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis, more information on Land Use Controls, additional analysis to satisfy Assembly Bill 2339 (Emergency Shelters), and further justification/clarification on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and Senate Bill (SB) 9 units projections. At the May 17, 2023 City Council Meeting, the Council approved the responses to comments received from HCD on the second draft of Saratoga's 2023-2031 Housing Element. The third draft was submitted to HCD on May 30, 2023. On July 27, 2023, the City received additional HCD comments on the recent draft. The current comments from HCD noted that the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sites are geographically concentrated, and more actions are required to provide housing mobility throughout the city, including lower density areas. While HCD is not requesting that the RHNA sites be moved, they have indicated that the City must work to identify additional housing opportunities in other areas of the city, particularly lower density single-family neighborhoods. Other HCD comments included further incentivizing the potential for lot consolidation and analyzing 281 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element October 11, 2023 Page | 2 the City’s existing mixed-use and multi-family development standards that could pose a constraint on the ability to achieve maximum densities. DISCUSSION: Many of HCD’s comments on the third draft can be addressed by providing additional information and pointing to information already in the draft Housing Element and by performing additional technical analysis. However, the comments also point to what HCD staff believe are several shortcomings of Saratoga’s current proposed Housing Element. To have a certified Housing Element, new and/or modified Housing Element policies/programs are needed to meet HCD’s standards. Housing Mobility Policies HCD has indicated that the Housing Element must identify additional sites or adopt a comprehensive package of new policies/programs that does not rely solely on ADUs and SB 9, to increase housing supply and mobility throughout the city, including in lower density single-family areas. Given the lack of available properties within low-density single-family neighborhoods of Saratoga, City staff is recommending new policies to address this comment. Staff has researched policies from other similar Bay Area cities’ certified Housing Elements and has identified options for new Housing Element policies that address HCD’s request to increase housing opportunities in the City’s single-family neighborhoods: 1. Three Primary Dwellings - The City could consider allowing up to three primary dwellings on a conforming lot in certain residential zoning districts subject to adopted objective standards. This could include converting a home to a tri-plex or allowing up to two ADUs on property with an existing home. Los Altos Hills adopted a similar policy to apply to certain areas of their single-family residential districts that are lower in fire hazards and have adequate sewer and water services available. The Planning Commission could consider this change for properties designated as Residential Low Density (R-1-20) and Residential Very Low Density (R-1-40) in the General Plan that are located outside of the very high fire hazard severity zone. These areas are shown in Attachment 2. This policy would encourage more housing options in lower density areas of the city. 2. SB 9 regulations - The City could modify its SB 9 regulations to make SB 9 more widely available. Los Altos Hills keyed this change to their SB 9 monitoring program, providing that the City would implement changes if monitoring finds that SB 9 targets are not being satisfied. To do this, the City could take the following actions: A. Saratoga’s current SB 9 regulations require that lot splits continue to use the allowable floor area and site coverage of the original parcel and be divided proportionally. On smaller lots or on lots that have already used up most of their allowable floor area or site coverage, this significantly disincentivizes SB 9 projects, as development on the new parcel may be limited to a total of 1,600 square feet, which must also include two garage parking spots. Expanding the minimum floor area and/or site coverage allowed for SB 9 lot split projects, perhaps by scaling them to the size of the new lots, could encourage the development of more units in low-density areas. 282 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element October 11, 2023 Page | 3 B. The current SB 9 code limits units built pursuant to SB 9 to one story and eighteen feet, sixteen feet if the unit is in the setback required by the underlying zoning. Allowing taller homes could encourage more development of these units. C. The current code requires an enclosed parking space for each unit, with exceptions for units near transit. Expanding the exceptions or eliminating the enclosure requirement could reduce the cost of development and as noted above, free up scarce floor area and site coverage. D. The current code requires each new lot to have a width 50 percent of the width of the original parcel. Allowing more flexibility in lot dimensions could make lot splits feasible on more lots and make development under SB 9 more attractive to the owners of those lots. E. The City could also consider the following revisions to the SB 9 code provisions: i. Waive application fees for SB 9 projects and ADUs. ii. Allow an ADU and Junior ADU on each new lot allowing for up to 8 units instead of the 6 allowed under the current ordinance. iii. Streamline approval of single-family homes under a certain size by allowing them to move forward under the SB 9 ministerial review process. 3. Housing on religious institution sites and shared housing - The City could allow higher density affordable housing on religious institution sites and encourage shared housing: A. Housing on religious institution sites - SB 4, currently on the Governor’s desk awaiting approval, allows religious institutions (such as churches, synagogues, and mosques) to build 100 percent affordable housing on their property by-right, but allows up to 20 percent of the units to be for moderate-income households and five percent may be for staff of the institution. The City could adopt a policy to expand on what SB 4 allows by allowing by-right construction of housing on religious institution property, but with a lower affordability requirement, such as by requiring that only 20 percent or 40 percent of units be set aside for affordable housing. Attachment 4 shows the location of religious institutions in Saratoga. Allowing housing development on religious institution sites subject to objective standards could enable more types of housing throughout the city. B. Shared housing - The City could research and pursue a shared housing program that allows and encourages the sharing of housing units provides a more affordable housing option for fixed-income seniors, young adults, and others in the community who cannot afford their own home or apartment while allowing homeowners to supplement their income or to better age in place. The program could include coordination with non-profits and other organizations to increase awareness and potentially facilitate matching tenants with existing homeowners. 4. Encouraging and streamlining housing applications - Saratoga could also adopt the following new policies to help streamline and encourage housing development applications: 283 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element October 11, 2023 Page | 4 A. The City could allow for more than one Junior ADU per structure subject to objective design standards, as Los Altos Hills has done. B. Encouraging and streamlining ADU applications would also contribute to this goal. Saratoga could develop and offer pre-approved model plans for ADUs that meet building and fire codes, height and size requirements, including designs that are ADA accessible. C. The City could also develop and implement a marketing and outreach program to advertise the ability of homeowners to create ADU and SB 9 units on their properties, to increase awareness and encourage more development in lower density areas. D. Eliminating the requirement for story poles, as Los Altos Hills has done, would reduce the application timeline, costs, and subjectivity of development. Other HCD Comments Lot consolidation - To expand opportunities for additional housing development, the Housing Element includes Program 1.2-4, which includes incentives to encourage the consolidation of small parcels to accommodate housing developments. Because the City does not have recent examples of lot consolidations occurring, HCD is requiring that the program be enhanced. They have suggested to clarify that the City would work with affected landowners to develop and implement the program. In addition, the City could add a provision to track the program’s progress. If by mid-way through the RHNA cycle (2027), trends indicate a potential shortfall in meeting the estimated units in the Village East area, the City could consider additional efforts to incentivize lot consolidation and/or identify additional sites to expand site capacity to the extent necessary to accommodate the RHNA. If the policy is not modified, certain sites may need to be removed from the City’s current inventory of RHNA sites and additional sites would need to be identified. Existing Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Development Standards - HCD directed the City to provide additional analysis to demonstrate that development at the maximum densities allowed under the City’s Mixed-Use Development Standards and Multi-Family zoning districts is feasible. Staff will be reviewing the height, coverage, and parking requirements to ensure there are no constraints to achieving the maximum density of 20 dwelling units per acre for mixed-use projects using those standards. A similar review of the R-M standards will also be conducted. BUILDER’S REMEDY PROJECT INFORMATION California Government Code Section §65589.5 “The Housing Accountability Act”, contains provisions, known as the “Builder’s Remedy”, that prohibits a city that does not have an adopted housing element that is substantially compliant with Housing Element Law from disapproving or conditioning in a manner that renders infeasible a housing development project which includes at least 20 percent of the overall units set aside “for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, even when that housing development is inconsistent with both Saratoga’s zoning regulations and the General Plan. To date, the City has received three projects that are subject to the Builder’s Remedy. Each project is subject to an independent review, including review under the California Environmental Quality Act. More information on the Builder’s Remedy is included in Attachment 5. 284 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element October 11, 2023 Page | 5 The three projects are: • Allendale/Chester Site. On September 19, an application was submitted for an 11.57-acre site located at the intersection of Allendale and Chester Avenues. The site has an Agriculture zoning designation. The project will include 199 condominiums within 32 separate buildings of which 40 would be affordable. A total of 498 parking spaces are proposed which would include 398 spaces within garages. The residential buildings will be three stories and 38 feet tall. The site has been identified as a Housing Element opportunity site to be rezoned as R-1- 20,000 with a residential density of 24 housing units. • Pierce Road near Saratoga Heights Drive. On July 20, an application for a project to subdivide a 74.45-acre vacant site on Pierce Road near the intersection of Saratoga Heights Drive. The project would include 21 single-family homes with four of the single-family homes available for low-income households. The site is zoned Hillside Residential and is not a Housing Element opportunity site. • 20851 Wardell Road: On July 18, an application was submitted for a 7.5-acre site located at 20851 Wardell Road. The project would include 58 housing units within 16 buildings of which 15 units would be designated as affordable for low-income households. This property is designated as a Housing Element opportunity site and currently zoned Hillside Residential (HR). The draft Housing Element is proposing the rezoning of the property to R-1-12,500. The location of these Builder’s Remedy projects is shown in Attachment 6. These projects will be reviewed as a part of the “pipeline projects” described in section 6 of the Housing Element. With the addition of these projects and revisions to other aspects of the RHNA sites, the City’s housing production numbers for the housing element will be as follows: Very Low- Income Low- Income Moderate- Income Above Moderate- Income Total 2022-2031 RHNA Need 454 261 278 719 1,712 Land Resources Pipeline (approved) & Pending (in process) Projects 0 9 4 213 226 Projected ADU Development 120 120 120 40 400 Vacant Sites 0 0 0 55 55 Non-Vacant Sites Fellowship Plaza site 80 0 0 0 80 Gateway North site 0 0 7 37 44 Gateway South site 52 30 32 83 197 Saratoga Avenue site 93 52 55 144 344 Village East site 23 13 14 37 87 Prospect Lawrence site 111 61 66 172 410 285 Report to the Planning Commission Draft Housing Element October 11, 2023 Page | 6 Wardell site 0 15 0 58 73 Allendale/Chester site 0 40 0 159 199 Quito Pollard site 0 0 0 10 10 Non-Vacant Sites Subtotal 359 211 214 700 1,444 TOTAL Unit Potential 479 340 298 1,008 2,125 Percentage Buffer of RHNA Need 6% 30% 7% 40% 24% A more complete table is shown on Attachment 7. Next Steps Feedback and direction from the City Council will be incorporated into a revised draft Housing Element and posted on the Housing Element website for a minimum of seven (7) days for public comments prior to resubmittal to HCD. Once the draft Housing Element has been updated to address all HCD comments, public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council will be scheduled for final review and adoption of the General Plan and Housing Element, together with updates to the Zoning Ordinance to establish the new Mixed-Use Districts and adoption of the Objective Design Standards. PUBLIC NOTICING: A city-wide postcard was sent on September 28, 2023, and public notification of this meeting was published in the Housing Element Newsletter, Saratoga Source, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Nextdoor. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Comments received from the public can be found in Attachment 8. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – HCD Comment Letter dated July 27, 2023 Attachment 2 – Map of RLD & RVLD designated properties Attachment 3 – Map of Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones Attachment 4 – Map of religious institutions Attachment 5 – Builders Remedy Frequently Asked Questions Attachment 6 – Location of Builder’s Remedy projects Attachment 7 – Housing Element unit analysis table Attachment 8 – Public Comment 286 1 Nicole Johnson Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 4:41 PM To: Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Paul Germaraad <pgermeraad@gmail.com>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Mary Lou Snowden Phone Number Email Address Comments Please fight Sacramento on the mandated high density housing. It is not what the people want. Our roads, electric bed and other services cannot handle any more . Stop the push from Sacramento and ask the residents what they want. Fight the high density building mandate. Mary Lou and Terry Snowden Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 287 1 Nicole Johnson From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Saturday, September 30, 2023 4:37 PM To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Mary Lou Snowden Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing developments Comments My husband and I highly oppose high density housing in Saratoga. There is no plan for traffic management, community services such as fire and police protection, water resources etc. our state is overloaded , the roads and freeways are a mess. Continuing to build in high density areas is just not a rational plan! Please consider fighting back …the state legislature continues to mandate so many things without considering its constituents. We have been mandated to go all electric when our power grid is not prepared to handle it. We are paying higher and higher bills for water and other services. Why not ask the electorate how they feel about all of this? Thank you…please stop the crazy building spree. Fight back! Mary Lou and Terry Snowden Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 288 1 Nicole Johnson From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, September 29, 2023 12:00 AM To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Ramin Naimi Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Builders remedy Comments Hello, I am writing to voice my opposition to the builders remedy for building more than 77 units at the end of Wardell road. I live on Wardell and I am very concerned about the increase in traffic on Wardell, right in front of my house, as well as the safety issues and noise and many other undesirable side effects that will come with this development. We need to stop this aww development now. Ramin Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 289 1 Nicole Johnson From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Thursday, September 28, 2023 10:54 PM To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Reginald Ricket Phone Number Email Address Subject Failed Housing Plan Comments I applaud the States rejection of the unequitable housing plan put forth by our city council that placed almost all the required housing north of Cox--where I live. Now,sadly, all the city residents--specifically including those south of Cox must suffer the results of that rejected plan. I hope the City Council will now undertake to create a housing plan that distributes proposed housing around the city--such as the Safeway-CVS complex on Saratoga-Sunnyvale rd. Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 290 1 Nicole Johnson Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2023 1:12 PM To: Clinton Brownley <cbrownley@gmail.com>; Anjali Kausar <aakausar@outlook.com>; Razi Mohiuddin <razi@mohiuddin.com>; Herman Zheng <zheng.herman@gmail.com>; Jonathan Choi <jojo.choi@gmail.com>; Ping Li <ping.li2@comcast.net>; Paul Germaraad <pgermeraad@gmail.com>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Tanya Roosta Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Comments Words cannot describe how frustrated and angry I am with such useless council members. I am not sure what your role is good for if you cannot come up with a fair housing plan that is scattered AROUND Saratoga, and not pockets that are far away from your house and your high powered friends houses. I have attended every housing meeting and have heard nothing but lies and excuses from all of you, and no real justification for such a big failure. If you have any shred of dignity, you should just resign and let more competent people take your place. I live near Allendale, and the builders have proposed a 199 unit monstrosity to be built at the corner of Chester and Allendale. Who is going to be responsible for the traffic congestion, potential neighborhood unsafety, and all the other issues that come with such huge complex being put in the middle of residential single family homes. A very irritated and unhappy Saratoga resident. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 291 1 Nicole Johnson From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Sunday, October 1, 2023 1:34 AM To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Vandy Agrawal Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Disappointed at our council members Comments We Saratoga residents are very disappointed with our elected council members who couldn't come up with a fair and equitable housing plan and restrict the number of stories being built to 2 stories high. Feels like you guys don't care about Saratoga. Then why are you in those jobs that is supposed to represent our voices when you have clearly ignored them. Very disappointed Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 292 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Date: October 11, 2023 Subject: Housing Element Update & Policy Options - Supplemental Memo No. 1 Please see attached public comment received after the publication of the agenda packet. 293 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 7:29 AM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Vivek Tiwari Phone Number Email Address Comments The Builder's Remedy needs to be rejected and the Planning Commission cannot give in and bend over backwards to builders by creating environmentally harmful multi-story complexes next to creeks which are home to dozens of wildlife species and heritage flora. It has not been legally established that HCD has the sole authority to decide substantial compliance to RHNA requirements. The Housing Element, such as it is, already meets RHNA requirements. The HCD comments are not binding and the City can establish that it is already substantially compliant. " State law provides that a city or county may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with state law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).)" The State Attorney General may then redirect this to the courts and THAT'S OK. It is the job of the City to fight for its Citizens. Many cities in California are doing just that. It will be huge and permanent disservice to the citizens for Saratoga if the Planning Commission and the City just gives in now vs fight the Builder's Remedy as is its legal right and obligation.We elect the City Council and it Commissions and pay the salaries for the City Staff to work to protect the interests of the citizen and not to just take the path of least resistance. The time has come for the Planning Commission to stand up for the citizens of Saratoga and to fight the builders and 294 political lobbies for the sake of the city, its unique character and for its citizens. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 295 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Sunday, October 8, 2023 11:02 AM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Joanne Phone Number Email Address Comments Builder’s Remedy proposal in Menlo Park at the site of the former Sunset Magazine campus: The dense project proposed by N17 Development features four buildings, two of them residential, to replace the single-story former Sunset Magazine campus at 80 Willow Road. The tallest building (30 stories) would rise 326 feet, taller than the 305-foot Statue of Liberty and only 4 feet below most modern definitions of a skyscraper. The developer wants to build between 800 and 1,150 apartment units, a 150-room hotel and office space on the site. Menlo Park’s HE may have been rejected because they proposed designating most sites for affordable housing in the less affluent east side of the city. https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2023/08/18/local-elected- officials-unite-in-opposition-to-huge-builders-remedy-project-in- menlo-park Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 296 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 3:19 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Latika Munjal Phone Number Email Address Comments Hi I am Latika Munjal and have lived in Saratoga woods for the last 29 years. I have seen traffic increasing over the years to the point that getting on the freeway on Saratoga Avenue takes me about 10-12 minutes during commute time even though I live only a mile away from the freeway. What you are proposing by putting the majority of this housing near Saratoga/Cox avenue will not only increase the traffic on the roads here, but our schools and quality of life will go down. The existing Housing Element places the majority of the housing in our northern area, and when this is coupled with the El Paseo project and Costco, it will create unsafe increased traffic on Saratoga avenue and the surrounding northern Saratoga area. The city of Saratoga has not addressed the looming traffic issue on Saratoga Avenue and in fact exacerbates it with their Housing Element. I do not understand why the majority of that housing is being put here instead of being divided equitably. I would respectfully like to ask the City Council to Please be fair to all Saratogans. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 297 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 11:04 AM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Joanne Cornbleet Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Comments Much of the proposal to addressing HCD's comments on Saratoga's HE draft is devoted toward new policies promoting SB9 (lot subdivision) units in the south part of the city with the lowest density housing. This is projected to create a whooping 37 new ABOVE MODERATE INCOME units in the next 8 years! While I have no objection to policies that encourage lot splitting, this approach does nothing to address the concentration of AFFORDABLE units in the north part of Saratoga. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 298 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Saturday, October 7, 2023 10:08 AM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Joanne Cornbleet Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Comments Saratoga’s HE proposes 120 ADUs as Very Low Income units. To qualify, these ADUs would have to have affordable rent for people at or below 50% of the median income for our area (paying a max of 30% of their income for rent). This works out to about $1800-$1900 per month rent for a 1 bedroom ADU. I don’t think anyone in Saratoga is going to build an ADU and rent it for that amount. I can find one ADU in Saratoga for rent for $2900. When Saratoga falls short of the number of Very Low Income units due to unrealistic proposals, developers once again will be able to build anywhere without the city’s approval. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 299 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 7:20 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Chris Vasquez Phone Number Email Address Comments I urge the Planning Commission and City Council to respond to the State’s most recent rejection of the Housing Element in a manner that results in a Saratoga Housing Element that is fair. Right now, Over 90% of affordable housing is placed in northern Saratoga (Gateway North, Gateway South, Prospect/Lawrence, and Saratoga Avenue, which is only 20% of the city area. As the State highlighted, the City is a high resource area and a significant portion of the lower-income RHNA is geographically isolated, including areas that correspond with other fair housing coincidences including higher levels of renter overpayment and higher rates of individuals that are part of a protected class. This approach is flawed and the State recognizes this as evidenced in their comments. Saratoga is required to provide 454 Very Low-Income Units. With the addition of the Builder’s Remedy projects at Allendale/Chester and Wardell, the total number of Very Low- Income units is 479. However, a large number of these units are projected to come from two commercial sites with a low probability of sale and lot consolidation. Saratoga’s revised housing production numbers include Gateway South (52 Very Low-Income Units), despite knowledge to the Council that the owner “showing interest” in selling specifically wrote a letter to the Council that his site no longer was for sale! He also mentioned other Gateway South owners that were unwilling to sell. 300 Prospect/Lawrence (111 Very Low-Income Units) likewise has multiple commercial site owners who have not been willing to sell in the past. According to the staff, the City has not contacted any of these owners to see if there is interest. “Interest” for Prospect/Lawrence was simply based on mentioning that mixed commercial/residential development has occurred at El Paseo! These two commercial sites contribute 163 Very Low-Income Units to Saratoga’s housing numbers. How will Saratoga ensure that these two commercial sites included in the Housing Element have a REALISTIC chance for lot consolidation and high-density housing development? If progress is not made toward the goal for Very Low-Income Housing units in a few years, the City once again will be required to give ministerial approval to developers despite zoning restrictions. HCD’s comments on the 3rd Draft Housing Element also encouraged the City to consider additional sites in subsequent revisions and not to rely solely on ADUs and SB9 to increase housing supply throughout the city, including in the lower density single-family areas. Because of this, I strongly recommend to the Planning Commission and Council those additional commercial properties in the southern parts of Saratoga be proposed for Opportunity Sites. These sites should be vetted to determine if there is selling interest from the owners as the other sites should have been. For example, Argonaut (one owner) and Compass + retail stores (2 owners) could be combined into a retail/residential village, preserving the grocery store, CVS, and possibly other retail establishments as well. The Village was improperly rejected by the Council as an Opportunity Site because of “fire hazard,” but the “Map of Very High Fire Hazard Zones as recommended by CAL FIRE” shows that much of The Village is not within a severe fire hazard zone so this area appears viable to be included in the Housing Element. Sites that could be examined in the southern part of Saratoga to increase density are: Quito/Pollard site, increase density The Village – Increase density as surrounding areas are higher density, multi-level apartments, etc. Marshall Lane subdivision – increase density If Churches are proposed as a possibility, ensure these too are evenly spread in the South and North parts of the city These are just some sites, not exhaustive, and I’m sure you 301 could identify others in the spirit of equitably constructing a viable Housing Element. New policies are meaningless unless the revised Housing Element spreads the planned housing equitably, North and South in Saratoga. Respectfully, Chris Vasquez Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 302 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 5:12 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Jacqueline Holmes Phone Number Email Address Comments It seems to me the choice was made to “put our head in the sand”, rather than City Council pass a plan to comply with the clearly worded state law, and thereby avoid Builders Remedy. :/ However, rather than fight the entire idea of density/state housing requirements , which seems a lost cause whether we like it or not - why don’t we take advantage to enhance Saratoga’s quality of life , property values and commercial tax revenue (as well as housing equity)? 1) Create more vibrancy in our downtown Village , actively attracting more amenities and filled storefronts including a market; 2) Regain the vibrancy lost when outdoor seating on Big Basin was lost, which City Council blamed on the state although the state was waiting and asking for City Council’s proposal which never came as they never had city staff to address the issue as requested; 3) Create transportation to reduce car dependency to major destinations within 10 miles, for all including students/teens/youth , the elderly, those employed by local businesses and residents (employee transport is a major challenge), and others wanting a more convenient, active and environmentally friendly lifestyle. On demand shuttles (like Hopper) are being used by Cupertino/MV and could be extended to Saratoga & LG, and there are other services (like 303 Circuit) which are advertising supported, all of which could be supported by state and federal grants if prioritized by City Council, as could be development of safer, fully physically protected/separated and contiguous bicycle lanes to all major road arteries/destinations, which would be used by a much wider audience for transportation as well as recreation. Food for thought!! Everything is a matter of priorities. Thank you. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 304 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, October 6, 2023 4:48 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Joanne Cornbleet Phone Number Email Address Comments Saratoga is required to provide 454 Very Low Income Units. With the addition of the Builder’s Remedy projects at Allendale/Chester and Wardell, the total number of Very Low Income units is 479. However, a large number of these units are projected to come from two commercial sites with a low probability of sale and lot consolidation. Saratoga’s revised housing production numbers include Gateway South (52 Very Low Income Units), despite knowledge to the Council that the owner “showing interest” in selling specifically wrote a letter to the Council that his site no longer was for sale! He also mentioned other Gateway South owners that were unwilling to sell. Prospect/Lawrence (111 Very Low Income Units) likewise has multiple commercial site owners who have not been willing to sell in the past. According to the staff, the City has not contacted any of these owners to see if there is interest. “Interest” for Prospect/Lawrence was simply based on mentioning that mixed commercial/residential development has occurred at El Paseo! These two commercial sites contribute 163 Very Low Income Units to Saratoga’s housing numbers. How will Saratoga ensure that these two commercial sites included in the Housing Element have a REALISTIC chance for lot consolidation and high density housing development? If progress is not made toward the goal for Very Low Income Housing units in a few years, the City once again will be required to give ministerial approval to developers despite zoning restrictions. 305 HCD’s comments on the 3rd Draft Housing Element also encouraged the City to consider additional sites in subsequent revisions and not to rely solely on ADUs and SB9 to increase housing supply throughout the city, including in the lower density single-family areas. Thus, I strongly recommend to the Planning Commission and Council that additional commercial properties in the southern parts of Saratoga be proposed for Opportunity Sites IF there is selling interest from the owners. For example, Argonaut (one owner) and Compass + retail stores (2 owners) could be combined into a retail/residential village, preserving the grocery store, CVS, and possibly other retail establishments as well. The Village was improperly rejected by the Council as an Opportunity Site because of “fire hazard,” but the “Map of Very High Fire Hazard Zones as recommended by CAL FIRE” shows that much of The Village is not within a severe fire hazard zone. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 306 Frances Reed From:James Lindsay Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 1:54 PM To:Frances Reed; Britt Avrit Cc:Leslie Arroyo; Bryan Swanson Subject:FW: Heritage Orchard Attachments:20220117_AoA_Final_To_Council.pptx Hello Frances & Britt, Could you please include this email and the attached document as part of the public comments on the Housing Element Update for the October 11 Planning Commission and November 1 City Council meetings. Thank you, James From: John T. Reagan Sent: Sunday, October 8, 2023 9:31 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Heritage Orchard CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Councilmembers: Given that the State has rejected three of your submissions and now there are Builder’s Remedies (BR) popping up throughout the City, I wanted to share this analysis once again. This will be the first time that Belal and Chuck will have seen this proposal. There was no good reason why the Compass/Bagel Shop site should not be part of submission #4. Any arguments previously presented are no longer defensible in light of the rejections and BR projects. As you know, James has the spreadsheet that generated this material. John Reagan 307 19-Jan-2022 City Council Meeting Housing Element Analysis of Alternatives A Collection of Community Generated Proposals 308 Purpose •This presentation identifies three (3) alternative RHNA-mandated housing allocations generated by representatives from impacted communities “north of 85” that aims to achieve: •A more equitable distribution across the city (“spread the load”) •Reduce required height of housing units (“keep it low”) •A more equitable distribution between Saratoga Union and Campbell Union school districts. •One (1) option utilizes the nine (9) areas identified by the Planning Commission and the other two (2) utilize City-owned property to achieve these goals. •We would like the City Council to direct Staff to review these plans and provide their independent assessment. Updated 19-January Opportunity Sites Proposed Alternatives 309 1.64 acre, APN: 393 01 032 Option 1: Utilize Bagel Shop and Compass Parcels •Compass Realty and “Bagel Shop” are two (2) different parcels •Develop both sites (3.2 acres combined) •Change zoning from CR to RMF 30-60 du/acre •37-units •Only rear abutting neighbors are directly impacted, but they are already RMF (residential multi-family) 2- story (~20du/acre) and separated by creek •Saratoga Union, Los Gatos Union school districts •Pierce Road evacuation site is Argonaut shopping center, no need to hold onto this site for this purpose 1.56 acre, APN: 393 47 001 310 Option 1: Utilize Bagel Shop and Compass Parcels CONS: •82% of allocation to North of 85, 18% to South of 85, still not equitable; better than Jan-19 proposal, but not good enough PROS: •Identifies only sites required to meet RHNA requirements vs. Jan-19 recommendation which identifies 8% more than required •Improves SUSD / CUSD disparity •Bagel shop can move into Argonaut shopping center (where Alpine Travel site currently sits empty); still walking distance to Pierce Road •Larger contiguous site would support underground parking with less impact to abutting neighbors 311 Options 2 and 3: Utilize City-Owned Property •Usable portion of the Orchard is ~10 acres •Option 2 would propose utilizing 3 acres of the orchard adding 120 units leaving ~7 acres of functional orchard •Option 3 proposes utilizing 5 acres adding 141 units leaving ~5 acres of functional orchard •This would put more traffic on Saratoga Avenue, but it would be South of 85 and not likely to unduly burden the Lawrence & Prospect and Lawrence & Saratoga intersections •There are, of course, other City-owned properties that could be utilized, but no other site offers as much opportunity achieve the three goals of “spreading the load”, “keeping it low” and reducing the disproportionate impact to CUSD. library 3 -5 acres OrchardTo HWY 85 To HWY9 LOS GATOS HWY 17 VILLAGE Not drawn To scale Heritage-Orchard-Master-Plan-2020 (saratoga.ca.us)indicates 13.9 acres of Orchard. For planning purposes, we used 10 acres. If it’s actually 13.9, our argument is even stronger 312 Option 2: Use City-Owned Property Use 3 Acres of The ~10 Acres (30%) of the Orchard CONS: •Lose 30% of Orchard PROS: •City controls affordability levels; can ensure very low housing is built (teachers, City employees, etc.) •Relieves impact on North of 85 (Saratoga Ave, Gateway) •Could “tuck” orchard units behind library to minimize street view and impact •Can still have a functional orchard •NO abutting residential neighbors •Walking distance to: City Hall, Joan Pisani Center, RMS, West Valley, Library, Sacred Heart, St. Andrews, Farmer’s Market, major VTA hub (4 routes, some connect to light rail), Hwy 85, 9 PROS: •Improved SUSD / CUSD disparity •75% of allocation to North of 85, 25% to South of 85, still not equitable; better than Jan-19 proposal, but not good enough 313 Option 3: Use City-Owned Property Use 5 Acres of The ~10 Acres (50%) of Heritage Orchard CONS: •Lose 50% of Orchard PROS: •Same as option 2 AND •Considerably Improved SUSD / CUSD disparity •67% of allocation to North of 85, 33% to South of 85, still not equitable but the best of all proposals presented so far 314 Why We Should Use (some of) The Heritage Orchard •The Heritage Orchard is walking distance to: •Major VTA hub with four (4) VTA routes that connect up to Light Rail and major employment centers (see VTA Congestion Management Program 2018 Conformance & Monitoring Report) •Four (4) schools (West Valley, Redwood Middle School (SUSD), Sacred Heart, St. Andrews), two (2) churches (Sacred Heart, St. Andrews) •Civic center, Joan Pisani Center, Post Office, Library, Farmer’s Market, Recreation Areas (RMS fields, courts, walking and running trails, West Valley College) •Orchard has easy access to HWY 85 and HWY 9 •Site is consistent with HCD Best Practices •City, not developers, gets to control the affordability distribution (not subject to RHNA allocations) and actually allocate housing to valued but at-risk population (teachers, City staff, etc) •Offers a much more equitable distribution of RHNA opportunity sites…more fair to all Saratogans A previous City Council put the Orchard on the historical list; a current City Council can take it off that list 315 A Cautionary Tale •It is easy to simply identify the bulk of opportunity sites North of 85 at Lawrence & Prospect and Lawrence & Saratoga and Gateway without consideration of the impacts. •Lawrence is a VTA roadway (expressway) •If Congestion Management Agencies (CMA) like Saratoga develop irresponsibly and cause LOS to drop below LOS “E” on a VTA roadway there can be serious repercussions for Saratoga •VTA projects nearly all Lawrence intersections to be LOS “F” by 2025 (https://countyroads.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb681/files/ expresswaysystem.pdf) •2018 peak PM measurements of Lawrence & Prospect show overall LOS “D”, but South- and East-bound at LOS “E” and “F” already…doesn’t include COSTCO or El Paseo or Jan-19 housing element proposal •VTA may withhold Prop 111 gas tax; pre-COVID, this was averaging about ~$729K/year Relying on EIR to identify impacts to community is too late. Need to assess community impact before finalizing opportunity sites. 316 VTA Peak PM Congestion LOS Measurements Lawrence & Prospect 2018 Nov 15, 4:30-5:30pm Lawrence & Prospect already problematic not counting Costco, El Paseo or this proposal E D C E+ D B F DC- E D-C North-Bound South-Bound East-Bound West -Bound •Exiting to 85 •Leaving Prospect High•To Saratoga Sunnyvale •To Saratoga Ave 317 Conclusions •These are viable alternative plans that could effectively spread and share the load on the neighborhoods, traffic and schools •Please direct Staff to quickly review these options and provide report back to Council •Consideration should also be given to: •Increasing density on Allendale/Chester •Utilizing Saratoga Prospect Center (city-owned) •Developing and energizing the Village with mixed-use housing + commercial •Keep the height limit across Saratoga to 3 stories maximum otherwise we will be faced with the reality shown here •This site is almost unrecognizable as the pumpkin patch!!!Shown here is a composite of the 4-story Penny Lane Development on Campbell/San Tomas and the existing Saratoga Ave “Pumpkin Patch” site (Saratoga Ave & Cox). Please limit this site to 3 stories maximum.318 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Date: October 11, 2023 Subject: Housing Element Update & Policy Options - Supplemental Memo No. 2 Please see attached public comment received after the publication of the agenda packet. 319 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:30 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Vigen Salmastlian Phone Number Email Address Comments I am Saratoga resident and homeowner on Apricot Hill in Saratoga near the large Allendale/Chester lot that is now being considered for 198 unit Builder's Remedy. I am strongly opposed to this proposed rezoning that is inconsistent with the neighborhood and surrounding area. All of the lots on chester are 40,000 square foot and larger in size, and what is being proposed here is dense condos. Even on the Allendale side lots are 1/3 acre and more. The reason we and many others have bought homes in this area of Saratoga is because of the large lots, open spaces, nature preserves, and wooded environment, with a small population, and no traffic. Adding 198 units at the corner will drastically change the neighborhood and will set a dangerous precedent to continue developing more and more lots into dense housing. To the extent any rezoning happens to build homes it must be consistent with the zoning in the surrounding area. The city should not allow anything smaller than subdividing into 1 acre lots. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 320 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:26 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Sriram Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Comments The Builder's Remedy must be rejected. The builders remedy is creating environmentally harmful multi-story complexes next to creeks which are home to dozens of wildlife species and heritage flora. The Planning Commission should fight against this. The Housing Element already meets RHNA requirements. HCD's comments are not binding and the City can establish that it is already substantially compliant. If the Planning Commission gives in now, it will be a huge disservice to the citizens of Saratoga. The Planning Commission must stand up for the citizens and fight the builders and political lobbies for the sake of the city, its unique character, and for its citizens. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 321 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Date: October 11, 2023 Subject: Housing Element Update & Policy Options - Supplemental Memo No. 3 Please see attached public comment received after the publication of the agenda packet. 322 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 2:43 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Curt Bianchi Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Comments The State’s third comment letter regarding Saratoga’s Housing Element makes clear that the City has not chosen housing opportunity sites in an equitable manner. Specifically, the State calls out the "geographic isolation" of lower income opportunity sites within the City, and notes that this must be corrected either by identifying additional housing opportunity sites or by specifying meaningful actions to promote housing mobility (e.g., housing choices and affordability) throughout the City, including lower density single-family areas. Maybe the State’s objections can be overcome with the staff's recommendations, which fall in the category of meaningful actions. Even so, the fact will remain that the overwhelming number of housing opportunity sites, especially for lower income, will still be geographically isolated in the northern part of the City. It is clear from the Dec. 7, 2021, Planning Council meeting and the subsequent City Council meetings that this was as intended. The Planning Commission represents the entire City. As such, residents rely on it to make decisions in a manner that is fair and equitable to us all. In a process such as the Housing Element, there will naturally be a lot of “not in my backyard” complaints regardless of the decisions made. These decisions are defensible if objective standards are applied and they adhere to the State’s requirements. But it feels like that has not been the case with respect to the Housing Element opportunity sites. 323 Certain commercial properties were designated as opportunity sites while others outside the “geographically isolated” portion of the City were excluded for arbitrary reasons. For instance, Saratoga Sunnyvale / Pierce Road was excluded because certain Council members and residents like the bagel shop there. The Argonaut shopping center—a prime opportunity for redevelopment as mixed use—was excluded because, per one Council member, the grocery store would have to temporarily close during conversion to mixed use. The Village was excluded because part of it is in the high fire hazard zone. Never mind that the City has previously approved, and there currently exists, a significant amount of high density housing in the fire hazard zone adjacent to the Village; plus, parts of the Village itself were in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. On the other hand, commercial properties in the "geographically isolated" part of the city were chosen for very high housing densities even though developers would have to cobble together multiple small parcels in order to create a large enough footprint to achieve the densities that the Housing Element calls for. Owner interest and lease encumbrances were not considered. It seems highly unlikely that these properties can be redeveloped to the densities required by the Housing Element in the next eight years, a problem that the State also called out. And unlike the bagel shop, I don’t recall the Planning Commission or the City Council expressing regret regarding the many mom-and-pop shops and restaurants that would be put out of business if their properties were redeveloped. Comparable vacant parcels received drastically different treatment in the Housing Element. Allendale/Chester—a 12.13-acre parcel which the City describes as “observably underutilized as one of the last remaining vacant lands within the central part of the city, and located in proximity to a number of public transit options provided by VTA”—is designated for a density of just two housing units per acre, whereas Saratoga Avenue (aka the “pumpkin patch”)—a similarly sized vacant parcel at 11.45 acres, and also served by VTA—is assigned a minimum density of 30 du/ac. The Heritage Orchard was excluded because, we were told, if it was included there would be no excuse not to develop it into housing because it is City-owned. One Saratoga resident told me he was opposed to development of the orchard because to him the orchard represents the “gateway" to Saratoga. And that right there is the problem in a nutshell. If that’s the gateway to Saratoga, then a lot of Saratoga is not really Saratoga. And not-really-Saratoga is where nearly all of the 324 lower income housing was proposed in Saratoga’s Housing Element. Granted, some of these decisions were made by the City Council, not the Planning Commission. But the opportunity sites that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council on Dec. 14, 2021, were even more heavily skewed to the northern part of town than what the Council ultimately approved. Why was West Hope Church on Saratoga Ave. north of Cox the only religious institution property recommended to the City Council as a housing opportunity site? The only preschool recommended was in Northern Saratoga. The only day care center targeted was in Northern Saratoga. The State’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook requires that “sites identified to accommodate the lower income RHNA must be distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.” I feel that the commissioners failed to look at the cumulative effect of their choices through that lens. Or maybe it was their job to merely identify suitable sites, and the Council’s job to assess them as a whole and decide which ones to include in the Housing Element. In any case, the Housing Element sent a message that some parts of the City are acceptable for lower income housing while others are not, and the State noticed. I highly doubt that the Planning Commission or the City Council is interested in re-addressing the housing opportunity sites, instead hoping that the Staff recommendations will be enough to get our Housing Element across the finish line. But if the opportunity sites are reconsidered, I urge the Planning Commission to do so in a way that meets the State’s requirement that "sites identified to accommodate the lower income RHNA must be distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing." Sincerely, Curt Bianchi Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 325 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:07 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Som Nag Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Comments Saratoga needs to respect its citizens' wishes and preserve its character. As such our HE plan meets all RHNA criteria of min added units and min affordable low-income units. HCD feedback does NOT mandate we amend our plan which also opts for the Environmentally Superior alternative identified by the EIR. We are NOT in non-compliance, pending the adoption of our last draft. HCD simply points out further areas of improvement above and beyond compliance. The Builder's Remedy proposals are pre-emptive overtures by predatory big money builders who want to destroy Saratoga, with only their own and their associates' financial gains in mind. The citizens, City, Council and Planning Commission need to stand up and fight back. It has not been legally established that HCD has the sole authority to decide substantial compliance to RHNA requirements. The Housing Element, such as it is, already meets RHNA requirements. The HCD comments are not binding and the City can establish that it is already substantially compliant. Per the Law, the City simply needs to write back to the HCD explaining our reasons (that I state above) why we believe we ARE in compliance. " State law provides that a city or county may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with state law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).)" The State Attorney General may then redirect this to the courts and THAT'S OK. It is the job of the City to fight for its Citizens. Many cities in California are doing just that. 326 It will be huge and permanent disservice to the citizens of Saratoga if the Planning Commission and the City just gives in now vs fighting the Big Builders as is the legal right and obligation. If we give in now, the Builders will not stop here - the destruction of our City will continue to multiply their gains. Let us ALL citizens from every part of Saratoga UNITE to fight these Builders and not allow divisive forces to weaken our combined resolve. We elected the City Council and it Commissions and pay the salaries for the City Staff to work to protect the interests of the citizen and not to just take the path of least resistance. The time has come for the Planning Commission and Council to stand up for the citizens of Saratoga and to fight the builders and political lobbies for the sake of the city, its unique character and for its citizens. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 327 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:55 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Rae Williams Phone Number Email Address on ALLENDALE/CHESTER. This area is and was one-acre parcels and should remain. We drive daily on Chester to our home, the plan for 198 homes is a devastation to the area and our city of Saratoga. VOTE NO. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 328 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Date: October 11, 2023 Subject: Housing Element Update & Policy Options - Supplemental Memo No. 4 Please see attached public comment received after the publication of the agenda packet. 329 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 4:10 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Navin E Samuel Phone Number Email Address Comments The commission's plan to build a 199 condo complex at the Belleciti Vineyard is outrageous and unacceptable to all of us living in and around the area. Allendale and its access rods along Quito and Fruitvale are already crammed in the morning with traffic and I don't understand why you would approve of another 200 units on the road and increase the traffic on an already busy road. You are destroying my right to live peacefully to meet your own vested interests and I fully object to this proposal. Please stop this nonsense and find better ways to meet housing needs of California other than by trodding over others lives. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 330 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 9:51 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Janette L FuldePorta Phone Number Email Address Comments Can we please make builders pay for bike lanes and safty improvements ifor safe roads. West Valley should build student housing will this meet some goals? Can we get busses again for susd? Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 331 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 5:29 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Elaheh Firoozi Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Comments I disagree with any Builder remedy project on Allendale/Chester Ave. It will have profound adverse effect on the neighborhood demographic, culture, noise and traffic. Our household requests City Council members to reject the builder proposal. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 332 Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 1 of 4 DRAFT MINUTES WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 11, 2023 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Chair Brownley called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Clinton Brownley, Vice Chair Jojo Choi, Commissioners Paul Germeraad, Anjali Kausar, Ping, Li, Razi Mohiuddin, and Herman Zheng ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Bryan T. Swanson, Community Development Director Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2023. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2023. KAUSAR/MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2023 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS: Public Comment: John Henley Jr. spoke. Paulette spoke. Anita Enander spoke. Bill Dalton spoke. Ed Grabowy spoke. 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2.1 Application PDR21-0019/VAR23-0002/ARB21-0086: 15269 Bohlman Road (517-14-003) Verbicaro 1 LLC (Applicant): The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 5,749 square foot two-story single-family residence (maximum height 25’-11.5”) and a request for a Variance for retaining walls to exceed the maximum five-foot height limitation. One protected tree is proposed for removal. The site is zoned Hillside Residential (HR) with a General Plan Designation of Residential Hillside Conservation (RHC). Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 23-015 approving the project subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. GERMERAAD/KAUSAR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 23-015 APPROVING PDR21-0019 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: GERMERAAD. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3. GENERAL BUSINESS 333 Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 2 of 4 3.1 Housing Element Update & Policy Options Public Comment: Anthony Fisher spoke. Henry Yen spoke. Nels DeLander spoke. Jerry Schaaf spoke. Jody Tatro spoke. Shanwna Krainin spoke. Rick Louie spoke. Dianna Sipos spoke. Buzz Broze spoke. Shari Moraveji spoke. Gerald Bittner spoke. Bernie Mills spoke. Joe Byers spoke. Joning Ta spoke. Sanita spoke. John Regan spoke. Chris Vasquez spoke. Brian Berkeley spoke. Joanne spoke. Som spoke. Ed Grabowy spoke. PG spoke. Ran spoke. Marshall Zerbo spoke. Eva Wu spoke. 3.1.1 Three Primary Dwellings Chair Brownley and Commissioner Germeraad recused themselves from this item. MOHIUDDIN/KAUSAR MOVED TO APPROVE AND RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE THREE PRIMARY DWELLINGS POLICY AS DRAFTED BY STAFF. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CHOI, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: BROWNLEY, GERMERAAD. Chair Brownley and Commissioner Germeraad returned to the dais. 3.1.2 SB 9 Regulations Mohiuddin/Li moved to have this policy effective only if; at year four of the eight-year cycle, less than 50% of the projected units have been permitted. Additionally, to remove 2E from the proposed policy. This motion was withdrawn. KAUSAR/MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO APPROVE AND RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE SB 9 POLICYS (SUB-ITEMS A-D) AS DRAFTED BY STAFF AND SUB-ITEM E AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3.1.3 Housing on religious institution sites and shared housing CHOI/BROWNLEY MOVED TO APPROVE AND RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE HOUSING ON RELIGIOUS SITES AND SHARED HOUSING POLICYS AS DRAFTED BY STAFF. MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. Commissioner Mohiuddin requested that staff investigate additional zoning locations for religious institutions (zoning CV, CH and possibly PA). The request was directed for staff to review but not related to the current Housing Element policy proposal. 334 Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 3 of 4 3.1.4 Encouraging and streamlining housing applications Commissioner Choi/Germeraad moved to approve recommendation of sub-items A-C, but not C. Motion failed due to second motion being approved by vote. MOHIUDDIN/KAUSAR MOVED TO APPROVE AND RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE STREAMLINING POLICYS A-C AND CONSIDER AMENDING D TO ELEMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR STORY POLES FOR SINGLE-STORY HOMES AND CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT FOR TWO-STORY HOMES TO REQUIRE STORY POLES OR PROVIDE VISUAL REPRESENTAITONS . MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: CHOI. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3.1.5 Lot Consolidation MOHIUDDIN/KAUSAR MOVED TO APPROVE AND RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE LOT CONSOLIDATION POLICYS AS DRAFTED BY STAFF . MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, GERMERAAD, KAUSAR, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3.1.6 Existing Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Development Standards Commissioner Kausar recused herself from this item. MOHIUDDIN/CHOI MOVED TO APPROVE AND RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE LOT CONSOLIDATION POLICYS AS DRAFTED BY STAFF . MOTION PASSED. AYES: BROWNLEY, CHOI, LI, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: GERMERAAD. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: KAUSAR. Commissioner Kausar returned to the dais. 3 DIRECTOR ITEMS Director Swanson thanked staff, consultants and Commissioners for their time and attention to the Housing Element process. 4 COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Germeraad requested that the Planning Commission hold a Study Session on the possibility of using virtual reality for site visits. Commissioner Mohiuddin voiced concern about the item not being part of the Planning Commission’s Work Plan. Commissioner Germeraad directed staff to include this item to the next annual work plan request to City Council. 5 ADJOURNMENT 335 Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 4 of 4 KAUSAR moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:51 AM. Minutes respectfully submitted: Frances Reed, Administrative Analyst City of Saratoga 336 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 8:52 PM To:Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Ping Li; Paul Germaraad; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name Hassan Sedarat Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Comments Our family leaves near Allendale/Chester Orchard and we oppose to changing this beautiful lot to a dense community of condos. City needs to consider the neighborhood input and follow the plan for residential lots similar to the area zoning. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 337 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov July 27, 2023 Bryan Swanson, Director Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Bryan Swanson: RE: City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Saratoga’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on May 30, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Joanne Cornbleet, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c). The revised draft element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s March 17, 2023 review; however, revisions will be necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law. For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) and 65583.2, subdivision (c). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until these rezones are completed. 338 Bryan Swanson, Director Page 2 Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at: https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Clare Blackwell, of our staff, at clare.blackwell@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Paul McDougall Senior Program Manager Enclosure 339 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 1 July 27, 2023 APPENDIX CITY OF SARATOGA The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and- community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources. A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Integration and Segregation: While the element was revised to briefly report differences in income relative to the region, the analysis still should incorporate other relevant factors, such as zoning and land use patterns, local growth-related measures or investments. In addition, the element must still describe and analyze any local concentrations or patterns of familial status geographically within the City. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element now identifies sites by income and location and generally concludes that sites do not exacerbate current fair housing conditions because all the RHNA) sites are located in high resource areas. While all the RHNA sites are located in high resource areas, the entire City is a high resource area and a significant portion of the lower-income RHNA is geographically isolated, including areas that correspond with other fair housing coincidences including higher levels of renter overpayment and higher rates of individuals that are part of a protected class. The element should either identify additional sites to better promote inclusive neighborhoods throughout the City or clearly recognize and evaluate the isolation of the lower-income RHNA and add or modify significant and meaningful actions to promote housing mobility (e.g., housing choices and affordability) throughout the City, including lower density single-family areas. 2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) 340 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 2 July 27, 2023 Progress in Meeting the RHNA: While the element now mentions the status of approved pipeline projects, it must still address the gap between approval and building permit application submittal for the Marshall Lane Subdivision, including any barriers to development. The element must also discuss the status and anticipated completion of pending projects such as the Saratoga Retirement Community project, including any known barriers to development, and address drop-out rates of all pending SB 9 applications. Small Sites: The element was not revised to address this finding. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element was revised to evaluate the potential for redevelopment on some of the parcels within the Village East Site; the element must still provide analysis of existing uses of the sites at 20440 Arbeleche Ln. and 14363 Saratoga Avenue; and demonstrate that the existing uses at these sites will likely discontinue during the planning period. For more information, see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. SB 9 Sites: While the element now briefly mentions the ease of potential subdivisions on identified lots, it generally was not revised to address HCD’s prior finding and must still provide a complete analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. The element should add or modify programs based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Electronic Site Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements-hcd for a copy of the form and instructions. The City/County can reach out to HCD at sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov. 3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Land Use Controls: While the element was revised to identify height and lot coverage requirements of the new mixed-use district MU(VHD), it must also analyze these controls for impacts on housing costs and ability to achieve maximum densities. The element states that development standards within the commercial zoning districts (CN, C-V, CH-1, CH-2, and P-A) do not pose a constraint since other mixed-use projects have been built under these regulations. However, simply mentioning that development has occurred does not mean that the standards were not constraints. The element should include analysis, 341 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 3 July 27, 2023 including impacts on the ability to achieve maximum density. In addition, the element must still analyze the 40 percent maximum lot coverage, setbacks, and two-story height limits in multifamily zones as a constraint on development and add programs as appropriate. The element must also still discuss minimum lot sizes and any impacts on identified sites to accommodate the RHNA. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. While Program 3.3-1 was revised to include a proposed amendment to the parking standards for multifamily, the element must still analyze the parking requirements of one garage space and an additional 0.5 space for a one-bedroom unit, particularly the cost impacts of requiring a garage. In addition, Program 3.3-1 must include actions to specifically commit to reviewing and revising the constraints identified and include specific timing and commitment to proposed revisions. Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element was revised to include additional information on processing and permit procedures. However, the element must also analyze this approval process for its impact on housing cost, supply, timing, feasibility, and approval certainty. Particularly, the element should evaluate approval findings for impacts on approval certainty and add or modify programs to address identified constraints. B. Housing Programs 1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. 2. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) Program 4-2.4 (Affordable Housing Incentives and Waivers): The Program should be revised to include a quantified objective for units to be developed that will be affordable to lower-income households or special needs groups. 342 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 4 July 27, 2023 3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. 4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. The element must be revised based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. For more information, see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. In addition, the entirety of the City falls into the highest resource category in access to opportunity, has significant areas that are racially concentrated areas of affluence and consists of households with the highest median income category. Further, the City geographically isolates the lower-income RHNA. These conditions and circumstances warrant significant and robust actions (not limited to the RHNA) to promote housing mobility and increase housing choices and affordability throughout the City, including in lower-density neighborhoods. C. Public Participation Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) HCD received comments with many meaningful suggestions related to the likelihood of development of Gateway South and Prospect/Lawrence sites, potential for additional residential capacity at Saratoga Village and Allendale/Chester Housing Site and other issues related to sites and AFFH. HCD encourages the City to consider these comments in subsequent revisions. 343 Parcels in Residential Low/Very Low Density and Not in Very High Fire Hazard Area Legend City Limits Selected Parcels 344 Saratoga The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. Obtain FRAP maps, data, metadata and publications on the Internet at http://frap.cdf.ca.govFor more information, contact CAL FIRE-FRAP, PO Box 944246, Sacramento, CA 94244-2460, (916) 327-3939. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor, State of CaliforniaMike Chrisman, Secretary for Resources,The Resources AgencyRuben Grijalva, Director,Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Government Code 51175-89 directs the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to identifyareas of very high fire hazard severity zones within Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). Mapping of the areas, referredto as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), is based on data and models of, potential fuels over a 30-50year time horizon and their associated expected fire behavior, and expected burn probabilities to quantify the likelihoodand nature of vegetation fire exposure (including firebrands) to buildings. Details on the project and specific modelingmethodology can be found at http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/projects/hazard/methods.htm. Local Responsibility Area VHFHSZmaps were initially developed in the mid-1990s and are now being updated based on improved science,mapping techniques, and data. In late 2005 to be effective in 2008, the California Building Commission adopted California Building Code Chapter 7Arequiring new buildings in VH FHSZs to use ignition resistant construction methods and materials. These new codesinclude provisions to improve the ignition resistance of buildings, especially from firebrands. The updated very high firehazard severity zones will be used by building officials for new building permits in LRA. The updated zones will also beused to identify property whose owners must comply with natural hazards disclosure requirements at time of propertysale and 100 foot defensible space clearance. It is likely that the fire hazard severity zones will be used for updates tothe safety element of general plans. This specific map is based on a geographic information system dataset that depicts final CAL FIRE recommendationsfor Very High FHSZs within the local jurisdiction. The process of finalizing these boundaries involved an extensive localreview process, the details of which are available at http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/projects/hazard/btnet/ (click on "Continueas guest without logging in"). Local government has 120 days to designate, by ordinance, very high fire hazard severityzones within its jurisdiction after receiving the recommendation. Local government can add additional VHFHSZs.There is no requirement for local government to report their final action to CAL FIRE when the recommended zones areadopted. Consequently, users are directed to the appropriate local entity (county, city, fire department, or FireProtection District) to determine the status of the local fire hazard severity zone ordinance. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRAAs Recommended by CAL FIRE Projection Albers, NAD 1983Scale 1: 12,000at 36" x 36"October 9, 2008 ©0 2 Miles 0 3 Kilometers This map was developed using data products such as parcel and city boundaries provided by local government agencies. In certain cases, this includes copyrighted geographic information.The maps are for display purposes only - questions and requests related to parcel or city boundary data should be directed to the appropriate local government entity. DATA SOURCESCAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZL06_3) MAP ID: FHSZL_c43_Saratoga Fire Hazard Severity Zones County Boundary Parcels City Boundary Local Responsibility Area State or Federal Responsibility Areas VHFHSZ Non-VHFHSZ VHFHSZ Non-VHFHSZ 345 C a m p b e l l M o n t e S e r e n o Religious Institutions Sanborn Map Company, Santa Cruz County, Maxar City Limits Religious Institutions 0 0.7 1.40.35 mi 0 1 20.5 km 1:36,112 County of Santa Clara; Sanborn Map Company | Earthstar Geographics | 346 Builder’s Remedy FAQ October 2023 Builder’s Remedy Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is the "Builder's Remedy?" A: There have recently been press reports regarding the so-called “Builder’s Remedy” that can be used to avoid local zoning requirements when a locality’s housing element does not substantially comply with state law. These reports have stated that, if a locality has a noncompliant housing element the city or county must approve the housing development project, regardless of the local zoning. The “Builder’s Remedy” arises from the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.51 ; the HAA). Q: How Does the "Builder's Remedy" Work? A: The HAA requires that cities and counties make one of five findings to deny, or to apply conditions that make infeasible, a housing development project “for very low, low- or moderate- income households” or an emergency shelter. (Section 65589.5(d).) A housing development project with 20 percent of the total units available to lower-income households or with all of the units available for moderate or middle-income households may qualify as housing “for very low, low- or moderate-income households” (see detailed description below). The five findings that would allow the denial of an eligible project can be summarized as follows: 1. The city or county has met or exceeded its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the proposed income categories in the development. 2. The housing development or emergency shelter would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, and there is no way to mitigate or avoid the impact without making the development unaffordable. The impact must be based on objective, written public health or safety standards in place when the application is deemed complete. 3. The denial or condition is required to meet state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without making the development unaffordable. 4. The project is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agriculture or resource preservation or there are not adequate water or sewage facilities to the serve the project. 5. The project is inconsistent with both the zoning ordinance and the land use designation as specified in any general plan element. However, a city or county cannot make this finding if it has not adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with state law. 347 Builder’s Remedy FAQ October 2023 Q: Are Projects Using the “Builder’s Remedy” Exempt from CEQA Review? A: The HAA contains no exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act. The HAA states specifically that nothing relieves the local agency from making the required CEQA findings and otherwise complying with CEQA. (Section 65589.5(e).) A project may be exempt from CEQA under other provisions of CEQA, other state laws, or the CEQA Guidelines. Q: When Does a Housing Element No Longer Comply with State Law? Is There a Grace Period If the Housing Element Is Not Adopted by the Due Date? A: Housing elements are required to comply with current state housing element law on the established due date (January 31, 2023, in the ABAG region). State law has changed significantly since fifth-cycle housing elements were adopted, and it would be unlikely that a fifth-cycle housing element would substantially comply with current state law. If a sixth cycle element has not been adopted by the due date, the housing element would likely be out of compliance with state law until a complying sixth cycle housing element is adopted. There is no grace period, even for the period when a housing element is being reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD approval is not required for a housing element to be found substantially compliant with state law. State law provides that a city or county may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with state law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).) However, HCD is authorized to refer agencies to the Attorney General if it finds a housing element out of compliance with state law. (Section 65585(j).) Q: Are a Local Agency’s Development Standards Null and Void If the Housing Element is Not in Compliance with State Law? A: No, the local agency’s development standards are not null and void if the housing element is not in substantial compliance with state law. The “Builder’s Remedy,” however, may require a local agency to approve an eligible housing development project despite its noncompliance with local development standards. Conversely, other projects may be challenged because a finding of general plan consistency cannot be made if the general plan is out of compliance with state law. Q: What Projects Are Eligible to Use the “Builder’s Remedy”? A: The “Builder’s Remedy” applies only to a housing development project “for very low, low- or moderate-income households” and to emergency shelters. The HAA defines a “housing development project” as either: • Residential units only; 348 Builder’s Remedy FAQ October 2023 • Mixed-use developments with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use; or • Transitional housing or supportive housing. (Section 65589.5(h)(2).) “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” includes either: • 20% of the total units sold or rented to lower-income households; • 100% of the units sold or rented to moderate-income households; or • 100% of the units sold or rented to middle-income households. Monthly housing costs for lower-income households cannot exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of median income, adjusted for household size, and the units must remain affordable for 30 years. Monthly housing costs for moderate-income households cannot exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of median income. There are no standards in the HAA for housing costs for middle- income households. (Sections 65589.5(h)(3), (h)(4).) An emergency shelter is housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. (Section 65582(d); Health & Safety Code Section 50801(e).) 349 C a m p b e l l M o n t e S e r e n o Builders Remedy Projects Sanborn Map Company, Santa Cruz County, Maxar City Limits 10/5/2023, 9:39:15 AM 0 0.7 1.40.35 mi 0 1 20.5 km 1:36,112 County of Santa Clara; Sanborn Map Company | Earthstar Geographics | 350 Saratoga Housing Element Update - Revised Sites InventoryCurrent Housing Element (May 2023) With Builder's Remedy Projects + No Projected SB 9 Units Very Low- IncomeLow- IncomeModerate- IncomeAbove Moderate- IncomeTotalVery Low- IncomeLow- IncomeModerate- IncomeAbove Moderate- IncomeTotal2022-2031 RHNA Need454 261 278 719 1,712 454 261 278 719 1,712PIPELINE (approved) & PENDING (in process) projects0 9 0 196 205 0 9 4 213 226projected adu development120 120 120 40 400 120 120 120 40 400Vacant Sites0 0 0 55 55 0 0 0 55 55Projected SB 9 Units0003737 00000Fellowship Plaza site80 0 0 0 80 80 0 0 0 80Gateway North site0 0 7 37 44 0 0 7 37 44Gateway South site52 30 32 83 197 52 30 32 83 197Saratoga Avenue site93 52 55 144 344 93 52 55 144 344Village East site23 13 14 37 87 23 13 14 37 87Prospect Lawrence site111 61 66 172 410 111 61 66 172 410Wardell site0 0 0 20 20 0 15 0 58 73Allendale/Chester site0 0 0 24 24 0 40 0 159 199Quito Pollard site0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 10Non-Vacant Sites Subtotal359 156 174 527 1216 359 211 174 700 1444TOTAL Unit Potential479 285 294 855 1913 479 340 298 1008 2125Percentage Buffer of RHNA Need 6% 9% 6% 19% 12% 6% 30% 7% 40% 24%Land Resources NonVacant Sites351 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Agenda Items for 18-Oct Saratoga City Council Meeting Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 3:03:00 PM Begin forwarded message: From: Marshall Zerbo < Subject: Agenda Items for 18-Oct Saratoga City Council Meeting Date: October 13, 2023 at 8:05:51 AM PDT To: kookie@saratoga.ca.us Cc: twalia@saratoga.ca.us, cpage@saratoga.ca.us, baftab@saratoga.ca.us, yzhao@saratoga.ca.us, bavrit@saratoga.ca.us, criordan@saratoga.ca.us, njohnson@saratoga.ca.us, krathbone@saratoga.ca.us, bswanson@saratoga.ca.us Dear Mayor Fitzsimmons - Please add these items to the agenda for the 18-Oct meeting: [a] Provide city funding to pursue legal action to oppose Builder’s Remedy & Housing Element Review Process [b] Partner with other like-minded cities to modify SB9 & SB10 [c] FastTrack a plan to establish objective building code requirements in Saratoga. My wife and I recently attended the planning commission meeting on 11-Oct. We were shocked and disappointed to learn about the current state of the Housing Element and Builder’s Remedy. Is there a provision to make this topic priority #1 for the city and have it updated at each council meeting? Multiple times during the 11-Oct meeting we heard members seated on stage state “...There is nothing we can do....” However, after asking probing questions and discussion with others, we believe that statement to be misleading. We suspect it is more accurate to say that what’s been done so far isn’t working so we need a change with a different and more aggressive approach. Marshall Zerbo Natalie Levin Saratoga, CA 95070 352 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Create Tiger Team for Housing Element Completion ? Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 3:02:38 PM From: wheart > Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2023 11:24 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Create Tiger Team for Housing Element Completion ? CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Mayor & City Council - Could you task one of the council members on your staff to lead a rapid- response team (aka "Tiger Team") with the specific and laser focused goal of getting Saratoga's Housing Element compliant as quickly as possible? Such an effort could include: +Weekly checkins/reviews (daily if needed) +Publish a micro-schedule that details milestones, deliverables, decision points. +Seek out lessons-learned from cities such as Los Altos that now have a compliant HE. +Allow the appointed council member to borrow other city staffers/resources as needed. +Allocate city budget if resources outside city staff/city hall are required. I don’t believe this list to be comprehensive, but I wanted share my thoughts on what this might look like. I know a lot of good work has been done so far so maybe a big push now could get us across the finish line. If you have another approach that puts Saratoga’s Housing Element compliance on a fast-track then please publish on the city website so that residents are aware of the plan/dates and that it is clear the city is prioritizing this. Sincerely, Natalie Levin Resident, City of Saratoga 353 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 3:02:09 PM From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 6:38 PM To: Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us>; Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name The Huffs Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Development Plans for Chester/Allendale Land | Saratoga Housing Element Comments We along with all neighbors in our neighborhood off of Allendale with whom we have spoken are distressed and upset over the newly announced plans for 199 condos on this property. When we last spoke, we were all vigorously upset at the idea of 24 homes being shoehorned onto this zoned agricultural land. What is the Council doing to project Saratoga neighborhoods from Scott Weiner and the Developer Lobby in the State of CA? We expect you to bring suit on behalf of the Citizens of Saratoga to stop this unlimited development that will serve to ruin our quiet way of life that has been the draw for Saratoga for generations. Your plans to load up housing around Cox and Prospect/Saratoga Ave without any additional infrastructure added will clog our streets and be a disaster for everyone who currently calls Saratoga home. We are asking for our elected representatives to do more than throw up your hands and claim nothing but defeat. We are asking for you to fight this with every resource at the City's disposal and band together with other City's who are doing the same. Our way of life is at stake. 354 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: ACTION NEEDED for A Compliant Housing Element Proposal for Saratoga Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 3:01:58 PM From: Sumi Krishnaswami Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 4:20 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: ACTION NEEDED for A Compliant Housing Element Proposal for Saratoga CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Saratoga City council members, I’m a resident of Saratoga for the past 9 yrs and I simply love our city. However, in the past few months I have felt betrayed by you for enabling the builders to propose The Builder’s Remedy projects and get approval for 3 high density projects in our neighborhood. Not much was said about this in the way of public hearings until Jan 2023. Also, it is my understanding that 2 out of the 3 Builder’s Remedy proposals have come from legal/law offices working on behalf of the developers. While I’m all for Saratoga to have a compliant Housing element plan in place, I DO NOT agree that Builder’s remedy is the way to go. 1. Can the city council engage one or more of the City’s attorneys who are knowledgeable and specialize in land use and Builder’s remedy to legally review before planning commission and/or city council? 2. Given that the builder’s remedy is new and without much significant precedent, I implore the city to proactively engage with more than one legal firm. This will also serve as a second opinion. 3. Also anything the city’s legal team can do to delay the permitting process, it would serve in the best interest of the city as it will give us time to prepare and counteract with a more state- compliant plan rather than being held hostage by the state or the builders. The city council must ask the city attorney(s) to explore such options. Please allocate city budget for any resources that may be required such as legal reviews/attorneys/outside city staff etc. who will work on behalf of Saratoga and her residents! It is time that Saratoga City Council took ownership of this and not default to the planning commission. Sincerely, Sumi Krishnaswami Saratoga City Resident 355 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Saratoga Housing Element Proposal - Questions seeking answers Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 3 01:41 PM Attachments:cid57C52DD7-04A7-4F84-BB9B-FB24134DEC20.png From: Vickram Vathulya Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2023 4:26 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga ca.us> Subject: Saratoga Housing Element Proposal - Questions seeking answers CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear City Council members, I would like to get answers at the next council meetings on a few questions on this topic below: 1) Has the council made efforts to partner with neighboring cities such as Los Altos who have gotten acceptance for their Housing Element proposals to see how we can get over the finish line as well? How did they propose to get approval while we seem to be struggling especially given supposed geographic and topographic similarities? 2) What progress has been made to address and resolve State feedback on the latest Saratoga HE proposal that was rejected? 3) Have the consequences of current Builder Remedy proposals been evaluated or assessed? Can we get Saratoga legal council to help us in this context to communicate with the legal groups employed by the Builder’s Remedy applicants? 4) If the city failed to provide a compliant Housing Element and/or blocked “Builder’s Remedy" projects, what are the worst case consequences? In each of the review letters from the state, there is a paragraph that mentions this (see below). Can you please quantify the items in the state's paragraph so that we know what the consequences might look like if Saratoga were denied this funding? "Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.” Best Regards, Vickram Vathulya Saratoga Resident 356 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Chester/Allendale Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 3:01:23 PM From: Shari Moraveji Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 10:58 AM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Chester/Allendale CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear City Council, We have been closely following the catastrophic situation our community faces due to the Builder’s Remedy submissions. The negative impact will be colossal to our neighborhood and have ripple effects throughout the city. These submissions have completely ignored all safety, traffic, school, environmental impacts, and are purely a money grab by greedy developers. It will significantly alter the unique character of the city as we know it. You have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Saratoga. You ran for council to fight for your city and fellow citizens. We are insisting you declare the city is complying with the state mandates and, as such, should reject all Builder’s Remedy applications. Determined residents in growing numbers have mobilized, and will take the necessary measures to stop this. Thank you, Sent from my iPhone 357 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 3:00:03 PM From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2023 6:29 PM To: Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Crystal Bothelio <cbothelio@saratoga.ca.us>; Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Martin Manley Phone Number Email Address Subject Oppose proposed develpoemt at Chester/Allendale Comments I strongly oppose the proposed condo development at Chester/Allendale. I understand that the city needs additional housing, but this high-density proposal is totally out of line with the surrounding neighborhoods. I strongly urge you to find a resolution ASAP. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 358 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: HE compliance #1 Priority Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 2:59:26 PM From: Abhishek Goel Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 7:18 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us>; Christopher Riordan <criordan@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Kyle Rathbone <krathbone@saratoga.ca.us>; Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us>; Nicole Johnson <njohnson@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: HE compliance #1 Priority CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear City Council - I live at Verde Moor ct, Saratoga. As many residents, HE compliance is top priority for us. Is this accurate? If so, what can be done to pursue this? HCD approval is not required for a housing element to be found substantially compliant with state law. State law provides that a city or county may adopt its own findings explaining why its housing element is substantially compliant with state law despite HCD’s findings. (Section 65585(f).) However, HCD is authorized to refer agencies to the Attorney General if it finds a housing element out of compliance with state law. (Section 65585(j).) Thanks Abhishek Goel 359 1 Nicole Johnson From:Sandeep Grover Sent:Wednesday, October 18, 2023 3:18 PM To:Nicole Johnson; Kyle Rathbone; Bryan Swanson; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Chuck Page; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; Christopher Riordan Subject:Housing Element Compliance Attachments:HE Saratoga.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear City Council ‐ My name is Sandeep Grover and I am a concerned resident of Saratoga. Would like your help in investigating the below. Appreciate your help and concern re: the Housing Element. One conclusion is that our most recent (3rd) Housing Element draft did an insufficient job of addressing the state’s suggestions/requirements that had already been identified in the previous HCD review cycle from several months earlier. More specifically... In the latest feedback from the state (July 2023), the HCD reviewer pointed out six instances where the same issue identified in their March 2023 feedback had not been satisfactorily addressed as of July. What can be done to “up our game” so that our next submission does not result in a circular review cycle? The attached pdf highlights the six instances. Best Regards, Sandeep Grover 360 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov July 27, 2023 Bryan Swanson, Director Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Bryan Swanson: RE: City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Saratoga’s (City) revised draft housing element received for review on May 30, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Joanne Cornbleet, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c). The revised draft element addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s March 17, 2023 review; however, revisions will be necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law. For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites available or accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline pursuant to Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) and 65583.2, subdivision (c). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until these rezones are completed. 361 362 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 1 July 27, 2023 APPENDIX CITY OF SARATOGA The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code. Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and- community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources. A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Integration and Segregation: While the element was revised to briefly report differences in income relative to the region, the analysis still should incorporate other relevant factors, such as zoning and land use patterns, local growth-related measures or investments. In addition, the element must still describe and analyze any local concentrations or patterns of familial status geographically within the City. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. Identified Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): The element now identifies sites by income and location and generally concludes that sites do not exacerbate current fair housing conditions because all the RHNA) sites are located in high resource areas. While all the RHNA sites are located in high resource areas, the entire City is a high resource area and a significant portion of the lower-income RHNA is geographically isolated, including areas that correspond with other fair housing coincidences including higher levels of renter overpayment and higher rates of individuals that are part of a protected class. The element should either identify additional sites to better promote inclusive neighborhoods throughout the City or clearly recognize and evaluate the isolation of the lower-income RHNA and add or modify significant and meaningful actions to promote housing mobility (e.g., housing choices and affordability) throughout the City, including lower density single-family areas. 2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) 363 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 2 July 27, 2023 Progress in Meeting the RHNA: While the element now mentions the status of approved pipeline projects, it must still address the gap between approval and building permit application submittal for the Marshall Lane Subdivision, including any barriers to development. The element must also discuss the status and anticipated completion of pending projects such as the Saratoga Retirement Community project, including any known barriers to development, and address drop-out rates of all pending SB 9 applications. Small Sites: The element was not revised to address this finding. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element was revised to evaluate the potential for redevelopment on some of the parcels within the Village East Site; the element must still provide analysis of existing uses of the sites at 20440 Arbeleche Ln. and 14363 Saratoga Avenue; and demonstrate that the existing uses at these sites will likely discontinue during the planning period. For more information, see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. SB 9 Sites: While the element now briefly mentions the ease of potential subdivisions on identified lots, it generally was not revised to address HCD’s prior finding and must still provide a complete analysis demonstrating the likelihood of redevelopment. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. The element should add or modify programs based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Electronic Site Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements-hcd for a copy of the form and instructions. The City/County can reach out to HCD at sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to sitesinventory@hcd.ca.gov. 3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) Land Use Controls: While the element was revised to identify height and lot coverage requirements of the new mixed-use district MU(VHD), it must also analyze these controls for impacts on housing costs and ability to achieve maximum densities. The element states that development standards within the commercial zoning districts (CN, C-V, CH-1, CH-2, and P-A) do not pose a constraint since other mixed-use projects have been built under these regulations. However, simply mentioning that development has occurred does not mean that the standards were not constraints. The element should include analysis, 364 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 3 July 27, 2023 including impacts on the ability to achieve maximum density. In addition, the element must still analyze the 40 percent maximum lot coverage, setbacks, and two-story height limits in multifamily zones as a constraint on development and add programs as appropriate. The element must also still discuss minimum lot sizes and any impacts on identified sites to accommodate the RHNA. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. While Program 3.3-1 was revised to include a proposed amendment to the parking standards for multifamily, the element must still analyze the parking requirements of one garage space and an additional 0.5 space for a one-bedroom unit, particularly the cost impacts of requiring a garage. In addition, Program 3.3-1 must include actions to specifically commit to reviewing and revising the constraints identified and include specific timing and commitment to proposed revisions. Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element was revised to include additional information on processing and permit procedures. However, the element must also analyze this approval process for its impact on housing cost, supply, timing, feasibility, and approval certainty. Particularly, the element should evaluate approval findings for impacts on approval certainty and add or modify programs to address identified constraints. B. Housing Programs 1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. 2. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) Program 4-2.4 (Affordable Housing Incentives and Waivers): The Program should be revised to include a quantified objective for units to be developed that will be affordable to lower-income households or special needs groups. 365 City of Saratoga’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Revised Draft Housing Element Page 4 July 27, 2023 3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. 4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. The element must be revised based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. For more information, see HCD’s March 17, 2023 review. In addition, the entirety of the City falls into the highest resource category in access to opportunity, has significant areas that are racially concentrated areas of affluence and consists of households with the highest median income category. Further, the City geographically isolates the lower-income RHNA. These conditions and circumstances warrant significant and robust actions (not limited to the RHNA) to promote housing mobility and increase housing choices and affordability throughout the City, including in lower-density neighborhoods. C. Public Participation Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).) HCD received comments with many meaningful suggestions related to the likelihood of development of Gateway South and Prospect/Lawrence sites, potential for additional residential capacity at Saratoga Village and Allendale/Chester Housing Site and other issues related to sites and AFFH. HCD encourages the City to consider these comments in subsequent revisions. 366 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Builders Remedy proposals Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 2:57:40 PM From: LOU KOVACS < Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 2:36 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Builders Remedy proposals CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Council Members: We have been Saratoga homeowners for 40 years The Builder’s Remedy submissions would have colossal negative impact to our neighborhoods. These high density, multi story proposals completely ignore safety, traffic, school, and environmental impacts, and are purely a money grab by greedy developers. It will significantly alter the unique character of our city as we know it. Also, the demand on electrical, water, sewer and other utilities would be well over what the existing grids are designed for. You have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Saratoga. We are insisting you declare the city is compliant with the state mandates and reject all Builder’s Remedy applications. Determined residents in growing numbers have mobilized, and will take the necessary measures to stop this. Thank you, Lou and Toni Kovacs Apricot Hill Court 367 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Housing Element / Builders Remedy Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 2:57:28 PM From: Fred Kinder Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 3:00 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Housing Element / Builders Remedy CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Wednesday, October 18, 2023 Dear Council Members, My name is Fred Kinder a resident of Saratoga for 30 years. We are following the disaster facing our community from the Builder’s Remedy submissions. The negative impact will destroy our neighborhoods and cascade throughout Saratoga and surrounding cities. You, as our representatives, have a fiduciary and moral responsibility to the citizens of Saratoga. You ran for council; it is your duty and obligation to fight for our city and all citizens. We as Citizens (including the Council) must act NOW to prevent losing all control of Housing Development by builders motivated only by greed which will destroy, all areas of Saratoga. Saratoga Heritage and agriculture properties will be destroyed along with the character of Saratoga. You see the tip of the Builders Remedey iceberg which will destroy Saratoga. You must Declare Saratoga’s Housing Element is Substantially Complaint as of 3/17/2023 since it meets all Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements. And you Must Retroactively Reject all Buildings Remedy proposals. Failure to Declare Saratoga’s Housing Element is Substantially Complaint as of 3/17/2023 will result in you losing total control of the city. It will be open season for uncontrolled growth and destruction of our community. Without consideration safety, health the environment, climate Change. Transportation is a major contributor to greenhouse gases. And you fail your fiduciary and moral responsibility to the citizens of Saratoga. 368 Regards, Fred Kinder Saratoga, CA 95070 369 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Save Saratoga from Housing Crisis Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 2:57:09 PM From: Charlene Wong Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 12:20 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Save Saratoga from Housing Crisis CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Mayor Kookie, I am Charlene Wong, born and raised in Saratoga since 1972. The beautiful tree city my husband and I returned to after graduating college to raise our young children and care for our parents is facing an unprecedented crisis from financially motivated builders to grab our heritage properties and destroy the very character of Saratoga. We have been closely following the catastrophic situation our community faces due to the Builder’s Remedy submissions. The negative impact will be colossal to our neighborhood and have ripple effects throughout the entire city. These submissions have completely ignored all safety, traffic, school, environmental impacts. It will significantly alter the unique character of the city as we know it. You have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Saratoga. You ran for council to fight for your city and fellow citizens. We are insisting you declare the city is complying with the state mandates and, as such, should reject all Builder’s Remedy applications. We as Citizens, especially the Council who represent us, must act NOW to stop this mindless, irreversible destruction because we all know it will not stop here. We are surrounded by intelligent and resourceful individuals, and many have done substantial research and combed through the law. It is our legal right to declare our last submission Compliant and retroactively reject ALL builder remedy applications. While the HCD pushes us to the AG office, it is highly unlikely the AG office will want to pursue our case, given that we are in Substantial Compliance per the RHNA. And even if they do, you owe it to your residents to put up a legal fight. In any situation involving the state, we understand your inclination to take the path of least resistance. This is the time to fight and NOT the time to rollover. If there is any cause worth fighting for, it is this very purpose which is to preserve the safety, essence and character of the city of Saratoga as we all know it. 370 Determined residents in growing numbers have mobilized, and will take the necessary measures to stop this. We urge you to PLEASE act swiftly as there is no time to delay. What will you choose to be your legacy? Sincerely, Charlene and Jerry Schaaf 371 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: allendale and chester Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 2:56:50 PM From: Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 12:54 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: allendale and chester CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. We have been long time Saratoga residents and live on Chester.We completely oppose the plan to build high density homes usingthe “Builders Remedy”. The Builders Remedy allows developers tobuild high density homes of monstrosity (multi-story complexes ashigh as 3 stories tall, 32 structures of 199 units with 450 parkingspaces on Allendale/Chester) with zero regard on the impact ofsafety and environmental issues. Dr. Michelle Nguyen 372 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Questions from Arroyyo de Arguello - Wardell Site Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 2:56:31 PM Attachments:image001.png From: Reddy Yengoti, Chandramohan Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 5:32 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Questions from Arroyyo de Arguello - Wardell Site CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear City Council – My name is Chandramohan Yengoti, a resident of , Saratoga. We now know that 2 of the 3 Builder’s Remedy proposals have come from law offices on behalfof the developers. As such, can the City Council please engage one or more of the city'sattorneys that specialize in land use and Builder’s Remedy? Having a legal review beforePlanning Commission or City Council review would seem proactive. Given that Builder’s Remedyis new and is without significant precedent, please engage with more than one firm so we canhave the benefit of a second opinion. Also, anything our legal team can do to delay thepermitting process would also be advantageous Thank you. Chandramohan Reddy Yengoti Customer Success Partner, BTP West SAP 3410 Hillview Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304 United States E: chandramohan.reddy.yengoti@sap.com M: +1 650 283-1919 Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statement: www sap.com/impressum 373 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Please stop this from happening Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 2:56:15 PM From: Jeffrey Newman Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 3:38 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; yzshao@saratoga.ca.us <yzshao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Please stop this from happening CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear City Council, We have been closely following the catastrophic situation our community faces due to the Builders Remedy submissions. The negative impact will be colossal to our neighborhood and have ripple effects throughout the city. These submissions have completely ignored all safety, traffic, school, and environmental impacts, and are purely a money grab by greedy developers. You have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Saratoga. You ran for council to fight for your city and fellow citizens. We are insisting you declare the city is complying with the state mandates and, as such, should reject all Builder’s Remedy applications. Determined residents in growing numbers have mobilized and will take the necessary measures to stop this. Did anybody on the council or working for the city ask exactly why the proposals were rejected and what changes would be required? to have the proposal validated. regards, Jeff Newman Chester Ave. 374 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Saratoga against Builders Remedy Submissions Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 2:55:55 PM From: Francesca Cois Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 5:51 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Fw: Saratoga against Builders Remedy Submissions CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Mayor Fitzsimmons, We have been closely following the catastrophic situation our community faces due to the Builders Remedy submissions. the negative impact will be colossal to our neighborhood and have ripple effects throughout the city. These submissions have completely ignored all safety traffic, school, environmental impacts, and are purely a money grab by greedy developers. You have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Saratoga. You ran for office to fight for your city and fellow citizens. We are insisting you declare the city is complying with the state mandates and, as such, should reject all Builders Remedy applications. Determined residents in growing numbers have mobilized, and will take the necessary measures to stop this. Please protect your city! Your voters, Sebastiano and Francesca Cois , Saratoga 375 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Reject Builders Remedy Proposals Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 2:55:09 PM From: Somnath Nag > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 8:10 AM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Reject Builders Remedy Proposals CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Council Members, This is Som Nag, a resident of Saratoga for over 25 years. Our beloved City is facing an unprecedented attack from financially motivated builders to grab our heritage properties and destroy the very character of Saratoga. And it will not stop at this first salvo - this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We as Citizens (including the Council) need to act NOW to stop this mindless irreversible destruction. Clearly there has been no regard to safety, traffic, school, environmental impacts etc., in the heady rush for profit. Keep in mind that any consideration of these BR proposals will need a complete redo of the EIR which will likely delay our HE compliance by 9-12 months! You, as our representatives, have a fiduciary and moral responsibility to the citizens of Saratoga. You ran for council to fight for your city and fellow citizens. As I have stated before, we meet all RHNA requirements for Substantial Compliance. It is within our legal right to declare our last submission Compliant and retroactively reject ALL builder remedy applications. I have done substantial research on this and even if HCD pushes us to the AG office, it is highly unlikely the AG office will want to pursue our case, given that we are in Substantial Compliance per the RHNA. And even if they do, you owe it to your residents to put up a legal fight. We cannot roll over. In addition, Bryan Swanson's proposal of adding the 3x units/site could be used as a sweetener. We are insisting you declare the city is Compliant with the RHNA mandates and, as such, should reject all Builder’s Remedy applications. I would also STRONGLY recommend that we retain the limited services of a practicing, hawkish, Land Use attorney who can provide us with the full range of our Legal Options. From the Planning Commission meeting last week it was clear that the PC is under- informed and ill-equipped with the required knowledge to advise you on what should be our path forward. Please let me know if you have any questions. I'm happy to discuss this with any of you. Determined residents in growing numbers have mobilized, and will take all necessary measures to stop this. 376 Sincerely, Som Nag 377 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: City Council Priority #1 Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 2:54:32 PM From: Nancy Parkin Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 8:02 AM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: City Council Priority #1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good Morning City Council, As a resident of Saratoga, I would like to have my voice heard and would like to know what can be done to make the Housing Element the #1 priority on the agenda for this week's city council meeting and all meetings going forward until it is resolved. Included in this request would be to have as many meetings scheduled as necessary to get the HE certified by 12/31/23. As a city the residents should be safeguarded from the Builder's Remedy which forces the city to approve housing projects regardless of local zoning. It is the responsibility of the City Council to get the Housing Element approved as it has been in the makings for over three years. I live in the Arroyo de Arguello neighborhood where the Wardell project seems to have become a possibility for 74 units to be built. I have a few questions pertaining to this site. Will there be several exits out of the property being considered? My worry is a safety concern for wild fire exits in the event of an emergency. Would this consider going through Beauchamps? I understand there is an exit possibility through Wardell, although those streets are very narrow and would not be able to accommodate much traffic. The same is true for the proposed exit through Hillmore. The other question is: If three stories are not being considered for the Village in order to keep it quaint and maintain the illusion of a small town, then why would a neighborhood be allowed to have three story, multi unit dwellings? How is the number of units on a site determined? Is it the Developers that make that decision? If that is the case then it seems the developers are the ones that win as money goes into their pockets. This neighborhood is also a bike path that is used daily for those cyclists in the area. Increasing traffic would be a safety hazard for those on bikes as the traffic increase would be increased by approximately two cars per unit. It is also a pathway for a tremendous amount of daily walkers with 378 and without dogs which would make it more difficult for those individuals as well. The bridge over the Saratoga Creek on Wardell, can only accommodate one car at a time, as a car going each way does not fit the bridge. This can be a safety issue in the event of a wildfire in the nearby hills just above the area. Please address these concerns at the meeting. In good faith the people of Saratoga elected the members of the City Council to do the job that is best for all of the people in Saratoga. Thank you for your time, Nancy Parkin 379 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: URGENT - Housing Element Approval Date:Monday, October 23, 2023 3:02:22 PM From: M Simon Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 6:32 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: URGENT - Housing Element Approval CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello City Council members, It is imperative that the Housing Element (HE) be approved ASAP now that the Builder's Remedy is on the horizon. Please share with the residents your plans in getting this approved. Regards, Mary Simon Saratoga Resident & Homeowner 380 From:Britt Avrit To:DL - Council Cc:Leslie Arroyo; Bryan Swanson Subject:FW: Post Analysis of SRC Planning Committee Meeting Date:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 7:52:53 AM Attachments:GeeVLAOvbnhsaHoU.png image009.png Good morning, Please see the email below… Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey Frances Reed | She/Her | (408) 868-1222 City of Saratoga | Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 freed@saratoga.ca.us | www.saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey. From: Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 3:25 PM To: Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: FW: Post Analysis of SRC Planning Committee Meeting Please send this to the Planning Commission and City Council. Thank you. Cynthia Richardson | Project Planner City of Saratoga | Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 crichardson@saratoga.ca.us | www.saratoga.ca.us Office Hours Mondays and Thursdays From: Harlen & Beata Ng Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 11:29 AM To: Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Post Analysis of SRC Planning Committee Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To: Planning Commissioners and the City Council Subject: Post Analysis of SRC Planning Committee Meeting We wish to thank all the Saratoga Planning Committee Members for listening to the 30 some people's inputs at the Special SRC Expansion Planning Meeting on the night of Sept. 27, 2023. It was a long night for the Members. 381 After listening to all the interesting comments/inputs, the two strong points that we came away with is how restrictive our SRC Campus is to expansion of additional housing. The PRS consultant, Brian McLamore, stated that for a normal CCRC organization, the number of Independent Living Housing units should be 200. The current number of Independent Living units at SRC is 143, and PRS Expansion Plan want to add 52 more Independent Living units, totaling 195. The campus currently has besides the 143 Independent Living units, 106 Assisted Living units, Health Care Center and the 150 Fellowship Apartments. But there are restrictions to overcome to build all the additional 52 units on the SRC campus. Below are the two important restrictions that are unique to the Campus. 1) Hemmed-in Flag Lot - Leading to Traffic and Density Problems The Campus contains both SRC and Fellowship Plaza (EAH Housing) and is shaped like a 'T' or Flag lot with has only one inlet and outlet for all traffic. Odd Fellow Drive and San Marcos Road intersects Fruitvale Ave which is a 4-lane road, and the back-end of the Campus is next to Chester Ave which is a neighborhood 2-lend road. Adding a entrance connecting with Chester Ave cannot handle both large volume of traffic or large emergency vehicles. Besides, the home owners that live on Chester Ave would most likely strongly object to increased traffic especially the large trucks and sirens blaring. This means that all traffic (private cars, delivery trucks, and emergency vehicles) must use this entrance and drive thorough the hilly, narrow streets of the campus. This campus includes the SRC traffic and Fellowship traffic. Currently delivery trucks and fire engines must double-park which interferes with traffic flow and makes it unsafe at times. The campus has no loading areas at all. We should be very careful in adding more housing to the Campus. since our streets are narrow and hilly. Please note there are emergency gates added to Chester Ave, but they are kept locked and opened only if a campus emergency arises. These gates are locked to keep public traffic from using Odd Fellow Drive as a shortcut to get to Fruitvale Ave from Chester Ave. 2) Very Limited Flat Buildable Areas - Targeted Recreation Area and Parking Lots The Campus terrain is very hilly and has very little flat areas to construct new buildings. The SRC Expansion plan utilizes every available flat area to construct Building A, B and C. Of course adding these three buildings will take away all of our residents recreation space areas and parking lots. 382 Our current dining capacity and meeting capacity are near capacity. This is why just adding only one Building C (adding 20 units) makes the most sense. The new additional traffic is kept on Odd Fellow Drive, and the Campus keeps the current recreational areas. Also. there is no need to build a new meeting building on our green space. This One Building C option is a Win-Win for all. Please strongly consider the One Building C option. 383 From:Britt Avrit To:DL - Council Cc:Leslie Arroyo; Bryan Swanson Subject:FW: Saratoga Retirement Services Date:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 7:53:39 AM Good morning, Please see the email below… Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2023 3:24 PM To: Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: FW: Saratoga Retirement Services Please submit to Planning Commission and City Council. Cynthia Richardson | Project Planner City of Saratoga | Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 crichardson@saratoga.ca.us | www.saratoga.ca.us Office Hours Mondays and Thursdays From: Charles Cummins > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:02 PM To: Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Saratoga Retirement Services CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms. Richardson, This is for the Planning Commission and the City Council. After the Planning Commission's first public hearing and comments made for the applicant, I understand more clearly the applicant's position and claims. I want to expose the fact that Odd Fellows Home of California (OFHC) has never provided any public benefit, and that their proposed expansion does NOT provide any public benefit, nor is it intended to. OFHC wants 384 entitlements to increase the value of SRC as an OFHC asset at the residents' expense, not to provide public benefits. Any claim that the expansion will provide affordable housing will be paid for solely by the Independent Living residents of Saratoga Retirement Community (SRC) who do not want this additional financial burden. OFHC's attorney loosely uses the term "Odd Fellows" saying that they have a history of providing public benefits. She even mentions Fellowship Plaza's affordable housing which has nothing to do with OFHC. I laud any public benefit that Odd Fellows nationally or locally may have provided, but that is not OFHC. OFHC only owns two continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs): SRC and the Meadows of Napa ("Meadows") and whatever cash and securities presently show on its balance sheet. Nothing else. As my 9/25/23 email explains, The Grand Lodge of California consists of 4300 or so Odd Fellows members throughout California who are members of various local Lodges. OFHC and the Grand Lodge are separate and distinct corporations with separate financial statements and tax filings. This proposed expansion is not a Grand Lodge project. I dispute OFHC's claim that providing very expensive independent housing for persons over 65 is a public benefit. Also, assisted living and skilled nursing care provided by SRC's Assisted Living Facility and Health Care Center are already open and available to the general public without any entrance fees. The general public pays only the usual monthly charges that they would pay at The Villas of Saratoga or any other such facility throughout California or the United States. So, if OFHC proposes to provide affordable housing of any kind, who pays for it? Answer: the Independent Living residents at SRC and the Meadows in Napa! We pay the entrance fees and monthly payments that carry OFHC's financial and performance obligations. We already have deferred maintenance that OFHC has not been able to pay for. OFHC does not have any source of income from which to subsidize affordable housing other than increasing residents' fees. OFHC tried to sneak in the untruth that the Odd Fellows somehow would provide affordable housing, "the details of (which)...have yet to be determined". (Attorney Leigh F. Prince's 9/20/23 letter.) Nonsense! As of 2019 the Grand Lodge had 4300 members statewide. It had a $17,263,846 Endowment Fund for the benefit of Odd Fellows members and $10,690,841 additional assets. The Endowment Fund exists to provide a monthly benefit for Odd Fellow members which increases annually based on the number of years that person has been a member. That benefit is not based on need. Any endowment fund usually has limitations on the use of its monies. I doubt that the general public is mentioned as a beneficiary. The Endowment Fund and/or the Grand Lodge have not made any commitment to subsidize affordable housing. They have not shown how they could guarantee any such subsidy for the general public for any extended period of time let alone in perpetuity. How long could any subsidy last before the financial burden would land squarely on the backs of OFHC's independent living seniors, whom I believe on average are over 80 years old. It is also important to know that if OFHC defaults, the Grand Lodge is responsible under our agreements to perform OFHC's contractual obligations. Even though the Grand Lodge has not agreed to subsidize affordable housing, any such agreement would greatly undermine the Grand Lodge's ability to perform its obligations to SRC residents if OFHC were to default. There is a separate Member Assistance Program donated by the estate of an Odd Fellow to be used for the benefit of Odd Fellows in need of housing assistance. Its size is unknown. But no one has claimed that the Member Assistance Program would or could be used for the benefit of the general public. And again, how long would that last?. OFHC falsely claims other public benefits. SRC's Health Care Center already is licensed to 385 accept and does accept Medicaid patients. By law, it cannot refuse to accept medicaid patients. So any expansion of independent living will not increase the number of medicaid patients. OFHC says that the expansion will make SRC sustainable for the long term. If OFHC is managed properly it should be sustainable without any expansion. OFHC has refused to provide any financial data to support its expansion claims and has refused to provide any financial information to explain the reason for the proposed expansion, how expansion would be financed, or its effect on future finances or operations. OFHC has never even attempted to show how the proposed expansion will sustain itself instead of mortgaging the future of Independent living residents. This expansion is a "crapshoot" at the residents' expense. Building an auditorium for public use should be a non-starter. Saratoga has many venues available to the general public. No one has proven a need for another. Parking is already completely inadequate at SRC. The proposed expansion does not provide additional parking for the general public. It is already a stretch just to claim construction of additional parking for the proposed additional independent living residents. And, inviting the general public onto SRC's campus is a safety hazard for SRC's residents, many of whom are in wheelchairs, or use walkers and canes, or are simply slow movers. I understand that access to the public trail already exists. I do not hear any other Saratoga residents offering to make their property open for a public trail. I leave it to others to discuss whether or not OFHC's claims of public benefit through infill or green building standards. However, I do note that every other resident of Saratoga could and can make improvements to their properties that would improve green building standards and a large number could provide additional housing through additional dwelling units. So why should Saratogans expect SRC's elderly independent living residents to shoulder that burden for them. Please know that the vast majority of independent living residents do not like and do not want OFHC's proposed expansion. However, sensing the apparent futility of opposing any expansion, 83% of independent living residents (according to Tsing Barden) would agree to compromise and support only the addition of Building C in front of the present Assisted Living building. Some residents say they do not want to be involved in any disagreement at this stage of their lives and anticipate dying before construction would start. Many residents including my wife Anne and I have lived in Saratoga for many years and want to preserve the existing SRC for other Saratogans and other seniors who follow us. Some residents say they will move out if there is expansion. Some residents are losing sleep over this. It is clear that this expansion dispute is causing increasing unrest, rising to anger at SRC, and, in some cases, outrage. Please deny any zoning change for SRC and reject its expansion. Respectfully submitted, Charles F. Cummins, Jr. SRC unit 386 1 Nicole Johnson From:Marshall Zerbo Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 11:12 AM To:Kookie Fitzsimmons Cc:Christopher Riordan; Nicole Johnson; Kyle Rathbone; Bryan Swanson; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Chuck Page; Tina Walia Subject:➤Subject Drift: HE compliance #1 Priority CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Mayor Fitzsimmons - I have started a fresh email thread on this since the essence of my request was lost due to “Subject Drift.” From the original thread, Leslie Arroyo stated: “I can confidently state that the completion of the Housing Element is among the top priorities.” Please address my question: What can be done to make the Housing Element the #1 Priority and not just among the top priorities for the short term/until compliance achieved? Sincerely, Marshall Zerbo 387 1 Nicole Johnson From:Marshall Zerbo Sent:Tuesday, October 17, 2023 1:08 AM To:Leslie Arroyo Cc:Christopher Riordan; Nicole Johnson; Kyle Rathbone; Bryan Swanson; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; DL - Council Subject:Re: Agenda Items for 18-Oct Saratoga City Council Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Leslie - Thank you for the prompt reply. In response to your comment: “...I can confidently state that the completion of the Housing Element is among the top priorities…" MZ: What can be done to make the Housing Element the #1 Priority and not just among the top priorities for the short term? Can the Housing Element be added as an agenda item to all future City Council and Planning Commission meetings until we have high confidence of receiving HCD approval? Sadly, I am unable to attend the 18-Oct and 01-Nov meetings (neither in-person nor zoom). However, I have encouraged several others in our neighborhood to attend. (I do plan to attend the 15-Nov meeting and beyond.) Lastly, what individuals are included in the “DL-Council” group address that appears in the cc field? Thank you, Marshall Zerbo On Oct 16, 2023, at 4:37 PM, Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us> wrote: Dear Mr. Zerbo & Ms. Levin, My name is Leslie Arroyo, the Assistant City Manager. Mayor Fitzsimmons shared your email with me and requested I address the points you raised given the entire City Council will be reviewing the information presented to the Planning Commission at their November 1 meeting. While the October 18 City Council agenda has already been published, I encourage you both to attend the November 1 meeting to share your thoughts with the entire City Council. I can confidently state that completion of the Housing Element is among the top priorities of the Mayor and City Council. We all share the extreme frustration over the loss of local control. The laws being passed by the State legislature are making our decisions at the local level extraordinarily difficult. Ballot initiatives that can override laws taking away local control and electing representatives to Sacramento that have a greater respect for local decision-making may be the most viable long-term solutions. Sincerely, Leslie 388 2 Leslie Arroyo Assistant City Manager City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1269| larroyo@saratoga.ca.us 389 From:Britt Avrit To:DL - Council Cc:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Saratoga Retirement Community Expansion Proposal: Questions on Open Space Date:Wednesday, October 18, 2023 2:35:52 PM Hello Mayor Fitzsimmons and City Council Members, Please see the email below… Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 1:21 PM To: Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: FW: Saratoga Retirement Community Expansion Proposal: Questions on Open Space Please forward. Cynthia Richardson | Project Planner City of Saratoga | Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 crichardson@saratoga.ca.us | www.saratoga.ca.us Office Hours Mondays and Thursdays From: Colin Whitby-Strevens Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2023 1:08 PM To: Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: tsing bardin <tsingtb@icloud.com> Subject: Saratoga Retirement Community Expansion Proposal: Questions on Open Space CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello Cynthia Would you bring the following comments to the attention of the Planning Commission and the City Council please? 390 All the residents at the Saratoga Retirement Community are elderly. Many use some form of assistance to retain their mobility, e.g. a walking stick, walking poles, a wheelchair or an electric mobility scooter. ADA compliance inside and outside of our buildings is essential for these residents. The question of open space for residents’ use has come up. I would like to suggest that any open space should have no slope steeper than 1:20 (5%), so that ADA compliant pathways can be constructed (max slope 1:20), and that any new paths that would need to be constructed to proved access to such open space also be ADA compliant (max slope 5%). This can collectively be defined as "elderly friendly open space". Building A, proposed to be built on the Odd Fellows Memorial Park, removes a relatively large amount of elderly friendly open space. The question that I suggest you ask the proposer is how much elderly friendly open space will remain? I suspect very little. It should be identified on a map. I suggest that you include a planning condition that all new paths be ADA compliant. Thank you for your consideration. Colin Whitby-Strevens SRC Cottage -- Colin Whitby-Strevens 391 From:Britt Avrit To:DL - Council Cc:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Saratoga Retirement Community Date:Wednesday, October 18, 2023 2:35:26 PM Hello Mayor Fitzsimmons and City Council Members, Please see the email below… Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 1:21 PM To: Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: FW: Saratoga Retirement Community Please forward. Cynthia Richardson | Project Planner City of Saratoga | Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 crichardson@saratoga.ca.us | www.saratoga.ca.us Office Hours Mondays and Thursdays From: Charles Cummins Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:02 PM To: Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Saratoga Retirement Community CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms. Richardson, This is for the Planning Commission and the Saratoga City Council. I wrote another email today explaining why the Odd Fellows Home of California's (OFHC) proposed expansion at Saratoga Retirement Community (SRC) does not provide any public benefit. I now write to respectfully request Saratoga's City Council to exercise its discretion to deny OFHC's application. 392 We simply want to live out our remaining years in peace. We, the residents who live on the property at SRC, are the most important environmental or other factor that should be considered regarding any expansion. The EIR completely ignores us as a category to be considered and treats us as if we do not exist. You really have to live here awhile to appreciate what this campus means and how expansions will destroy it. Other emails have explained these destructive effects in detail, but here is a summary. 1. Construction disruption and disturbance. I don't care what ameliorative actions OFHC might take during its extensive and lengthy construction, but we still will suffer nails in tires, and excessive noise, dirt, dust, delays and interruptions in movement, parking, etc., all day long. One cannot claim, as OFHC does, that these daytime disturbances will disappear once the buildings are framed and construction moves indoors. That is a pipe dream, and anyone who has lived next to or near this kind of construction knows that. 45 year old people might be able to cope, but the elderly will not. 2. Residents' fees pay for SRC's debt and services. The financial burden and risk of expansion will be borne by residents. 3. OFHC has never provided, and in fact has refused to provide, any demographic or financial analysis, forecasts, or other data to justify the need for, the cost and effect on operations of any expansion, and its financial impact on OFHC and the residents.. 4. Assisted Living units and skilled nursing units and services at our Health Care Center are already available to all Saratogans and the general public. They do not have to pay any entrance fee or any fees other than the usual monthly fees charged here and elsewhere in the United States. OFHC did not inform the Planning Commission of this important detail at its first public hearing and instead misled the Commission into a convoluted and misleading discussion of affordable housing (of which there is none) and the prospect of providing assisted living units to the general public that already are available to the general public. 5. OFHC never disclosed to independent living applicants that assisted living and skilled nursing care were available to the general public without payment of entrance fees or any other extra fees. 6. Expansion was not disclosed. Some prospective residents (not many) may have heard a vague reference to thoughts of possible expansion in the future. But before coming to SRC they were never told any details of or timeline for expansion, no renderings, plans, financial information or any other information. That is not disclosure, and any claim that prospective residents gave informed consent to expansion is outrageous. 7. Residents were never consulted regarding the possibility of or any details of expansion, or whether they even wanted expansion. 8. A member of the OFHC Board of Directors misrepresented to the Planning Commission that the vast number of residents (the "silent majority") were in favor of expansion. Indeed, OFHC's management has continually misrepresented to the City that only a small number of disgruntled residents oppose expansion. 9. I understand that the Memorial Garden on which OFHC proposes to build Building A used to be beautiful. OFHC has let it deteriorate, most likely in hopes that the City might think it is useless. It can be and should be spectacular, at least more inviting than it is presently. However, regardless of its condition, it is our recreational and open space where we can gaze at the beautiful California surroundings, distant mountains and hills, and the sky. Building there will destroy that. 10. Fellowship Plaza provides affordable housing and can be expanded to add an additional 80 units housing up to 136 additional residents. It has the same ingress and egress difficulties that SRC 393 has. If the fire department were to conclude that Fellowship Plaza could not be expanded safely alongside SRC's expanded facilities, the City will have lost the ability to allow affordable housing where it could and should have been allowed in the first place. 11. The proposed denuding (tree cutting) of our campus is shocking. 12. OFHC's proposed expansion will greatly degrade our beautiful campus and make it look like just another apartment complex. 13. OFHC squashes critical comment through the use of an anti-disparagement clause that threatens eviction. 14. OFHC uses an adhesion contract to enroll elderly independent living residents and it has conceived and stubbornly forced its expansion plan along without regard to the covenant of good faith and fair dealing which California implies in all contracts. One cannot say that residents have been treated fairly when they were never consulted regarding expansion and their concerns have never been considered let alone addressed. I sincerely hope that the City of Saratoga will not support OFHC in its expansion effort and destruction of the beauty and livability of SRC.. Respectfully submitted, Charles F. Cummins, Jr. SRC unit 394 From:Britt Avrit To:DL - Council Cc:Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Saratoga Retirement Services Date:Wednesday, October 18, 2023 2:35:02 PM Hello Mayor Fitzsimmons and City Council Members, Please see the email below… Thank you, Britt Avrit, MMC | City Clerk City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 408.868.1294 | bavrit@saratoga.ca.us Tell us how we did! Complete the City of Saratoga Customer Service Survey From: Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 1:21 PM To: Frances Reed <freed@saratoga.ca.us>; Britt Avrit <bavrit@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: FW: Saratoga Retirement Services Please forward. Cynthia Richardson | Project Planner City of Saratoga | Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 crichardson@saratoga.ca.us | www.saratoga.ca.us Office Hours Mondays and Thursdays From: Charles Cummins Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 3:02 PM To: Cynthia Richardson <crichardson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Saratoga Retirement Services CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Ms. Richardson, This is for the Planning Commission and the City Council. After the Planning Commission's first public hearing and comments made for the applicant, I understand more clearly the applicant's position and claims. I want to expose the fact that Odd Fellows Home of California (OFHC) has never provided any public benefit, and that their proposed expansion does NOT provide any public benefit, nor is it intended to. OFHC wants 395 entitlements to increase the value of SRC as an OFHC asset at the residents' expense, not to provide public benefits. Any claim that the expansion will provide affordable housing will be paid for solely by the Independent Living residents of Saratoga Retirement Community (SRC) who do not want this additional financial burden. OFHC's attorney loosely uses the term "Odd Fellows" saying that they have a history of providing public benefits. She even mentions Fellowship Plaza's affordable housing which has nothing to do with OFHC. I laud any public benefit that Odd Fellows nationally or locally may have provided, but that is not OFHC. OFHC only owns two continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs): SRC and the Meadows of Napa ("Meadows") and whatever cash and securities presently show on its balance sheet. Nothing else. As my 9/25/23 email explains, The Grand Lodge of California consists of 4300 or so Odd Fellows members throughout California who are members of various local Lodges. OFHC and the Grand Lodge are separate and distinct corporations with separate financial statements and tax filings. This proposed expansion is not a Grand Lodge project. I dispute OFHC's claim that providing very expensive independent housing for persons over 65 is a public benefit. Also, assisted living and skilled nursing care provided by SRC's Assisted Living Facility and Health Care Center are already open and available to the general public without any entrance fees. The general public pays only the usual monthly charges that they would pay at The Villas of Saratoga or any other such facility throughout California or the United States. So, if OFHC proposes to provide affordable housing of any kind, who pays for it? Answer: the Independent Living residents at SRC and the Meadows in Napa! We pay the entrance fees and monthly payments that carry OFHC's financial and performance obligations. We already have deferred maintenance that OFHC has not been able to pay for. OFHC does not have any source of income from which to subsidize affordable housing other than increasing residents' fees. OFHC tried to sneak in the untruth that the Odd Fellows somehow would provide affordable housing, "the details of (which)...have yet to be determined". (Attorney Leigh F. Prince's 9/20/23 letter.) Nonsense! As of 2019 the Grand Lodge had 4300 members statewide. It had a $17,263,846 Endowment Fund for the benefit of Odd Fellows members and $10,690,841 additional assets. The Endowment Fund exists to provide a monthly benefit for Odd Fellow members which increases annually based on the number of years that person has been a member. That benefit is not based on need. Any endowment fund usually has limitations on the use of its monies. I doubt that the general public is mentioned as a beneficiary. The Endowment Fund and/or the Grand Lodge have not made any commitment to subsidize affordable housing. They have not shown how they could guarantee any such subsidy for the general public for any extended period of time let alone in perpetuity. How long could any subsidy last before the financial burden would land squarely on the backs of OFHC's independent living seniors, whom I believe on average are over 80 years old. It is also important to know that if OFHC defaults, the Grand Lodge is responsible under our agreements to perform OFHC's contractual obligations. Even though the Grand Lodge has not agreed to subsidize affordable housing, any such agreement would greatly undermine the Grand Lodge's ability to perform its obligations to SRC residents if OFHC were to default. There is a separate Member Assistance Program donated by the estate of an Odd Fellow to be used for the benefit of Odd Fellows in need of housing assistance. Its size is unknown. But no one has claimed that the Member Assistance Program would or could be used for the benefit of the general public. And again, how long would that last?. OFHC falsely claims other public benefits. SRC's Health Care Center already is licensed to 396 397 From:Tina Walia To:DL -CMO Subject:Fw: allendale and chester Date:Wednesday, October 18, 2023 2:45:32 PM From: Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2023 12:54 PM To: Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: allendale and chester CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.We have been long time Saratoga residents and live on Chester. We completely oppose the plan to build high density homes using the “Builders Remedy”. The Builders Remedy allows developers to build high density homes of monstrosity (multi-story complexes as high as 3 stories tall, 32 structures of 199 units with 450 parking spaces on Allendale/Chester) with zero regard on the impact of safety and environmental issues. Dr. Michelle Nguyen 398 1 Nicole Johnson From:Blackwell, Clare@HCD <Clare.Blackwell@hcd.ca.gov> Sent:Monday, October 23, 2023 11:08 AM To:Bryan Swanson Cc:Nicole Johnson; David Dorcich; Christopher Riordan; Kyle Rathbone; McDougall, Paul@HCD Subject:FW: Subject: Housing Element CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good morning Saratoga team, Please see below for a comment that was sent to HCD regarding the City’s housing element. Thank you, Clare From: Gail Falco Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2023 3:04 PM To: Blackwell, Clare@HCD <Clare.Blackwell@hcd.ca.gov> Subject: Subject: Housing Element Hello. My name is Gail Falco and i have lived in the city of Saratoga for 25 years. I am absolutely appalled that our city council has ignored their responsibility to come up with a balanced, thoughtful Housing Element plan. They were given ample opportunities to address it and they did not do so. They didn't "do their job". Disgusting and everyone in Saratoga will suffer for their incompetence. Sincerely, Gail Falco 399 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 24, 2023 1:57:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Kanaka Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject City management: budget and housing Comments Hello council members, Thanks for serving our city. Would like to bring your attention to ensure you can help fix some immediate problems: 1. Housing--lets make sure we work together to avoid Saratoga becoming multihouse region with builders building multistory apartments and housing. we need to protect our city! Please listen to the citizens of Saratoga and follow their feedback from last few meetings to get things back in track 2. Budget: At this time for slowdown in tech industry, lets make sure we are fiscally conservative. At the peak of the recession, our city had 37 employees. Today we are at 57. We need to make do with what we have and not hire for a new deputy city manager, a new Director of Administrative Services. While our staff has grown, this is not sustainable with our current budget outlook. Before expanding further, we must look within and find ways to optimize resources. Even our Capital Improvement budget has a deficit aka we don’t have money to keep up with road repairs. Lets make sure we keep our city healthy and happy! Thanks Kanaka Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 400 Housing Element Update & Policy Options City Council Meeting-November 1, 2023 401 Proposed Policies •Increase Housing Mobility o Allowing up to three primary dwellings in certain areas o Modifications to the City’s SB 9 Regulations o Allowing housing on religious institution sites and shared housing o Encouraging and streamlining housing applications •Lot consolidation •Modifications to the mixed-use and multi-family development standards 402 Housing Mobility Policies Three Primary Dwellings Allow up to three primary dwellings on conforming lots in the R-1-20 and R-1- 40 zones that are located outside of the very high fire hazard severity zone. (1,424 parcels) 403 Housing Mobility Policies (cont.) Modify SB 9 regulations •Expand the minimum floor area and/or site coverage allowed for SB 9 lot split projects, perhaps by scaling them to the size of the new lots. •Allow two-story homes located outside the setback of the underlying zoning. •Eliminate the enclosed (garage) parking. •Allow more flexibility in lot dimensions. •Waive application fees for SB 9 projects and ADUs. •Allow an ADU and Junior ADU on each new lot allowing for up to 8 units instead of the 6 . •Streamline approval of single-family homes under a certain size by allowing them to move forward under the SB 9 ministerial review process. 404 Housing Mobility Policies (cont.) Housing on religious institution Adopt a policy allowing construction of housing on religious institution properties. Shared housing Pursue a shared housing program that allows and encourages the sharing of housing units provides a more affordable housing options. 405 Housing Mobility Policies (cont.) Encouraging and streamlining housing applications •Allow for more than one Junior ADU. •Develop and offer pre-approved plans for ADUs. •Develop an outreach program to advertise the ability of homeowners to create ADU and SB 9 units on their properties. •Eliminate the requirement for story poles. 406 Other HCD Comments Lot consolidation The Housing Element includes incentives to encourage the consolidation of small parcels to accommodate housing developments. Existing Mixed-Use and Multi-Family Development Standards Review the height, coverage, and parking requirements to ensure there are no constraints to achieving the maximum density for mixed -use projects. 407 Housing Element Compliance Rates As of October 31, the following shows the percent of jurisdictions in compliance in the counties listed: County Total % Compliance 2021 Deadline Riverside 29 62% Los Angeles 89 60% San Bernardino 25 56% San Diego 19 74% Imperial 8 75% Ventura 11 73% Orange 35 51% 2023 Deadline Santa Clara 16 37% 408 Builders Remedy Projects 409 Housing Element Adoption Before adopting the General Plan Housing Element, the City must: •Complete a review of the environmental impacts of the House Element and adopt findings regarding those impacts. •Have the Planning Commission conduct a noticed public hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council. •Have the City Council conduct a noticed public hearing. •Consider HCD findings on substantial compliance. o The city may adopt the Housing Element without HCD’s compliance findings but must explain why the city disagrees with the HCD. Adoption without HCD compliance findings does not necessarily exempt a city from Builders Remedy applications. 410 Next Steps •January 17 – City Council meeting to review 4th Housing Element Draft incorporating additional policy direction and authorize posting for public review and submittal to HCD. •February / March / April – Release Final EIR and schedule Planning Commission & City Council public hearings 411 Recommendation 1.Review policy options for responding to comments from California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the third Draft Housing Element. 2.Receive public comments. 3.Provide comments to City Council on policy options for the Housing Element for resubmittal to HCD. 412 413 Housing Production Numbers 414 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Mayor Fitzsimmons & Members of the Saratoga City Council From: Britt Avrit, City Clerk Meeting Date: November 1, 2023 Subject: Written Communications, Item 3.1 Following publication of the agenda packet for the November 1, 2023 City Council Meeting written communications were submitted for Item 3.1. The communications are attached to this memo. 415 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Friday, October 27, 2023 1:30:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name David Scott Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Housing Element and Substantial Compliance under Cal Gov 65585 Comments Why doesn't the council follow Cal Gov Code Section 65585f(2) and declare our housing element plan substantially compliant? (f) If the department finds that the draft element or draft amendment does not substantially comply with this article, the legislative body shall take one of the following actions: (2) Adopt the draft element or draft amendment without changes. The legislative body shall include in its resolution of adoption written findings which explain the reasons the legislative body believes that the draft element or draft amendment substantially complies with this article despite the findings of the department. By continuing to redraft our plan, isn't the Council admitting that it failed to comply with the code section? And if so, why didn't the council figure this out before? Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 416 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Friday, October 27, 2023 2:30:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Larry Chang Phone Number Email Address Subject Be proactive and brave on keeping housing decisions local Comments I recommend all of the following three actions: 1. Make sure you have high, high confidence that the fourth submittal of Saratoga Housing Element will be approved; thus paving the path to remove the Builders Remedy mandate. Please do not strike out again as we did the first three times. 2. Sue the state of California to delay or reform the Builders Remedy. Do not allow the current builders' proposals to take effect. It is our local decision; keep state bureaucrats out of our hair. Make sure our state legislators actively and strongly support us, not just by talking, but also by proactive actions. 3. Support the upcoming referendum to keep housing decisions local. We do have the moral duty to build more affordable housing in Saratoga; however, how and where we build them should be made by us locally. Thanks, Larry Chang Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 417 From:James Lindsay To:Richard S. Taylor;Bryan Swanson;Britt Avrit Subject:Fwd: Letter Relating to Housing Element Date:Friday, October 27, 2023 5:39:36 PM Attachments:Letter to City Council 2023 10 27 Final.pdf Los Gatos Housing Element.pdf sclMountainViewAdoptedIN052623.pdf Housing Element Update _ City of Morgan Hill, CA - Official Website.pdf Los Altos Housing Element.pdf Fonseca v. City of Gilroy_ 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174.pdf Californians for Homeownership v. City of La Ca_ada Flintridge_ 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016.pdf From: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 5:14:16 PM To: Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Fw: Letter Relating to Housing Element fyi... From: Shawna Ballard Krainin Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 4:58 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Letter Relating to Housing Element CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Council Members, Please find the attached letter relating to the Housing Element. I have also included attachments referenced in the letter. Best, Shawna Ballard 418 1 Shawna Ballard Saratoga CA 95070 October 27, 2023 Saratoga City Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons Kookie@saratoga.ca.us 408.867.4231 Vice Mayor Yan Zhao yzhao@saratoga.ca.us 408.206.9681 Council Member ĞůĂůŌĂď ďĂŌĂďΛƐĂƌĂƚŽŐĂ͘ĐĂ͘ƵƐ 408.394.8245 Council Member Chuck Page cpage@saratoga.ca.us 408.369.9242 Council Member Tina Walia twalia@saratoga.ca.us 408.549.5141 Dear City Council: As a follow-up to my and my neighbor’s letter of yesterday, I write to express disappointment that the Staff recommendation for the November 1 Housing Element Agenda item appears to suggest that Builder’s Remedy projects will be included in the site inventory for a modified Housing Element. I may be misunderstanding, but, it appears that Staff is recommending that the Council acquiesce to the Builder’s Remedies and include those Builder’s Remedies projects in a revised Housing Element even though they are substantially oversized for their locations, as demonstrated by both the City’s lengthy prior analysis and decisions relating to suitable densities for these same locations and extensive citizen feedback in the most recent Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Specifically, the Staff Recommendation states that the Builder’s Remedy projects “will be described in section 6 of the Housing Element.” Attachment H, in turn, includes the unit numbers from the Builder’s Remedy projects. To the extent Staff is, in fact, suggesting that the Council should acquiesce to the Builder’s Remedy applications that have been submitted, I urge the Council to reject this suggestion. If the Council accepts and incorporates the so-called Builder’s Remedies into an amended Housing Element, notwithstanding that it adopted a substantially compliant Housing Element on May 17, that will send developers around the Valley a glaring message that Saratoga is wide-open to a project of any density or size anywhere in our lovely City. Saratoga will never be the same. I implore the Council to reject such an option, if that is in fact what is being suggested, and to instead proceed with the recommendations set forth in our letter sent yesterday. Saratoga Does Not Need to Acquiesce to Builder’s Remedies Because It Has Already Adopted a Substantially Compliant Housing Element Saratoga is not required to acquiesce to the Builder’s Remedy projects. As explained in yesterday’s letter, on May 17 Saratoga adopted a substantially compliant Housing Element. I urge the Council to pass resolutions and make findings described in yesterday’s letter to confirm that adoption. 419 2 The City’s May 17 Adoption and Self-Certification Puts It In Line With Neighboring Cities That Self- Certified: As mentioned in yesterday’s letter, Saratoga’s adoption of a Housing Element and self-certification puts it in line with its neighboring cities that took the same steps to protect themselves from Builder’s Remedies. I am attaching information demonstrating that Los Gatos, Los Altos, Morgan Hill and Mountain View have self-certified. I obtained the attached information from these cities’ respective websites. Risks to our Community Are Far Greater and More Immediate than Litigation Risks The Staff memorandum addresses various litigation risks associated with self-certification. The focus on litigation risk is not consistent with the experience of our neighboring cities, none of which have been the target of enforcement litigation by the state. The relevant and much higher probability risk analysis is about preserving the integrity of our beautiful community. If word gets out that Saratoga is open season for developers, we can expect many applications all over our beautiful town. To give some flavor for what we might expect, according to on-line reporting, the builder’s remedy applications for the town of Santa Monica included: x one 15-story project x three 10 to 12 story projects x five 9-story projects, and x two 5 to 6 story projects. Saratoga will never be the same if we open the flood gates to these sorts of Builder’s Remedies. An adopted self-certified Housing Element, on the other hand, helps to ward off further Builder’s Remedy applications since it amounts to an announcement that it is not open-season in Saratoga. That, in turn, will reduce litigation that would presumably follow if outside Builder’s Remedy projects pop up around our City. Moreover, Government Section § 65589.5 (d), (d)(5) (discussed in yesterday’s letter) and precedential case law (discussed below), establishes that the City’s certification, not HCD’s certification, is what is relevant to substantial compliance for purposes of enforcing an adopted Housing Element against developers. Binding Appellate Precedent Confirms That a City’s Adoption of a Housing Element is Presumed Valid and That HCD’s Findings Relating to Substantial Compliance Are Not Binding Adoption and self-certification is not for naught. Instead, precedential case law recognizes that the City’s adoption is presumed valid and HCD’s determinations are advisory, not binding. Specifically, in Fonseca v. City of Gilroy, 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174 (Cal. Ct App. 2007), the California Court of Appeal held that the City’s adoption of a Housing Element is presumed valid and HCD’s determinations relating to substantial compliance are advisory.1 Significantly, the Court of Appeal ultimately held that Gilroy’s housing element was substantially compliant notwithstanding HCD’s findings to the contrary. 1 /ŚĂǀĞĂƩĂĐŚĞĚĂƉƌŝŶƚ-out from the Lexis legal website of this decision. 420 3 In particular, when concluding that a City-adopted Housing Element is deemed valid, the Court of Appeals held that: [A] city's adoption of a housing element is a legislative enactment, something which is generally entitled to some deference. There is a presumption that the adopted element is valid and we do not in the course of our review evaluate the municipality's determination of policy. [internal citations omitted] The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate that the housing element, and by extension the general plan, is inadequate. [internal citation omitted]. If the municipality has substantially complied with statutory requirements, we will not interfere with its legislative action, unless that action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. [internal citations omitted] Fonesca, 148 Cal. App. 4th at 1191 (emphasis added). Moreover, when evaluating the level of deference to be provided to the HCD’s findings, the Court of Appeal held that “the Legislature has stated that [HCD’s] recommendations are advisory (§ 65585, subd. (a))”. Fonseca, 148 Cal. App. 45th at 1193 (emphasis in original). As a result, while acknowledging HCD’s expertise, the Court held that it “must exercise [its] independent duty to state the meaning of the statutes at issue here, giving consideration to the Department's views.” Id. at 1193-94. And, after exercising that independent duty, the Court disagreed with HCD’s assessment and found Gilroy’s Housing Element to be substantially compliant. Id. at 1194-1207. This Precedent is Further Supported by the Relevant Portion of the La Canada Decision, Which Does Not Hold That HCD’s Findings Are Determinative I also write to make some follow-up points with respect to the La Canada-Flintridge case referenced in the Staff analysis for the Housing Element agenda item. The key points are as follows: x As Staff recognized, it is a non-binding trial court decision. x The relevant portion of the La Canada trial court decision does not hold HCD’s findings to be determinative. Specifically, in the case involving La Canada, the first cause of action pertained to petitioner’s assertion that La Canada’s “2023 housing element does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law.” Californians for Homeownership v City of La Canada Flintridge, 2023 Super. LEXIS 64016 *46 (p 14 of 25) (La Super. Ct. 2023). 2 On that cause of action, the Court did not adopt HCD’s finding of substantial compliance as binding. Instead, even though the HCD had found La Canada’s adopted Housing Element to be out of compliance, the Court held that the determination of substantial compliance “is a matter for trial” based on expert and witness testimony. Id. at *68, 69. 2 /ŚĂǀĞĂƩĂĐŚĞĚĂĐŽƉLJŽĨĂĚƌĂŌŽƌĚĞƌƚŚĂƚƉĞƟƟŽŶĞƌ͛ƐƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŽƵƌƚ͕ƚŚĂƚĚƌĂŌ, in turn, ĂƩĂĐŚĞƐƚŚĞƚƌŝĂůĐŽƵƌƚ͛ƐƵŶĚĞƌůLJŝŶŐĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ͖/ŽďƚĂŝŶĞĚƚŚŝƐĨƌŽŵĂůĞŐĂůĚĂƚĂďĂƐĞĐĂůůĞĚ>ĞdžŝƐ͘ 421 4 The issue for which the La Canada Court provided deference to the HCD’s substantial compliance findings was a petition for writ of mandate to compel the City to comply with rezoning deadlines that the Court interpreted to apply to cities that had not adopted HCD-certified substantially compliant Housing Elements within 120 days of the statutory deadline or a within a year of the statutory deadline. Id. at *70, 83. For Saratoga, it appears that any such zoning deadlines are not triggered until January 31, 2024, so that portion of the decision is not relevant to the question of whether a self-certified adopted Housing Element can be used to reject non-compliant Builder’s Remedies. The City Council May Also Need to Pass a Resolution on November 1 for the City to meet January 31, 2024 or other statutory zoning deadlines Note, in accord with the La Canada decision, to the extent statutorily required rezoning needed to implement the May 2023 Housing Element Update have not yet been implemented, I urge the Council to pass a resolution at the November 1 meeting for the City to take the steps needed to meet any January 31, 2024 or other statutory rezoning deadlines pursuant to the statutory sections referenced in the HCD’s March 17 and July 27, 2023 letters to the City. And, to be clear, whatever role HCD compliance has on rezoning deadlines, it has no role on Saratoga’s ability to enforce the Housing Element adopted on May 17, 2023 for purposes of so-called builder’s remedies. Instead, as noted in the correspondence sent yesterday, under the statute applicable to the enforcement of adopted Housing Elements against so called Builder’s Remedies, the plain language of the statute provides that the City, not HCD, determines substantial compliance for this purpose. See Cal Gov. Code Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d), (d)(5). *** In summary, determination of substantial compliance is in Saratoga’s hands, not HCD’s. Our neighboring cities have already reached this conclusion, Saratoga has a short window to act to confirm its adoption and substantial compliance. Thank you for your consideration of these important matters. Sincerely, /s/ Shawna Ballard Shawna Ballard 422 ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ůŽƐŐĂƚŽƐĐĂ͘ŐŽǀͬϭϳϯϱͬ'ĞŶĞƌĂů-WůĂŶ---,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ- ůĞŵĞŶƚ 423 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov May 26, 2023 Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager City of Mountain View 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Dear Kimbra McCarthy: RE: Mountain View 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Mountain View’s housing element adopted April 11, 2023 and received for review on April 26, 2023. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation on May 19, 2023 with Advance Planning Manager Eric Anderson; Assistant Community Development Director Wayne Chen; Senior Planner Ellen Yau; and BAE Consultant Stephanie Hagar. In addition, HCD considered comments from Mountain View Chamber of Commerce, the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance, Mountain View YIMBY, and Skye Morland pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c). HCD is pleased to find the adopted housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq) as of Mary 26, 2023. The adopted element addresses the statutory requirements described in HCD’s January 17, 2023, review. This finding is based on, among other reasons, extensive revisions and additions to the sites inventory analysis, programs that remove constraints on housing and effectuate affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) policies and practices, and thorough incorporation of comments received through the public participation process. Additionally, the City must continue timely and effective implementation of all programs including but not limited to the following: x Program 1.1 (Zoning Ordinance Update for Consistency with State Laws): This program commits the City by December 2024, among other things, to update the Zoning Ordinance to address any inconsistency with state laws and HCD guidance. 424 Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager Page 2 x Program 1.3 (Review and Update Ordinance and Precise Plan Standards): This program commits the city by December 2025, to review and revise development standards to ensure they reflect contemporary building types, improve ease of implementation and improve consistency across districts. x Program 1.4 (Religious and Community Assembly Sites for Housing): This program commits the City by December 31, 2024 to allow deed-restricted affordable multifamily housing up to three stories on non-Historic, non-profit, religious and community assembly sites in R zones south of El Camino Real. x Program 1.8 (Parkland Ordinance Update): This program commits the city, by December 31, 2024, to adopt the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan and by December 31, 2025, to adopt findings in a Nexus Study to reduce fees, alternate mitigations and/or add other programs to reduce costs on residential development. x Program 3.2 (Displacement Prevention and Mitigation): This program commits the City to carrying out numerous actions in the planning period to prevent and/or mitigate displacement of households (including those in mobile homes), prevent the loss of naturally occurring affordable units, and conserve and improve existing affordable housing stock. x Program 4.1 (Development Streamlining and Processing Revisions): This program commits the City by December 2026, to implement processing procedures and technology improvements that will reduce Planning and Building Permit review timelines to address constraints resulting from the duration of staff review. x Program 4.5 (Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers): The program commits to facilitate affordable housing projects through partnering with developers on specific sites identified in the inventory including city-owned properties. The City must monitor and report on the results of these and other programs through the annual progress report, required pursuant to Government Code section 65400. Please be aware, Government Code section 65585(i) grants HCD authority to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or housing element law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the housing element. HCD may revoke housing element compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply with state law. Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant, the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources. 425 Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager Page 3 HCD appreciates the dedication and hard work the City’s housing element team provided throughout the course of the housing element review. HCD wishes the City success in implementing its housing element and looks forward to following its progress through the General Plan annual progress reports pursuant to Government Code section 65400. If HCD can provide assistance in implementing the housing element, please contact Reid Miller, of our staff, at Reid.Miller@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Melinda Coy Proactive Housing Accountability Chief 426 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE CONTACT US Select Language Translate 427 What is a Housing Element? Translate 428 Translate 429 ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ůŽƐĂůƚŽƐĐĂ͘ŐŽǀͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ-ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐͬƉĂŐĞͬůŽƐ-ĂůƚŽƐ-ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ-ĞůĞŵĞŶƚ 430 Shawna Ballard Positive As of: October 27, 2023 12:38 PM Z Fonseca v. City of Gilroy Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District March 23, 2007, Filed H028369 Reporter 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174 *; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374 **; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418 ***; 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3141; 2007 Daily Journal DAR 3952 NORMA FONSECA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF GILROY et al., Defendants and Respondents. Subsequent History: Time for Granting or Denying Review Extended Fonseca (Norma) v. City of Gilroy, 2007 Cal. LEXIS 7129 (Cal., June 22, 2007) Review denied by, Request denied by Fonseca v. City of Gilroy, 2007 Cal. LEXIS 7764 (Cal., July 18, 2007) Prior History: [***1] Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. CV-019165, William J. Elfving, Judge. Core Terms housing element, sites, inventory, housing, zoning, substantial compliance, general plan, subdivision, revisions, planning, rezoning, Least Cost Zoning Law, programs, vacant, housing needs, affordable housing, residential development, plaintiffs', local government, land use, regional housing needs, income level, accommodate, compliance, density, specificity, five- year, suitable, site-specific, designation Case Summary Procedural Posture Plaintiffs, two individuals, sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), which denied their petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside defendant city's general plan. Overview The petition alleged that the plan did not meet the requirements of the Housing Element Law, Gov. Code, §§ 65580-65589.8, because its housing background report lacked specificity. The plan stated the number of acres that would be made available for lower income housing and identified potential infrastructure constraints. The court concluded that the plan substantially complied with former Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3), which did not require a land inventory or its accompanying analysis to be site-specific. The plan sufficiently compared the regional housing need with the residential development capacity. Former § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A), did not require that sites be immediately available for development in order for them to be considered adequate under a plan; hence, immediate rezoning was not required. Moreover, Gov. Code, § 65913.1, did not require that a locality immediately rezone upon adoption of a revised housing element. Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subd. (c),65913, subd. (a)(3), did not require immediate action and permitted a locality to act within the planning period to meet regional housing needs. Outcome The court affirmed the trial court's judgment. LexisNexis® Headnotes Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Constitutional Limits Governments > Local Governments > Police Power HN1[] Zoning, Constitutional Limits Under the California Constitution, a county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7. This authority is often referred to as the police power. The police power is broad. Under the police power granted 431 Page 2 of 28 Shawna Ballard by the California Constitution, counties and cities have plenary authority to govern, subject only to the limitation that they exercise this power within their territorial limits and subordinate to state law. Apart from this limitation, the police power of a county or city under this provision is as broad as the police power exercisable by the Legislature itself. It is from this fundamental power that local governments derive their authority to regulate land through planning, zoning, and building ordinances, thereby protecting public health, safety and welfare. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN2[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans While the police power is the constitutional source of local governments' land use authority, the framework for the exercise of that power is provided by California's land use planning statutes. Gov. Code, §§ 65100- 65910. Among other things, state planning law requires adoption of a general plan. Gov. Code, § 65300. In the universe of local land use enactments, the general plan is at the top of the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use. California's high court has described the function of a general plan as a constitution and has labeled it the basic land use charter governing the direction of future land use in the locality. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN3[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans Local land use decisions must be consistent with the general plan. Thus, for example, zoning ordinances, which are subordinate to the general plan, are required to be consistent with it. Gov. Code, § 65860, subd. (a). The same is true of other local activities affecting land use, such as tentative maps or development agreements. Under state law, the propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements. Since consistency with the general plan is required, absence of a valid general plan, or valid relevant elements or components thereof, precludes enactment of zoning ordinances and the like. The general plan consists of a statement of development policies setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. Gov. Code, § 65302. The plan must include seven elements—land use, circulation, conservation, housing, noise, safety and open space—and address each of these elements in whatever level of detail local conditions require. Gov. Code, § 65301. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN4[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans See Gov. Code, § 65583. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN5[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans The housing element of a general plan must contain a five-year program to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls.Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c). The housing element must further include an inventory of sites suitable for residential development and an analysis of the zoning, public facilities, and services available for those sites. § 65583, subd. (a)(3). If the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for housing of persons of all income levels, the five-year program must provide for sufficient sites to be zoned for multifamily residential use to accommodate very low and low income households. Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h). If the total housing needs exceed the available resources and the community's ability to satisfy the need, the quantified objectives need not equal the need but must be the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved for each income category over a five-year period. Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(2). Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN6[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans In accordance with Gov. Code, § 65583, a five-year program must identify a sufficient number of sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to meet the quantified 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1174; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **374; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***1 432 Page 3 of 28 Shawna Ballard objectives for housing for all income levels. And if the program does not identify sufficient sites to satisfy the need for housing for all income levels, it must in any event identify sufficient sites to be zoned for multifamily housing for low and very low income residents. Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h). Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN7[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans In creating the housing element of a general plan, a local government is required to consider the advisory guidelines adopted by California's Department of Housing and Community Development. Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (a). The locality is also required to submit draft housing elements or amendments to the department prior to adoption. § 65585, subd. (b). The department, in turn, must review drafts and make written findings as to whether the draft substantially complies with the requirements of Gov. Code, tit. 7, div. 1, ch. 3, art. 10.6. The local government must then consider the department's findings. If the findings reflect noncompliance in the department's judgment, the locality must either change the draft, so that it substantially complies with art. 10.6, or adopt the draft without changes, explaining why the draft substantially complies despite the department's findings. Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (f)(1), (2). Under Gov. Code, § 65589.3, the housing element (or its amendment) enjoys a rebuttable presumption of validity if the department makes a finding that it substantially complies with the requirements of Gov. Code, tit. 7, div. 1, ch. 3, art. 10.6. The statute does not provide for the converse, i.e., there is no presumption of invalidity on the basis of the department's finding of noncompliance. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN8[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans After each local government adopts its general plan, it must review its housing element periodically to evaluate the community's progress toward attainment of local and state housing goals and objectives, among other factors. By legislative edict, the housing element shall be reviewed as frequently as necessary to evaluate certain enumerated factors, subject to the statutory schedule for revisions. As provided in Gov. Code, § 65588, subd. (b), the housing element shall be revised as appropriate, but not less than every five years, to reflect the results of this periodic review. But the statute contains an overriding provision, § 65588, subd. (e), which governs specified localities. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN9[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans See Gov. Code, § 65588, subd. (e). Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN10[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans The timetables for revision of the housing element in Gov. Code, § 65588, subd. (e), are directory, not mandatory. Mere noncompliance with the schedule does not operate to automatically invalidate a housing element or, by extension, a general plan. Real Property Law > Zoning > Judicial Review HN11[] Zoning, Judicial Review The housing element, or any portion thereof, of a local government's general plan may be challenged by any interested party by a traditional mandamus action filed in the superior court under Code Civ. Proc., § 1085. Gov. Code, § 65587, subd. (b). The court's review shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements of the Housing Element Law, Gov. Code, §§ 65580-65589.8. Substantial compliance means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute, as distinguished from mere technical imperfections of form. Judicial review of a housing element for substantial compliance with the statutory requirements does not involve an examination of the merits of the element or of the wisdom of the municipality's determination of policy. It merely involves a determination whether the housing element includes the statutory requirements. Under Gov. Code, § 65587, and Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, then, the court's role in determining a mandamus challenge to 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1174; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **374; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***1 433 Page 4 of 28 Shawna Ballard a locality's housing element is simply to determine whether the locality has satisfied statutory requirements. It is not to reach the merits of the element or to interfere with the exercise of the locality's discretion in making substantive determinations and conclusions about local housing issues, needs, and concerns. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Local Planning HN12[] Zoning, Local Planning See Gov. Code, § 65913.1. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Local Planning HN13[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans Gov. Code, § 65913.1, governs land use designation and zoning while Gov. Code, § 65583, governs the housing element of a general plan. The two statutes are intended to work in concert. Gov. Code, § 65913, subd. (a). Real Property Law > Zoning > Judicial Review HN14[] Zoning, Judicial Review On appeal, a reviewing court independently ascertains as a question of law whether the housing element at issue substantially complies with the requirements of the Housing Element Law, Gov. Code, §§ 65580-65589.8, substantial compliance meaning actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute, as distinguished from mere technical imperfections of form. In this independent review of the housing element's legal adequacy, the reviewing court affords no deference to the trial court's conclusions. On the other hand, a city's adoption of a housing element is a legislative enactment, something which is generally entitled to some deference. There is a presumption that the adopted element is valid, and the appellate court does not in the course of its review evaluate the municipality's determination of policy. The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate that the housing element, and by extension the general plan, is inadequate. If the municipality has substantially complied with statutory requirements, the appellate court will not interfere with its legislative action, unless that action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. Real Property Law > Zoning > Judicial Review HN15[] Zoning, Judicial Review Like the trial court, an appellate court considering the housing element of a local government's general plan does not review the merits of the housing element at issue or assess the wisdom of the municipality's determination of policy. Nor does the appellate court judge whether the programs adopted by the locality are adequate to meet their stated objectives. Review thus comes down to independently determining whether the housing element at issue is in substantial compliance with applicable statutory requirements, i.e., does it contain the elements mandated by the statute. Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Deference to Agency Statutory Interpretation HN16[] Standards of Review, Deference to Agency Statutory Interpretation While quasi-legislative regulations are of binding force as statements of the law, commanding judicial deference and receiving limited judicial review, an agency's informal interpretation of a statute is entitled to considerably less judicial deference, the courts being the constitutional arbiters of statutory meaning. The standard for judicial review of agency interpretation of the law is the independent judgment of the court, giving deference to the determination of the agency appropriate to the circumstances of the agency action. The court accordingly takes ultimate responsibility for the construction of the statute, according great weight and respect to the administrative construction. But the extent of judicial weight to be afforded is necessarily contextual and fundamentally situational. A court assessing the value of an interpretation must consider a complex of factors material to the substantive legal issue before it, the particular agency offering the interpretation, and the comparative weight the factors ought in reason to command. 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1174; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **374; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***1 434 Page 5 of 28 Shawna Ballard Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Deference to Agency Statutory Interpretation HN17[] Standards of Review, Deference to Agency Statutory Interpretation There are two categories of factors that are relevant to a court's assessment of the weight to be afforded to an agency's informal statutory interpretation. First, there are factors indicating a comparative interpretive advantage the agency has over the court due to, for example, the agency's authorship of the regulation at issue or the technical nature of the legal text under consideration. The second category includes factors indicating that the agency's interpretation of a rule is likely to be correct, such as the agency's adoption of a rule pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Gov. Code, § 11340 et seq., after notice and an opportunity for public comment, or its longstanding maintenance of the interpretation in question. Even if a few of these factors favoring judicial deference are present, the agency's informal interpretation of statutory requirements is in no way binding on a reviewing court and the weight afforded it depends ultimately on the reviewing court's assessment of its reasonableness. Real Property Law > Zoning > Judicial Review HN18[] Zoning, Judicial Review In determining the legal adequacy of the housing element of a local government's general plan, the roles of California's Department of Housing and Community Development and the courts differ. The department reviews not only to ensure the requirements of Gov. Code, § 65583, are met, but also to make suggestions for improvements. However, a court looks only to ensure the requirements of § 65583 are met and not whether, in the court's judgment, the programs adopted are adequate to meet their objectives or are the programs which the court thinks ought to be there. While the court may be of the opinion that a city should adopt the department's recommendations, the Legislature has stated its recommendations are advisory. Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (a). Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Deference to Agency Statutory Interpretation HN19[] Standards of Review, Deference to Agency Statutory Interpretation Courts must independently judge the text of a statute, taking into account and respecting the agency's interpretation of its meaning, whether embodied in a formal rule or less formal representation. Where the meaning and legal effect of a statute is the issue, an agency's interpretation is one among several tools available to the court. Depending on the context, it may be helpful, enlightening, even convincing. It may sometimes be of little worth. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN20[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3), requires that the housing element of a local government's general plan contain an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN21[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans Former Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3), required the inventory that was part of the housing element of a local government's general plan to include vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, but did not require it to specifically identify each of such sites. Given the absence of a site-specific requirement for the land inventory itself, the further analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, also called for by this subdivision, likewise did not require site specificity. Prior to the 2004 amendments to the Housing Element Law, Gov. Code, §§ 65580-65589.8, substantial compliance with Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3), required only general 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1174; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **374; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***1 435 Page 6 of 28 Shawna Ballard analysis of zoning and public facilities to the inventoried sites, as catalogued or listed in the aggregate. Governments > Legislation > Effect & Operation > Amendments HN22[] Effect & Operation, Amendments A court engaged in statutory construction looks to all pertinent circumstances and considerations in deciding whether an amendment is a modification or clarification of a statute. And particularly when there is no definitive clarifying expression by the Legislature in the amendments themselves, the court will presume that a substantial or material statutory change bespeaks legislative intention to change, and not just clarify, the law. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN23[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans Former Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c), provided that the housing element of a local government's general plan shall contain a program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element. In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities, including sewage collection and treatment, domestic water supply, and septic tanks and wells, needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, emergency shelters, and transitional housing in order to meet the community's housing goals as identified in § 65583, subd. (b). Section 65583, subd. (b)(1), in turn provided that the housing element shall contain a statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans HN24[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans The statutory language of former Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A), did not require that sites be immediately available for development in order for them to be adequate. Nor did it require a showing of the feasibility of development on individual sites. Nor did it require that actions designed to ameliorate developmental or zoning constraints be scheduled to occur at any particular point early in the planning period so that actual development could be completed within that period. Instead, the statute simply required a statement of administrative plans scheduled to occur over a five-year period—i.e., a program—to implement the policies, goals, and quantified objectives of the housing element. The program was merely required to identify adequate sites that would be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels in order to meet the city's housing goals. Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review Governments > Local Governments > Ordinances & Regulations Administrative Law > Judicial Review > Standards of Review > Substantial Evidence HN25[] Standards of Review, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review Legislative enactments are presumed to be valid and a city need not make explicit findings to support its action. A court cannot inquire into the wisdom of a legislative act or review the merits of a local government's policy decisions. Judicial review of a legislative act under Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, is limited to determining whether the public agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, entirely without evidentiary support, or procedurally unfair. Whether an action finds evidentiary support in the record is measured by the substantial evidence test. Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1174; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **374; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***1 436 Page 7 of 28 Shawna Ballard Property Law > Zoning > Comprehensive Plans Business & Corporate Compliance > ... > Real Property Law > Zoning > Local Planning HN26[] Zoning, Comprehensive Plans There is no express requirement in Gov. Code, § 65913.1, that a locality immediately rezone upon adoption of a revised housing element. Moreover, even as revised, the Housing Element Law, Gov. Code, §§ 65580-65589.8, which works in tandem with the Least Cost Zoning Law, Gov. Code, 65913 et seq., does not require immediate action and permits a locality to act within the planning period to meet regional housing needs. Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subd. (c), 65913, subd. (a)(3). Headnotes/Summary Summary CALIFORNIA OFFICIAL REPORTS SUMMARY The trial court denied a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside a city?s general plan. The petition alleged that the plan did not meet the requirements of the Housing Element Law, Gov. Code, §§ 65580– 65589.8, because its housing background report lacked specificity. The plan stated the number of acres that would be made available for lower income housing and identified potential infrastructure constraints. (Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. CV-019165, William J. Elfving, Judge.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding that the plan substantially complied with former Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3), which did not require a land inventory or its accompanying analysis to be site- specific. The plan sufficiently compared the regional housing need with the residential development capacity. Former § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A), did not require that sites be immediately available for development in order for them to be considered adequate under a plan; hence, immediate rezoning was not required. Moreover, Gov. Code, § 65913.1, does not require that a locality immediately rezone upon adoption of a revised housing element. Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subd. (c), 65913, subd. (a)(3), do not require immediate action and permit a locality to act within the planning period to meet regional housing needs. (Opinion by Duffy, J., with Premo, Acting P. J., and Elia, J., concurring.) Headnotes CA(1)[] (1) Constitutional Law § 48—Police Power—Subjects of Regulation—Land Use Planning. Under the California Constitution, a county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7). This authority is often referred to as the police power. The police power is broad. Counties and cities have plenary [*1175] authority to govern, subject only to the limitation that they exercise this power within their territorial limits and subordinate to state law. Apart from this limitation, the police power of a county or city under this provision is as broad as the police power exercisable by the Legislature itself. It is from this fundamental power that local governments derive their authority to regulate land through planning, zoning, and building ordinances, thereby protecting public health, safety and welfare. CA(2)[] (2) Zoning and Planning § 6—Operation and Effect— General Plan. While the police power is the constitutional source of local governments’ land use authority, the framework for the exercise of that power is provided by California’s land use planning statutes (Gov. Code, §§ 65100– 65910). Among other things, state planning law requires adoption of a general plan (Gov. Code, § 65300). In the universe of local land use enactments, the general plan is at the top of the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use. California’s high court has described the function of a general plan as a constitution and has labeled it the basic land use charter governing the direction of future land use in the locality. CA(3)[] (3) Zoning and Planning § 6—Operation and Effect— General Plan. Local land use decisions must be consistent with the general plan. Thus, for example, zoning ordinances, which are subordinate to the general plan, are required to be consistent with it (Gov. Code, § 65860, subd. (a)). 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1174; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **374; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***1 437 Page 8 of 28 Shawna Ballard The same is true of other local activities affecting land use, such as tentative maps or development agreements. Under state law, the propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements. Since consistency with the general plan is required, absence of a valid general plan, or valid relevant elements or components thereof, precludes enactment of zoning ordinances and the like. The general plan consists of a statement of development policies setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals (Gov. Code, § 65302). The plan must include seven elements—land use, circulation, conservation, housing, noise, safety and open space—and address each of these elements in whatever level of detail local conditions require (Gov. Code, § 65301). CA(4)[] (4) Zoning and Planning § 16—Housing Programs and Projects—Element of General Plan. The housing element of a general plan must contain a five-year program to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)). The housing element must further include an inventory of sites suitable for residential development and an analysis of the zoning, [*1176] public facilities, and services available for those sites (§ 65583, subd. (a)(3)). If the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for housing of persons of all income levels, the five-year program must provide for sufficient sites to be zoned for multifamily residential use to accommodate very-low- and low-income households (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)). If the total housing needs exceed the available resources and the community’s ability to satisfy the need, the quantified objectives need not equal the need but must be the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved for each income category over a five-year period (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(2)). CA(5)[] (5) Zoning and Planning § 16—Housing Programs and Projects—Element of General Plan. In accordance with Gov. Code, § 65583, a five-year program must identify a sufficient number of sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to meet the quantified objectives for housing for all income levels. And if the program does not identify sufficient sites to satisfy the need for housing for all income levels, it must in any event identify sufficient sites to be zoned for multifamily housing for low- and very-low-income residents (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)). CA(6)[] (6) Zoning and Planning § 16—Housing Programs and Projects—Element of General Plan. In creating the housing element of a general plan, a local government is required to consider the advisory guidelines adopted by California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (a)). The locality is also required to submit draft housing elements or amendments to the department prior to adoption (§ 65585, subd. (b)). The department, in turn, must review drafts and make written findings as to whether the draft substantially complies with the requirements of Gov. Code, tit. 7, div. 1, ch. 3, art. 10.6. The local government must then consider the department's findings. If the findings reflect noncompliance in the department's judgment, the locality must either change the draft, so that it substantially complies with art. 10.6, or adopt the draft without changes, explaining why the draft substantially complies despite the department's findings (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (f)(1), (2)). Under Gov. Code, § 65589.3, the housing element (or its amendment) enjoys a rebuttable presumption of validity if the department makes a finding that it substantially complies with the requirements of Gov. Code, tit. 7, div. 1, ch. 3, art. 10.6. The statute does not provide for the converse, i.e., there is no presumption of invalidity on the basis of the department's finding of noncompliance. [*1177] CA(7)[] (7) Zoning and Planning § 16—Housing Programs and Projects—Element of General Plan. After each local government adopts its general plan, it must review its housing element periodically to evaluate the community’s progress toward attainment of local and state housing goals and objectives, among other factors. By legislative edict, the housing element shall 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1175; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **374; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***1 438 Page 9 of 28 Shawna Ballard be reviewed as frequently as necessary to evaluate certain enumerated factors, subject to the statutory schedule for revisions. As provided in Gov. Code, § 65588, subd. (b), the housing element shall be revised as appropriate, but not less than every five years, to reflect the results of this periodic review. But the statute contains an overriding provision, § 65588, subd. (e), which governs specified localities. CA(8)[] (8) Zoning and Planning § 16—Housing Programs and Projects—Element of General Plan. The timetables for revision of the housing element in Gov. Code, § 65588, subd. (e), are directory, not mandatory. Mere noncompliance with the schedule does not operate to automatically invalidate a housing element or, by extension, a general plan. CA(9)[] (9) Zoning and Planning § 6—Operation and Effect— Housing Statutes. Gov. Code, § 65913.1, governs land use designation and zoning while Gov. Code, § 65583, governs the housing element of a general plan. The two statutes are intended to work in concert (Gov. Code, § 65913, subd. (a)). CA(10)[] (10) Zoning and Planning § 16—Housing Programs and Projects—Element of General Plan—Site Specificity. Former Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3), required the inventory that was part of the housing element of a local government’s general plan to include vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, but did not require it to specifically identify each of such sites. Given the absence of a site-specific requirement for the land inventory itself, the further analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, also called for by this subdivision, likewise did not require site specificity. Prior to the 2004 amendments to the Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65580–65589.8), substantial compliance with Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3), required only general analysis of zoning and public facilities to the inventoried sites, as catalogued or listed in the aggregate. CA(11)[] (11) Statutes § 13—Amendment—Modification or Clarification. A court engaged in statutory construction looks to all pertinent circumstances and considerations in deciding whether an amendment is a modification or clarification of a statute. And particularly when there is no definitive [*1178] clarifying expression by the Legislature in the amendments themselves, the court will presume that a substantial or material statutory change bespeaks legislative intention to change, and not just clarify, the law. CA(12)[] (12) Zoning and Planning § 16—Housing Programs and Projects—Element of General Plan—Site Specificity. Portions of a city’s housing background report, notwithstanding a lack of site specificity, demonstrated substantial compliance with former Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3), of the Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65580–65589.8) as it existed prior to the 2004 amendments. From the housing background report, one could compare the regional housing need for the planning period by affordability with the residential development capacity under then current zoning to determine whether additional programs were needed to address the entire regional need by income level. [8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Constitutional Law, §§ 1013, 1019.] CA(13)[] (13) Zoning and Planning § 16—Housing Programs and Projects—Element of General Plan—Site Availability. The statutory language of former Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A), did not require that sites be immediately available for development in order for them to be adequate. Nor did it require a showing of the feasibility of development on individual sites. Nor did it require that actions designed to ameliorate developmental or zoning constraints be scheduled to occur at any particular point early in the planning period so that actual development could be completed within that period. Instead, the statute simply required a statement of administrative plans scheduled to occur over a five-year period—i.e., a 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1177; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **374; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***1 439 Page 10 of 28 Shawna Ballard program—to implement the policies, goals, and quantified objectives of the housing element. The program was merely required to identify adequate sites that would be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels in order to meet the city’s housing goals. CA(14)[] (14) Zoning and Planning § 16—Housing Programs and Projects—Rezoning. There is no express requirement in Gov. Code, § 65913.1, that a locality immediately rezone upon adoption of a revised housing element. Moreover, even as revised, the Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65580–65589.8), which works in tandem with the Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code, 65913 et seq.), does not require immediate [*1179] action and permits a locality to act within the planning period to meet regional housing needs (Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subd. (c), 65913, subd. (a)(3)). Counsel: Public Interest Law Firm, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley; James F. Zahradka II, Kyra Kazantzis; California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Phyllis S. Katz; Public Advocates Inc., and Richard A. Marcantonio for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Berliner Cohen, Andrew L. Faber, Linda A. Callon and Thomas P. Murphy for Defendants and Respondents. Judges: Duffy, J., with Premo, Acting, P. J., and Elia, J., concurring. Opinion by: Duffy Opinion [**377] DUFFY, J.—This is an appeal from a judgment following the trial court's denial of a petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. Plaintiffs Norma Fonseca and Terry Wilson sued the City of Gilroy and its city council 1 to, among other things, set aside the City's 2002 general plan on the basis that its housing element does not meet or 1 For ease we refer to defendants and respondents collectively as “the City” or “Gilroy.” substantially comply with the requirements of the “Housing Element Law” codified at Government Code sections 65580 through 65589.8. 2 [***3] On appeal, plaintiffs, who are appellants here, reprise their challenge to the City's [***2] 2002 housing element. Specifically, they contend that Gilroy's 2002 housing element: (1) violates section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), 3 in that it does not contain an inventory of available residentially zoned land identified by parcel or site, and it also fails to provide the required analysis of these sites; (2) violates former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A), in that it does not identify adequate housing sites that will be made available to meet Gilroy's allocated share of the regional housing need at all income levels for the 2001 through 2006 planning period; and (3) violates former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A)(i), in that it does not alternately provide sufficient housing sites [*1180] that are zoned to permit multifamily residential use “by right” in order to otherwise meet the regional housing need. Plaintiffs further contend that Gilroy's 2002 housing element violates the “Least Cost Zoning Law,” codified at section 65913 et seq., in that it fails to zone sufficient residential sites at appropriate densities to facilitate the development of the regional housing need at each income level—read the lower income levels—during the current planning period. While many of plaintiffs' arguments concerning the Housing Element Law are logical in terms of the law's ultimate goals—the promotion and facilitation of affordable [**378] housing—these arguments require us to go beyond the stated terms of the applicable statutory language and, in effect, [***4] rewrite it. The Legislature made amendments to the Housing Element Law in 2004 after Gilroy's adoption of its 2002 general plan to read, in essence, as plaintiffs contend we should 2 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Government Code. Further references to the “Housing Element Law” are specifically to these sections that together comprise article 10.6 of chapter 3 of division 1 of title 7 of that code. 3 The parties do not dispute that the relevant version of section 65583 for purposes of this appeal is that effective in 2002 when Gilroy's general plan was adopted. (§ 65583, subd. (d).) Further references to “former section 65583” are to the version of the statute then in effect. (See Stats. 2001, ch. 671, § 2.) The section was amended and affected in important respects in 2004, effective January 2005, as we discuss, post. (Stats. 2004, ch. 724, §§ 1–3.) 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1178; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **374; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***1 440 Page 11 of 28 Shawna Ballard read the prior law. In other words, plaintiffs' arguments largely point not to legal insufficiencies in Gilroy's 2002 housing element but instead to inadequacies and inefficacies in the prior statutory language, which, by these gaps, failed to adequately facilitate enforcement of the objectives of the Housing Element Law. As noted, recent statutory revisions appear to have addressed the particular vagaries at issue here. Since 2005, the Housing Element Law has required the detail and specificity, particularly regarding the land inventory and identification of adequate sites to meet the locality's housing needs, which plaintiffs seek to impose on Gilroy with respect to its 2002 housing element. (See §§ 65583, 65583.2; Stats. 2004, ch. 724, §§ 1, 3.) Plaintiffs nevertheless contend that these statutory changes merely “clarified” existing law, and that we should apply prior law as the revisions now read. In light of the Housing Element Law as it existed in 2002 and the actual language of former section 65583, [***5] as well as the boundaries of judicial review that limit our analysis to whether Gilroy's 2002 housing element substantially complies with that statute, we reject plaintiffs' contentions. We likewise reject their contentions concerning Gilroy's lack of compliance with the Least Cost Zoning Law. In sum, this is so because Gilroy's 2002 general plan substantially complied with the Housing Element Law that was in effect at the time the plan was adopted. And Gilroy was not required to rezone (in order to facilitate increased high-density housing) in 2002 upon its adoption of that general plan, or immediately thereafter, as plaintiffs contend. The Least Cost Zoning Law does not set such a deadline and instead contemplates rezoning by a public entity pursuant to its general plan within the five-year planning period covered by that plan. Gilroy's plan sufficiently [*1181] describes rezoning efforts to be undertaken to accommodate low- income housing within this five-year period such that it complies with the Least Cost Zoning Law. We accordingly affirm the trial court's judgment. GENERAL LEGAL BACKGROUND We begin with a general legal overview in order to place the issues in proper context. [***6] The Housing Element Law, like the Least Cost Zoning Law, is one component of state laws affecting land use, which is otherwise largely a local function. I. The Source of Local Authority—The Police Power HN1[] CA(1)[] (1) Under the California Constitution, a “county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) This authority is often referred to as the police power. (75 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 239, 240 (1992); see, e.g., Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 878, 885 [218 Cal. Rptr. 303, 705 P.2d 876].) The police power is broad. As the California Supreme Court has stated: “Under the police power granted by the Constitution, counties and cities have plenary authority to govern, subject only to the limitation that they exercise this power within their territorial limits and subordinate to state law. (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7.) [**379] Apart from this limitation, the ‘police power [of a county or city] under this provision … is as broad as the police power exercisable by the Legislature itself.’ ” (Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 885.) [***7] It is from this fundamental power that local governments derive their authority to regulate land through planning, zoning, and building ordinances, thereby protecting public health, safety and welfare. (Berman v. Parker (1954) 348 U.S. 26, 32–33 [99 L. Ed. 27, 75 S. Ct. 98]; see generally Curtin, Cal. Land Use and Planning Law (26th ed. 2006) pp. 1–4; Hagman et al., Cal. Zoning Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1969) §§ 4.14, 4.16, pp. 112– 113; id. (Cont.Ed.Bar 2005 supp.) §§ 4.14, 4.16, pp. 231–232.) II. State Planning Laws and the General Plan HN2[] CA(2)[] (2) While the police power is the constitutional source of local governments' land use authority, the framework for the exercise of that power is provided by the state's land use planning statutes. (§§ 65100–65910; see [*1182] L.I.F.E. Committee v. City of Lodi (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1139, 1148 [262 Cal. Rptr. 166]; Curtin, Cal. Land Use and Planning Law, supra, p. 5.) Among other things, state planning law requires adoption of a general plan. (§ 65300.) In the universe of local land use enactments, the general plan is “at the top of ‘the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use.’ ” (DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773 [38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019] [***8] (Devita).) Our state's high court has described “the function of a general plan as a ‘constitution,’ ” and has labeled it the “ ‘basic land use charter governing the 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1180; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **378; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***4 441 Page 12 of 28 Shawna Ballard direction of future land use’ ” in the locality. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540, 542 [277 Cal. Rptr. 1, 802 P.2d 317]; see also, e.g., DeVita, supra, at p. 773.) HN3[] CA(3)[] (3) Local land use decisions must be consistent with the general plan. Thus, for example, zoning ordinances, which are subordinate to the general plan, are required to be consistent with it. (§ 65860, subd. (a); Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 541.) The same is true of other local activities affecting land use, such as tentative maps or development agreements. (Curtin, Cal. Land Use and Planning Law, supra, p. 10.) “Under state law, the propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements.” (Resource Defense Fund v. County of Santa Cruz (1982) 133 Cal. App. 3d 800, 806 [184 Cal. Rptr. 371].) “Since consistency [***9] with the general plan is required, absence of a valid general plan, or valid relevant elements or components thereof, precludes enactment of zoning ordinances and the like.” (Ibid.) “The general plan consists of a ‘statement of development policies … setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals.’ (… § 65302.) The plan must include seven elements—land use, circulation, conservation, housing, noise, safety and open space—and address each of these elements in whatever level of detail local conditions require (id., § 65301).” (DeVita, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 773.) III. The Housing Element Declaring affordable housing “a priority of the highest order” and one not merely a local concern but a matter of “vital statewide [**380] importance,” the Legislature in 1980 enacted legislation to require each local government to adopt a “housing element” as a component of its general plan. (§§ 65580, subd. (a), 65581, subd. (b), 65582, subd. (d).) According to the Housing Element Law, a public locality's general plan “must include a housing element consisting of several mandatory components.” (Black Property Owners Assn. v. City of Berkeley (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 974, 978 [28 Cal.Rptr. 2d 305] [***10] (Black).) [*1183] HN4[] “The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, and mobilehomes, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.” (§ 65583.) 4 HN5[] CA(4)[] (4) The housing element must contain a five-year program to “implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls.” (§ 65583, subd. (c).) [***11] Formerly, the program must also have identified adequate sites with services and facilities that would be made available for “the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels … in order to meet the community's housing goals … .” (Former § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A).) The housing element must further include an inventory of sites suitable for residential development and an analysis of the zoning, public facilities, and services available for those sites. (§ 65583, subd. (a)(3).) If the inventory of sites does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for housing of persons of all income levels, 5 the five-year program must provide for sufficient sites to be zoned for multifamily residential use to accommodate very-low- and low-income households. (Former § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A)(i); see now § 65583.2, subd. (h).) If the total housing needs exceed the available resources and the community's ability to satisfy the need, the quantified objectives need not equal the need but must be the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved for each income category over a five-year period. (§ 65583, subd. (b)(2).) [***12] HN6[] CA(5)[] (5) Thus, the five-year program must identify a sufficient number of sites that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to meet the quantified objectives for housing for all income levels. And if the program does not identify sufficient sites to satisfy the need for housing for all income levels, it must in any event identify sufficient sites to be zoned for multifamily housing for low- and 4 In 2002 at the time when Gilroy adopted its current general plan, section 65583’s specific requirements were set forth in former subdivisions (a) through (e), the pertinent subdivisions of which we will discuss relative to the particular issues addressed below. 5 See footnote 8, post. 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1182; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **379; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***8 442 Page 13 of 28 Shawna Ballard very-low-income residents. (Former § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A)(i); see now § 65583.2, subd. (h).) HN7[] CA(6)[] (6) In creating its housing element, the local government is required to consider the advisory guidelines adopted by the state's Department of [*1184] Housing and Community Development (the Department). (§ 65585, subd. (a).) The locality is also required to submit draft housing elements or amendments to the Department prior to adoption. (§ 65585, subd. (b).) The Department, in turn, must review drafts and [**381] make written findings as to whether the draft substantially complies [***13] with the requirements of article 10.6. (§ 65585, subds. (b), (d).) The local government must then consider the Department's findings. (§ 65585, subd. (e).) If the findings reflect noncompliance in the Department's judgment, the locality must either change the draft, so that it substantially complies with article 10.6, or adopt the draft without changes, explaining why the draft substantially complies despite the Department's findings. (§ 65585, subd. (f)(1), (2).) Under section 65589.3, the housing element (or its amendment) enjoys a rebuttable presumption of validity if the Department makes a finding that it substantially complies with the requirements of article 10.6. (§ 65589.3.) The statute does not provide for the converse, i.e., there is no presumption of invalidity on the basis of the Department's finding of noncompliance. HN8[] CA(7)[] (7) After each local government adopts its general plan, it “must review its housing element periodically to evaluate the community's progress toward attainment of local and state housing goals and objectives, among other factors.” (Black, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 978.) By legislative edict, “the housing element ‘shall’ be reviewed as [***14] frequently as necessary to evaluate certain enumerated factors” subject to the statutory schedule for revisions. (Garat v. City of Riverside (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 259, 296 [3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 504], overruled on another ground in Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1994) 7 Cal.4th 725, 743 [29 Cal. Rptr. 2d 804, 872 P.2d 143].) As provided in section 65588, subdivision (b): “The housing element shall be revised as appropriate, but not less than every five years, to reflect the results of this periodic review.” But the statute contains an overriding provision, subdivision (e), which governs specified localities. It states: HN9[] “Notwithstanding subdivision (b) or the date of adoption of the housing elements previously in existence, each city, county, and city and county shall revise its housing element according to the following schedule: [¶] … [¶] (2) Local governments within the regional jurisdiction of the Association of Bay Area Governments: December 31, 2001, for the third revision, and June 30, 2007, for the fourth revision.” 6 (§ 65588, subd. (e).) HN10[] CA(8)[ ] (8) These timetables for revision of the housing element have been held to be directory, not mandatory. (San Mateo County Coastal Landowners' Assn. v. County of San Mateo [*1185] (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 523, 544 [45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 117] [***15] [the timetable set by § 65588 is directory rather than mandatory and mere noncompliance with the schedule does not operate to automatically invalidate a housing element or, by extension, a general plan].) IV. Initial Review of a Housing Element HN11[] A local government's housing element, or any portion thereof, may be challenged by “any interested party” by a traditional mandamus action filed in the superior court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. [***16] (§ 65587, subd. (b).) The court's review “shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements of [the Housing Element Law].” (Ibid.) “ ‘ “ ‘Substantial [**382] compliance … means actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute,’ as distinguished from ‘mere technical imperfections of form.’ ” [Citation.]’ ” (Buena Vista Gardens Apartments Assn. v. City of San Diego Planning Dept. (1985) 175 Cal. App. 3d 289, 298 [220 Cal. Rptr. 732] (Buena Vista); see Camp v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 334, 348 [176 Cal. Rptr. 620].) Simply stated, “[j]udicial review of a housing element for substantial compliance with the statutory requirements does not involve an examination of the merits of the element or of the wisdom of the municipality's determination of policy.” (Black, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 980.) It merely involves a determination whether the housing element includes the statutory requirements. (Buena Vista, supra, at pp. 298, 306 [court looks only to ensure that [***17] the requirements 6 Section 65584.02, subdivision (a)(2)(C), second paragraph, adopted in 2004, provides for a maximum two-year extension of the housing element deadline “for the purpose of coordination with the scheduled update of a regional transportation plan pursuant to federal law.” The Department has granted such an extension to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) so that the deadline under section 65588, subdivision (e), for the fourth housing element revisions in jurisdictions within this designation, which includes Gilroy, is extended to June 30, 2009. 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1183; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **380; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***12 443 Page 14 of 28 Shawna Ballard of § 65583 are met, not whether the programs adopted are adequate to meet their objectives or are the programs the court thinks ought to be there].) Under section 65587 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, then, the court's role in determining a mandamus challenge to a locality's housing element is simply to determine whether the locality has satisfied statutory requirements. It is not to reach the merits of the element or to interfere with the exercise of the locality's discretion in making substantive determinations and conclusions about local housing issues, needs, and concerns. V. The Least Cost Zoning Law Echoing the purposes of the Housing Element Law to promote the development of affordable housing, in 1980, the Legislature also enacted the Least Cost Zoning Law, section 65913 et seq. These changes in the law were intended to be “consistent with the responsibility of local government to adopt the program required by” section 65583, subdivision (c). (§ 65913, subd. (a).) The changes were also expressly designed to: “[e]xpedite the local and state residential development process”; (2) “[a]ssure that local [***18] governments zone sufficient land at densities high enough for production of affordable housing”; and (3) “[a]ssure that local governments make a diligent effort [*1186] through the administration of land use and development controls and the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives to significantly reduce housing development costs and thereby facilitate the development of affordable housing … .” (Ibid.) Section 65913.1 states in relevant part that HN12[] “[i]n exercising its authority to zone for land uses and in revising its housing element … , a city, county, or city and county shall designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards, in relation to zoning for nonresidential use, and in relation to growth projections of the general plan to meet housing needs for all income categories as identified in the housing element of the general plan.” (§ 65913.1, subd. (a).) CA(9)[] (9) Thus, HN13[] section 65913.1 governs land use designation and zoning while section 65583 governs the housing element of a general plan. The two statutes were intended to work in concert. (§ 65913, subd. (a).)7 7 Thus, our analysis below of plaintiffs' challenge under the Least Cost Zoning Law is also in relation to the version of the [***19] STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. Factual Background As noted, under section 65588, each local government within the regional jurisdiction of ABAG, of which Gilroy is one, was [**383] to prepare and adopt a revised and updated housing element by December 31, 2001, to cover the period January 1, 2002, to June 30, 2007. Gilroy's allocated regional “fair share” of affordable housing to be accommodated during the period from 1999 through June 2007 included 1,240 new lower income housing units—906 units affordable to very-low- income households and 334 units affordable to low- income households. 8 [***20] 9 [*1187] In accordance with the Department's mandatory review of its proposed housing element under section 65585, Gilroy submitted a draft housing element accompanied by a “Housing Background Report” to the Department in December 2001. According to the City, the Housing Background Report is a part of the housing element. The Department reviewed the documents and found the draft housing element to be out of compliance with state Housing Element Law that was in effect in 2002 when Gilroy adopted the housing element at issue. 8 Under section 65584 of the Housing Element Law, the Department “shall determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region … .” (§ 65584, subd. (a)(1).) This is known as the “Regional Housing Needs Allocation.” For purposes of the contents of the housing element as provided under section 65583, “the share of a city or county of the regional housing need shall include that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by the general plan of the city or county.” (§ 65584, subd. (a)(1).) “Household income levels” refer to four different levels of affordability: (1) very low incomes as defined by Health and Safety Code section 50105; (2) lower incomes as defined by Health and Safety Code section 50079.5; (3) moderate incomes as defined by Health and Safety Code section 50093; and (4) above moderate incomes as defined by Health and Safety Code section 50093. (§ 65584, subd. (e)(1)–(4).) 9 In its 2002 housing element, Gilroy included ABAG's determination of its regional fair share housing allocation for this period. But it also reflected that by 2002, 779 of the 906 units remained to be built for very-low-income households and 103 of the 334 units remained for low-income households, reducing the total ABAG number of units to be provided in these two income categories to 882 in the 2002 housing element. 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1185; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **382; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***17 444 Page 15 of 28 Shawna Ballard law. The Department notified the City of its findings by letter dated March 1, 2002, and accompanying appendix of specific comments. Gilroy adopted the draft housing element without change on June 13, 2002, 10 and again submitted it to the Department for review. [***21] 11 The Department then completed its formal review of the adopted housing element under section 65585. In October 2003, the Department issued its written determination that the adopted element did not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law, for the same reasons that the Department had considered the previously submitted draft to be noncompliant. In May 2003, before the Department issued this determination, and prior to the City's formal adoption of its housing element, the City had submitted to the Department comments and proposed revisions to its draft housing element, which were intended to be responsive to the Department's initial [***22] March 2002 review. These materials included proposed revisions to the land inventory and a table of vacant and underutilized land with parcel-level data for sites within the general plan area but outside the city limits and the urban service area. The City also submitted supplemental materials at some later point. And third parties, including the [**384] Public Interest Law Firm, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., 12 and the California Affordable Housing Law Project, submitted comments to the Department as well. After its review of the proposed amendments, the supplemental materials, and third party comments, in December 2003, the Department notified the City by letter that while some of the City's responses had addressed some of the Department's concerns as outlined in its March 2002 review, further revisions to the housing element were necessary in order to render it compliant with state law from the Department's perspective. The Department [*1188] specifically [***23] concluded, in reliance on its 10 It is not clear whether in adopting the element, the City explained under section 65585, subdivision (f), why, in its view, it had substantially complied with the Housing Element Law notwithstanding the Department's negative finding. 11 The specific contents of relevant portions of the housing element are discussed below where they relate to our analysis. 12 These two entities represent plaintiffs in this litigation. “Questions and Answers” 13 as guidelines, that “the element should identify adequate sites and demonstrate the realistic development capacity and potential of sites for all income groups, further analyze and mitigate governmental constraints, and strengthen certain programs.” The Department's letter was accompanied by an appendix that addressed these issues in further detail and identified, from the Department's point of view, what changes in the housing element were needed to bring it into legal compliance. Included among these identified shortcomings were those of which plaintiffs complained below—the failure to include a site-specific inventory of land demonstrating adequate sites to accommodate Gilroy's affordable housing need and the failure to provide analysis and removal of governmental constraints to the construction of affordable housing on those sites. [***24] II. Procedural Background Plaintiffs, each of whom is alleged to be a current or former resident of Gilroy who cannot obtain affordable housing in that locale, filed their verified petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 in May 2004. 14 [***25] They filed an amended petition a few months later. 15 The amended petition contained eight causes of action, only the first two of which pertain to this appeal. The first cause of action was entitled “writ of mandate to compel the preparation and adoption of a legally sufficient housing element.” (Capitalization omitted.) It challenged Gilroy's 2002 housing element in numerous respects, only three of which are again raised here—inadequate land inventory and analysis of sites in 13 The Department's “Questions and Answers” (Q's & A's) are the guidelines it adopted under Health and Safety Code section 50459 and distributed to localities to assist in their preparation of housing elements and to facilitate the Department's review of those housing elements under section 65585. 14 The parties raise no issue about the timeliness of the action under section 65009, subdivision (d), which provides for a one-year statute of limitations for actions brought, as this one at least in part is, under section 65587. 15 The petition was again amended in October 2004 only to add a required verification, mooting the City's challenge by demurrer to the previous pleading for this deficiency. But for our purposes, the second amended petition is in all substantive and relevant respects the same as the first amended petition and we refer here to both as the “amended petition.” 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1187; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **383; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***20 445 Page 16 of 28 Shawna Ballard violation of section 65583, subdivision (a)(3); failure to identify adequate sites for very-low- and low-income housing development in violation of former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A); and failure to include any program to allow very-low- and low-income housing development by right in violation of former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A)(i). The second cause of action was entitled “writ of mandate to compel compliance with the Least Cost Zoning Law,” and it [**385] challenged Gilroy's [*1189] alleged lack of compliance with sections 65913 and 65913.1 by the failure to “designate and zone sufficient land at sufficient densities and with appropriate standards to accommodate the housing needs of very-low and low-income households.” Below and here, plaintiffs' essential challenge on the basis of the Least Cost Zoning Law concerns whether Gilroy's rezoning plans, expressed as part of its housing element revisions, satisfy the law in terms of both the affirmative obligation to rezone and the time within which that obligation must be met. Plaintiffs contend that under the Least Cost Zoning Law, a [***26] public entity must “diligently” rezone upon the adoption of a new housing element so that the actual construction of affordable housing as contemplated by the zoning changes can be accomplished within the planning period. Plaintiffs sought their writ of mandate on the first two causes of action through a noticed motion procedure in the court below. The City answered the petition and filed opposition to the requested relief. Before the court on the motion were, among other things, Gilroy's 2002 general plan, its adopted housing element (one component of the general plan); the accompanying Housing Background Report; portions of Gilroy's zoning ordinance; the then current version of the Department's Q's & A's, which contain its interpretations of statutory requirements; and written revisions, comments, and communications between Gilroy and the Department concerning the Department's recommendations and the City's efforts to satisfy the Department that the element substantially complied with the Housing Element Law. 16 [***27] The trial court heard argument and then issued a written ruling denying the ?Petition/Motion.” The court's stated rationale in support of its ruling was that: “Gilroy's Housing Element substantially complies with 16 It is not clear from the record whether the revisions that were forwarded to the Department were ever formally incorporated into Gilroy's 2002 adopted housing element. the requirements set out in the Government Code. [(Hernandez v. City of Encinitas (1994)] 28 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1058 [33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 875].)] Gilroy is not in violation of the Least Cost Zoning law. Gilroy is implementing its plan for Neighborhood Districts during the planning period.” The parties later entered into a stipulation whereby the City would waive costs, plaintiffs would dismiss their remaining causes of action without prejudice, and a “final” judgment would be entered in favor of the City on the first two causes of action. The dismissal and judgment were later entered as contemplated by the stipulation. Plaintiffs then appealed from the “order denying their motion for writ of mandate ? and from the final judgment … .” 17 [***28] [*1190] [**386] DISCUSSION I. Issues on Appeal The primary issue on appeal is whether Gilroy's 2002 housing element substantially complies with the version of the state Housing Element Law in effect in 2002. More specifically, the questions presented are whether Gilroy's 2002 housing element: (1) contains an “inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the 17 The City filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appealability. The motion generally asserted that plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of their third through eighth causes of action without prejudice to facilitate the entry of a “final” judgment on the first two causes of action violated the one final judgment rule since the dismissed causes of action remained subject to revival. (See, e.g., Sullivan v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 288, 308–309 [63 Cal. Rptr. 2d 74, 935 P.2d 781]; Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 743–744; Don Jose's Restaurant, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 115, 116?119 [61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 370]; Tudor Ranches, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1427–1430 [77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 574].) We considered the motion and directed plaintiffs to stipulate either that the prior dismissal of the remaining causes of action was to be deemed with prejudice or that they unequivocally waived any right to a trial or hearing on these causes of action, otherwise the appeal would be dismissed. Plaintiffs having elected by written stipulation to unequivocally waive a trial or hearing on the dismissed causes of action, our appellate jurisdiction is preserved and we accordingly denied the motion to dismiss by separate order. 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1188; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **384; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***25 446 Page 17 of 28 Shawna Ballard relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites” in substantial compliance with section 65583, subdivision (a)(3); (2) contains a program setting forth a five-year schedule of actions that Gilroy is undertaking or intends to undertake to “[i]dentify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities … needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels in order to meet the community's [identified] housing goals …” in substantial compliance with former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A); and (3) if failing to provide an inventory of sites under section 65583, subdivision (a)(3) [***29] that identifies sufficient sites to accommodate the housing need for groups of all income levels, does the housing element nevertheless provide for “sufficient sites with zoning that permits … multifamily residential use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low and low-income households” in substantial compliance with former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A)(i). The secondary issue on appeal concerns the question of Gilroy's compliance with the Least Cost Zoning Law— i.e., has the City “designate[d] and zone[d] sufficient vacant land … to meet housing needs for all income categories as identified in the housing element” in compliance with section 65913.1. [*1191] II. Standard of Review Challenge to the City's Housing Element18 We have already addressed the standards [***30] applicable to the trial court's mandamus review of a challenge to the legal adequacy of a housing element under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and section 65587, subdivision (b). HN14[] On appeal, we independently ascertain as a question of law whether the housing element at issue substantially complies with the requirements of the Housing Element Law, substantial compliance meaning “ ‘ “ ‘actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every 18 We address the proper standard of review on a challenge under the Least Cost Zoning Law at part III.B., post. reasonable objective of the statute,’ as distinguished from ‘mere technical imperfections of form.’ ” [Citation.]’ ” (Buena Vista, supra, 175 Cal. App. 3d at p. 298; see Camp v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 123 Cal. App. 3d at p. 348; Black, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 980.) In our independent review of the housing element's legal adequacy, we afford no deference to the trial court's conclusions. (Garat v. City of Riverside, supra, 2 Cal. [**387] App.4th at p. 292; Buena Vista, supra, at p. 298.) On the other hand, a city's adoption of a housing element is a legislative enactment, something which is generally entitled to some deference. [***31] There is a presumption that the adopted element is valid and we do not in the course of our review evaluate the municipality's determination of policy. (Garat v. City of Riverside, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at p. 292; Buena Vista, supra, 175 Cal. App. 3d at p. 298; Black, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 980.) The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate that the housing element, and by extension the general plan, is inadequate. (Garat v. City of Riverside, supra, at p. 293.) If the municipality has substantially complied with statutory requirements, we will not interfere with its legislative action, unless that action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. (Hoffmaster v. City of San Diego (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1105–1106 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 684] (Hoffmaster); Hernandez v. City of Encinitas, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1059 (Hernandez); Garat v. City of Riverside, supra, at pp. 292–293; Buena Vista, supra, at p. 298.) Accordingly, HN15[] like the trial court, we do not review the merits of the housing element at issue or assess the wisdom of the municipality's determination of policy. (Black, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 980.) [***32] Nor do we judge whether the programs adopted by the locality are adequate to meet their stated objectives. (Buena Vista, supra, 175 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 298, 306.) Our review thus comes down to independently determining whether the housing [*1192] element at issue is in substantial compliance with applicable statutory requirements, i.e., does it contain the elements mandated by the statute. The parties offer differing views on the weight we are to afford in the course of our review to the Department's interpretation of statutory requirements of the Housing Element Law, as reflected in its Q's & A's. Plaintiffs posit that judicial respect for the Department's interpretation of the Housing Element Law is mandated by general principles of administrative law under Yamaha Corp. of 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1190; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **386; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***28 447 Page 18 of 28 Shawna Ballard America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 12 [78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1, 960 P.2d 1031] (Yamaha), and that we should accordingly give great weight to the Department's “statements that (a) the inventory [required by section 65583, subdivision (a)(3)] must ‘identify specific sites suitable for residential development,’ not merely undifferentiated acreages; and (b) the identification of adequate sites [pursuant [***33] to former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A)] ‘must [occur] soon enough in the planning period to reasonably permit development during the planning period.’ ” The City, on the other hand, argues that as a matter of law, no authority requires judicial deference to the Department's interpretation of the Housing Element Law and that the independent standard of judicial review which we apply under section 65587, subdivision (b), affirmatively precludes such deference. 19 [***34] [**388] In Yamaha, the California Supreme Court addressed the question of the deference to be applied to a state agency's informal interpretation of a statute in contrast to that afforded to regulations adopted by an agency under quasi-legislative authority expressly delegated by the Legislature. HN16[] While quasi-legislative regulations are of binding force as statements of the law, commanding judicial deference and receiving limited judicial review, an agency's informal interpretation of a statute is entitled to considerably less judicial deference, the courts being 19 More specifically, the City contends that we afford no deference to the Department's negative findings concerning Gilroy's 2002 housing element since: (1) the Department's Q's & A's are advisory only (§ 65585, subd. (a)); (2) a locality may adopt a housing element in spite of the Department's negative findings (§ 65585, subd. (f)(2)); and (3) the Legislature impliedly intended to afford no significance to a negative finding by the Department through its provision for a rebuttable presumption afforded to a positive finding with no parallel mention of any presumption to be afforded to a negative finding (§ 65589.3). These contentions focus on the effect of the Department's specific findings that Gilroy's 2002 housing element failed to substantially comply with the Housing Element Law and not the general weight to be afforded to the Department's interpretation of the law as expressed in its Q's & A's. While plaintiffs make much of this rather subtle distinction, it is one without a difference for our purposes. To the extent the Department found that Gilroy's housing element did not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law in the particular respects raised here, those findings are consistent with and rest on the Department's general interpretation of the law as expressed in its Q's & A's. the constitutional arbiters of statutory [*1193] meaning. (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 7–15.) “ ‘The standard for judicial review of agency interpretation of the law is the independent judgment of the court, giving deference to the determination of the agency appropriate to the circumstances of the agency action.’ ” (Id. at p. 8.) We accordingly take ? ‘ultimate responsibility for the construction of the statute, accord[ing] great weight and respect to the administrative construction. [Citation.]’ ” (Id. at p. 12.) But the extent of judicial weight [***35] to be afforded is necessarily contextual and “fundamentally situational. A court assessing the value of an interpretation must consider a complex of factors material to the substantive legal issue before it, the particular agency offering the interpretation, and the comparative weight the factors ought in reason to command.” (Ibid.) HN17[] There are two categories of factors that are relevant to a court's assessment of the weight to be afforded to an agency's informal statutory interpretation. First, there are factors indicating a comparative interpretive advantage the agency has over the court due to, for example, the agency's authorship of the regulation at issue or the technical nature of the legal text under consideration. The second category includes factors indicating that the agency's interpretation of a rule is likely to be correct, such as the agency's adoption of a rule pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (§ 11340 et seq.) after notice and an opportunity for public comment, or its long-standing maintenance of the interpretation in question. (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 12.) A few of these factors favoring judicial deference are indeed present [***36] here. Still, the Department's informal interpretation of statutory requirements is in no way binding on us and the weight to which we afford it depends ultimately on our assessment of its reasonableness. Moreover, as recognized by the Court of Appeal in Buena Vista, HN18[] in determining the legal adequacy of a housing element, the roles of the Department and the courts differ. “The Department reviews not only to ensure the requirements of [section] 65583 are met, but also to make suggestions for improvements. … However, a court looks only to ensure the requirements of [section] 65583 are met and not whether, in the court's judgment, the programs [**389] adopted are adequate to meet their objectives or are the programs which the court thinks ought to be there. While this court may be of the opinion City should adopt Department's recommendations, the Legislature has stated its recommendations are advisory. (§ 65585, 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1192; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **387; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***32 448 Page 19 of 28 Shawna Ballard subd. (a).)” (Buena Vista, supra, 175 Cal. App. 3d at p. 306.) We think these distinct roles ought to be reflected in the weight we afford to the Department's statutory interpretation of the Housing Element Law, as reflected in its Q's & A's. While we [***37] acknowledge that the Department's interpretation of the Housing Element Law's legal meaning and effect is the product of the Department [*1194] having regularly dealt with these statutes falling within its administrative jurisdiction, we still must exercise our independent duty to state the meaning of the statutes at issue here, giving consideration to the Department's views. HN19[] “Courts must, in short, independently judge the text of the statute, taking into account and respecting the agency's interpretation of its meaning, of course, whether embodied in a formal rule or less formal representation. Where the meaning and legal effect of a statute is the issue, an agency's interpretation is one among several tools available to the court. Depending on the context, it may be helpful, enlightening, even convincing. It may sometimes be of little worth. [Citation.]” (Yamaha, supra, 19 Cal.4th at pp. 7–8.) Thus, the weight we afford here to the Department's Q's & A's is in accordance with our view of the substantive merits of the Department's statutory interpretation. And to the extent plaintiffs' contentions mirror the Department's interpretation of relevant aspects of the Housing Element [***38] Law in the Q's & A's, our analysis necessarily considers those merits. III. Analysis A. Gilroy's Adopted 2002 Housing Element Substantially Complies with the Requirements of the Housing Element Law As Previously in Effect 1. Section 65583, subdivision (a)(3) Section 65583 initially provides: “The housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, and mobilehomes, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.” HN20[] Subdivision (a)(3) goes on to require that the housing element contain “[a]n assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The assessment and inventory shall include … [¶] … [¶] … [a]n inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having [***39] potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites.” (§ 65583, subd. (a)(3), italics added.) The gist of plaintiffs' primary contention is that Gilroy's 2002 housing element failed to even substantially comply with section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), because the element, while providing an aggregate inventory of what the City identified as vacant sites and sites potentially available for [*1195] development, did not identify any specific sites or provide analysis of zoning and facilities in relation to those identified specific sites. This contention [**390] rests on the further assertion that the language of the statute, its interpretation by the Department in the Q's & A's, and case law all mandated a statutory construction of this subdivision that required a site-specific inventory of land suitable for development, accompanied by site-specific analysis. The City, for its part, contends that its housing element substantially complied with the statute because at the time, there was no requirement that the inventory identify specific sites both suitable for residential development and available to meet the housing needs [***40] and, thus, an aggregate listing or summary of vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment with general analysis of zoning and facilities was all that was required. CA(10)[] (10) We agree with the City that prior to amendments to the Housing Element Law in 2004, there was no legislative enunciation of the level of detail or specific information required in the land inventory, other than what the language of former section 65583 itself provided. As we read the statute, neither this subdivision nor any other section of the Housing Element Law included a requirement that the land inventory comprise more than a listing of aggregate acreages in the various categories or that it be parcel or site specific. The word “inventory,” as used in the general sense employed in the statute does not necessarily imply, as plaintiffs would have it, that a detailed item-by-item list is called for. “Stock,” as in the quantity of materials on hand, is all that the land inventory in this context spoke to, in the absence of a statutory directive for further or more detailed criteria. 20 20 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary includes both definitions among several general meanings of the word “inventory.” As the parties point out, the word can mean “an 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1193; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **389; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***36 449 Page 20 of 28 Shawna Ballard The statute thus required the inventory to include “vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment,” but did [***41] not require it to specifically identify each of such sites. (§ 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Given the absence of a site-specific requirement for the land inventory itself, the further analysis “of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites,” also called for by this subdivision likewise did not require site specificity. (Ibid.) Instead, HN21[] prior to the 2004 amendments to the Housing Element Law, substantial compliance with section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), required only general analysis of zoning and public facilities to the inventoried sites, as catalogued or listed in the aggregate. Our reading of what section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), previously required [***42] of the land inventory and accompanying analysis is confirmed by the 2004 statutory amendments to the Housing Element Law, effective 2005, which, [*1196] according to the Legislative Counsel's Digest, would “revise the criteria for the inventory of sites.” (Stats. 2004, ch. 724, 2d par.; Legis. Counsel's Dig., Assem. Bill No. 2348 (2003–2004 Reg. Sess.), italics added.) Among these statutory changes is the addition of section 65583.2, which includes newly detailed requirements for the land inventory mandated by section 65583, subdivision (a)(3). According to the new statute, the inventory must now include a “listing of properties by parcel number or other unique reference,” “[t]he size of each property” and the “general plan designation and zoning of each property,” “[a] map that shows the location of the sites included in the inventory,” and for nonvacant sites, “a description of the existing use of each property.” [**391] (§ 65583.2, subd. (b)(1), (2), (3), (7).) This new section also makes clear that the general descriptions of “any environmental constraints to the development of housing within the jurisdiction” and “existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities supply, including [***43] the availability and access to distribution facilities,” both of which are now specifically required for the inventory, need not “be identified on a site-specific basis.” (§ 65583.2, subd. (b)(4) & (5).) Thus, the new statute, while for the first time mandating an identification of the designated zoning of each site within the inventory, expressly does not require this same specificity with respect to public facilities and services. We conclude from this that the analysis of itemized list of current assets” or “the quantity of goods or materials on hand: stock.” (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dict. (10th ed. 2001) p. 615, col. 1.) these infrastructure issues, as previously required under section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), likewise was not required to be site specific. Plaintiffs characterize the 2004 statutory changes to the Housing Element Law as “clarifying” amendments, and they point to two Assembly Committee reports relating to the proposed amendments to suggest that the land inventory mandated by section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), the text of which remains the same, has always required site specificity. In comments, both reports say that then current or existing law (i.e., pre-2005) required “housing elements to include a land inventory identifying sites suitable for residential development by income level.” (Assem. Com. on Appropriations, [***44] Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2348 (2003–2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended April 16, 2004, p. 2, italics added; Assem. Com. on Local Government, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2348 (2003–2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended April 16, 2004, p. 2.) 21 However, both reports, like the Legislative Counsel's Digest, also recognize that many of the statutory amendments proposed by Assembly Bill No. 2348 (2003–2004 Reg. Sess.) indeed would constitute changes to the law and that such changes would impose uniform and specific content requirements for the land inventory for the first time. [*1197] CA(11)[] (11) In any event, the statutory amendments themselves do not state that they are merely declarative of existing law. And even when legislative amendments do so state, a later Legislature's expression that statutory amendments are only intended to clarify what an earlier Legislature enacted are neither binding nor conclusive on courts, which are ultimately vested with the task of statutory interpretation. [***45] Coming at a time before our high court's definitive interpretation of a particular statute, such a legislative expression is merely entitled to “consideration” as a factor in a court's construction of the statute. 22 (Carter v. California Dept. of Veterans Affairs, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 922.) HN22[] A court engaged in statutory construction looks to “all pertinent circumstances and considerations in deciding whether an amendment is a 21 We have taken judicial notice of these reports upon plaintiffs' motion. 22 The Legislature does not even have the power to declare later amendments to be “clarifying” of existing law after the Supreme Court has “ ‘finally and definitively’ ” interpreted a statute. (Carter v. California Dept. of Veterans Affairs (2006) 38 Cal.4th 914, 922 [44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 223, 135 P.3d 637].) 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1195; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **390; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***40 450 Page 21 of 28 Shawna Ballard modification or clarification of a statute.” (People v. Franklin (1999) 20 Cal.4th 249, 256 [84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 241, 975 P.2d 30].) And particularly when there is no definitive “clarifying” expression by the Legislature in the amendments themselves, we will presume that a substantial or material statutory change, as occurred here by the addition of section 65583.2 [**392] alone, bespeaks legislative intention to change, and not just clarify, the law. (Reidy v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 580, 592 [19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 894]; Garrett v. Young (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1393, 1404–1405 [1 Cal. Rptr. 3d 134].) [***46] There is a dearth of case law construing the inventory requirement of section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), either before or after the 2004 amendments to the Housing Element Law. Plaintiffs cite Hoffmaster as authority for the proposition that this part of the statute has always required a site-specific land inventory. But the court in Hoffmaster did not so hold. That case construed only the adequate sites requirement of former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1), as the land inventory requirement of subdivision (a)(3) was not in issue. In contrasting what it viewed as the differing specificity mandates between these two subdivisions with the adequate site requirement commanding more, the Hoffmaster court even referred to the land inventory as “simply that which is generally required under section 65583, subdivision (a)(3).” (Hoffmaster, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 1112, italics added, fn. omitted.) Plaintiffs' reliance on Hoffmaster as authority for a pre- 2005 site-specific inventory requirement under section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), is therefore misplaced. The City, in turn, relies on Buena Vista and Hernandez for its contention that section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), [***47] does not require the land inventory to be site specific. As in Hoffmaster, the issues before the court in Buena Vista [*1198] did not involve the land inventory or judicial construction of the requirements of section 65583, subdivision (a)(3). In fact, all the issues raised in Buena Vista involved the various requirements of the then current iteration of section 65583, subdivision (c). (Buena Vista, supra, 175 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 298–299.) The court in Hernandez was dealing with a challenge to the City of Encinitas's housing element that asserted, among other things, that the element did not “include an inventory of land as required by section 65583(a)(3) … .” (Hernandez, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1062.) The challenge more specifically contended that the subject housing element, while addressing vacant and underdeveloped sites, still only amounted to “ ‘[a] simpl[e] catalogu[e of] the vacant acres already zoned residential (2434 acres),’ and there [had been] no ‘manifest attempt’ to identify otherwise suitable land such as vacant or ‘infill’ sites presently zoned commercial and no consideration given [***48] to mixed use potential, such as, for example, rental apartments.” (Ibid.) Based on the court's discussion of the contents of the Encinitas housing element, we cannot tell if that element included an inventory that was site specific. It appears, as plaintiffs contend, that the challenge in Hernandez to the land inventory was not based on its lack of site specificity per se, but, instead, on its incompleteness. Still, the characterization by the Hernandez plaintiffs of the Encinitas inventory as a mere “ ‘catalogu[e of] the vacant acres already zoned residential’ ” at least suggests criticism for a lack of site specificity. (Ibid.) And in upholding the trial court's rejection of the challenge to the housing element, the Hernandez court referred to and discussed what were apparently only generalized descriptions in the land inventory. These facts lead us to infer that the inventory in Hernandez was not site specific. 23 In any event, the court [**393] did not expressly decide that the land inventory required by section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), need not be site specific. It did not even discuss this particular question in its resolution of the case. [***49] Despite not having the benefit of another court's construction of the land inventory requirement of section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), based on both the language of the statute and the significant 2004 Housing Element Law amendments affecting it, we conclude that prior to the 2004 amendments, neither the land inventory, nor its accompanying analysis, was required to be [*1199] site specific. In so concluding, we acknowledge plaintiffs' overarching point that without site specificity in the land inventory, the ultimate goals of the Housing 23 The court observed that “there is a substantial portion of the housing element devoted to the subject of vacant sites and underdeveloped sites, complete with figures, tables and word descriptions.” (Hernandez, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1062.) It also noted that the inventory included discussion of constraints to development, efforts at “recycling” of sites to higher density units, and a proposal for mixed-use development in commercial districts that would yield a quantified number of affordable housing units to lower income households. (Id. at pp. 1062–1063.) It seems to us that Gilroy's land inventory, as it appears in the Housing Background Report, has many of these same features, likewise presented in a format of tables and general discussion rather than site-specific analysis. 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1197; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **391; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***45 451 Page 22 of 28 Shawna Ballard Element Law of promoting and increasing the available stock of affordable housing in this state are more difficult to achieve. We also recognize as a practical matter that meaningful enforcement of the Housing Element Law, in all its component parts, may have been undermined without, among other things, a requirement of more specificity in the land inventory mandated by section 65583, subdivision (a)(3). 24 The Legislature, whose function it is to write the statutes, has apparently recognized this fact too, prompting its enactment of the 2004 amendments to the Housing Element Law, which in part address, in significant detail, the specificity of the land [***50] inventory. But the fact remains that in this case, we are dealing with the state of the Housing Element Law before those amendments, and we must construe, rather than rewrite, the statutes as we see them. In light of our construction of section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), we now examine Gilroy's land inventory and assessment, as [***51] provided in its 2002 housing element through the Housing Background Report as revised December 2001, to determine whether Gilroy substantially complied with the then applicable legal requirements of the statute. 25 [***52] The parties do 24 This is because a site-specific land inventory facilitates the assessment whether a locality's housing element complies with the “adequate sites” requirement of former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A). This conclusion explains the Department's position, as reflected in its June 2001 Q's & A's, that even under prior law, section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), required localities to prepare a land inventory and analysis of specific sites so that it could be determined what, if any, additional actions were needed under former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1), in order to provide sufficient adequate sites to accommodate the locality's fair share housing needs at all income levels. 25 The courts in both Buena Vista and Hoffmaster suggested, if not concluded, that the requirements of the pre-2005 Housing Element Law could be satisfied by reference to materials or documents not intrinsically a part of the housing element itself. (Buena Vista, supra, 175 Cal. App. 3d at p. 301 [“While nowhere in the housing element itself is found a provision of specific sites for mobilehomes, rental housing or factory-built housing, it appears these designations may be in the detailed community plans which are referred to in City's housing element.”]; Hoffmaster, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 1114 [“Available sites should be officially designated and publicized, preferably in the housing element, …” (Italics added.)].) Accordingly, there is precedent for our reliance here on extrinsic materials, such as Gilroy's Housing Background Report, to determine substantial compliance. Our further not dispute [**394] that the housing element contains an “assessment of housing needs” as required by section 65583, subdivision (a). But as noted, the statute goes on to require “an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs,” which includes an “inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to [*1200] these sites.” (§ 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Based on the parties' opposing interpretations of this latter language, an issue we have resolved in the City's favor, they dispute whether the element substantially complies with it. 26 Section 7 of the Housing Background Report, entitled “Development Potential and Evaluation of Constraints,” provides an inventory and discussion of aggregated vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment. This includes a narrative review, which acknowledges a shortage of already zoned land within the city limits for the development of higher density housing, and a table (7-1). The table “summarizes the vacant residentially zoned lands in the City based upon (1) an inventory of vacant lands and the City's current zoning; and (2) additional lands to be designated for higher density development based on implementation of the Neighborhood Districts 27 and rezoning based on the Land Use Plan Map of the Draft General Plan. An references to Gilroy's land inventory therefore encompass the Housing Background Report as well. 26 Accordingly, the parties do not dispute the factual contents of the land inventory, just whether those contents substantially comply with statutory requirements, as the parties interpret them. 27 The “Neighborhood Districts” plan is a new program being incorporated into land use planning in Gilroy. It is a concept providing for mixed use development and a new density designation involving multiple density categories in a single area. This is a move away from the more traditional designations of a single kind of density—low, medium, or high—in a single area that is thought to have resulted in negative planning effects. Gilroy's Neighborhood Districts plan is a significant component of its general plan, which contains action items relating to it, and it is one invoked by the City, along with updating of zoning, as a means to achieve its housing goals and needs once areas are rezoned. These goals and needs include those relating to affordable housing by providing for minimum and targeted mixes of densities that will, it is suggested, lead to more development of lower income housing—enough to alone accommodate the City's fair share housing needs in the lower income categories. 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1199; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **393; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***49 452 Page 23 of 28 Shawna Ballard update of the Zoning Map and Zoning Ordinance (Action 1.A) and the Neighborhood Districts Implementation Strategy (Action 1.C) are identified as two of the [***53] General Plan's highest priority items in Chapter 10 of the Draft General Plan … .” [***54] The table indicates that there had been 43 vacant acres already zoned R3, the second highest density designation, and that 48 additional acres would be added to this zoning category as a result of rezoning, for a total of 91 vacant acres zoned R3 that would potentially yield 1456 total housing units. The table further indicates that there had been zero vacant acres already zoned R4, the highest density designation, and that 39 additional vacant acres would be added to this zoning category as a result of rezoning, potentially yielding 1170 high-density housing units. 28 In terms of sheer numbers, this is purportedly and facially sufficient to accommodate [**395] Gilroy's remaining allocated [*1201] ABAG fair share of low- and very-low-income housing units for the planning period—882—and then some. 29 [***55] As for infrastructure analysis of the vacant lands available for residential development as shown in table 7-1, the Housing Background Report notes that “all are contained within the City limits and therefore within the City's Urban Service Area. While the full range of services and facilities do not currently exist in some of the larger planned areas for residential development (especially in the southeast portion of the City), the City and other agencies (e.g., Gilroy Unified School District) have master planned the entire area and will be implementing necessary facility and infrastructure improvements to support future residential development in these areas.” The Housing Background Report goes on to discuss a number of “opportunities for redevelopment of under- utilized properties.” It further addresses additional mechanisms to increase “Multiple Family Development Potential,” including through the update of the Gilroy 28 Higher density zoning generally correlates to the lower income categories of housing. (See § 65583.2, subd. (c)(3)(B), adopted as part of the 2004 revisions to the Housing Element Law.) 29 In view of these numbers, we need not resolve the disputed issue whether the R3 zoning density designation can ever accommodate low- and lower income housing units. The City argues that areas zoned R3 can indeed accommodate these income categories, thus reducing the corresponding ABAG fair share need to that extent, while plaintiffs deny this. zoning map, implementation of the Neighborhood Districts program, encouragement of mixed use development in the downtown area, the identification and encouragement of infill development, development of accessory units, and the establishment of minimum [***56] density limits in each residential land use category, all of which are projected to yield additional medium- and high-density housing units. Finally, the Housing Background Report notes that in the past, “infrastructure issues—specifically limited wastewater treatment capacity—ha[ve] been an obstacle to development in Gilroy, resulting in a significant reduction in housing development activity in the 1980s and early 1990s. Since completion of the new wastewater treatment facility, development activity has surged. [¶] At this time and for the foreseeable future, there are no infrastructure constraint issues that will limit housing development. However, infrastructure issues continue to be a major concern for community residents and city officials, particularly the timing of infrastructure, facility and service improvements with new development. These concerns are reflected in the General Plan policies, the City's and School District's development impact fees, and the Residential Development Ordinance—all of which attempt to manage the rate and location of growth; ensure that new development helps pay for the costs of new infrastructure needed to support it; and ensure [***57] that levels of service are maintained as new development is completed.” Under the next heading entitled “Potential Government Constraints,” the Housing Background Report goes on to discuss these impact fees and the residential development ordinance in greater detail. [*1202] CA(12)[] (12) We conclude that these portions of the City's Housing Background Report, notwithstanding the lack of site specificity, demonstrate substantial compliance with section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), of the Housing Element Law as it existed prior to the 2004 amendments. 30 From the [**396] Housing 30 The record reveals that in 1998, the City prepared a vacant and underutilized land survey, or “database,” as part of the general plan update process. The survey was presented in the form of a spreadsheet and a map of the planning area. This land use database was updated in 2001 and used for the preparation of the 2002 draft housing element. This update process involved revisions to the land use database, which provided “necessary parcel-level data” for preparation of the draft and the City's later 2003 comments in response to the 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1200; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **394; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***52 453 Page 24 of 28 Shawna Ballard Background Report, one can compare the regional housing need for the planning period by affordability with the residential development capacity under then current zoning to determine whether additional programs were needed to address the entire regional need by income level. To conclude otherwise based on petitioners' challenges under this subdivision would be to invalidate the housing element based on its merits. This would impermissibly exceed the scope of our judicial review. (Hernandez, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068; Buena Vista, supra, 175 Cal. App. 3d at p. 302.) [***58] 2. Former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A) HN23[] Former section 65583, subdivision (c), provided that the housing element shall contain a “program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element … . In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program shall do all of the following: [¶] (1)(A) Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities, including sewage collection and treatment, domestic water supply, and septic tanks and wells, needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, emergency shelters, and transitional housing in order to meet the community's housing goals as identified in subdivision (b).” 31 (Stats. Department's compliance review thereof. If site-specific information was then available, it is not clear why this information never made it into the 2002 housing element or the Housing Background Report or why the City did not later revise these documents to include this information. 31 Section 65583, subdivision (c)(1), now reads: The program shall “[i]dentify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period of the general plan with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city's or county's share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning … . Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, … [¶] (A) Where the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of 2001, ch. 671, [*1203] § 2, italics [**397] added.) Section 65583, subdivision (b)(1), in turn provided, [***59] as it still does, that the housing element shall contain a “statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing.” (Italics added.) [***60] Plaintiffs' challenge to Gilroy's 2002 housing element under former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A), comes down to the contention that the element, lacking a site-specific inventory, necessarily also lacked a program that identified adequate and specific sites to meet the regional housing need for the low- and lower income categories in enough time to permit development of such sites during the planning period. Relying principally on Hoffmaster, plaintiffs urge that a site is only “ ‘adequate’ ” if it is “ ‘available for immediate development’ of housing of the kind needed” and if it is a “site on which that kind of housing can feasibly be built.” (Italics omitted.) They contend that without a site-specific inventory containing information about the zoning, location, size, and existing use of each site, at a minimum, one cannot know if “adequate” sites have been identified in substantial compliance with former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A). Without this knowledge, the argument goes, it is impossible to determine if government programs addressing zoning and infrastructure relative to specific sites are necessary under this subdivision in order to, within the planning [***61] period, meet regional housing needs at each income level. This argument is entirely dependent subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 65583.2.” (Italics added.) Thus, under current law, this subdivision now requires site identification to accommodate the regional housing need as opposed to housing goals and the program actions must be taken during the planning period as opposed to simply being in accordance with a five-year schedule of actions. By its reference to regional housing needs, the subdivision now also expressly works in tandem with the inventory now required by section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), which under section 65583.2 is now required to be site specific. Section 65583, subdivision (c)’s prior reference to meeting housing goals in the identification of sites, and not needs, suggested, perhaps inadvertently, that these two subdivisions were directed at different housing objectives, or at least were not necessarily tied together. 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1202; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **396; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***57 454 Page 25 of 28 Shawna Ballard on a pre-2005 interpretation of section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), mandating a site-specific inventory— an interpretation we have rejected. Finally with respect to former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A), plaintiffs contend that the “adequate sites” provision further required that for each of the specifically identified sites, the program must have included a statement of the additional government actions the City will take to make that site immediately available. The City, for its part, contends that the adequate sites requirement of former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A), contemplated that a site may be adequate without being presently or immediately available for development. [*1204] In other words, sites which are suitable for development may still be “adequate” even though zoning and public service constraints to development still exist. Under the City's interpretation of the former subdivision, all that was required to substantially comply with it was inclusion in the housing element of a plan to make sites available that are suitable for development by removal or amelioration of these [***62] constraints. CA(13)[] (13) We conclude that plaintiffs overreach in their interpretation of former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A). HN24[] The statutory language did not require that sites be immediately available for development in order for them to be “adequate.” Nor did it require a showing of the feasibility of development on individual sites. 32 Nor did it require that actions designed to ameliorate developmental or zoning constraints be scheduled to occur at any particular point early in the planning period so that actual [**398] development could be completed within that period. Instead, the statute simply required a statement of administrative plans scheduled to occur over a five-year period—i.e., a program—to implement the policies, goals, and quantified objectives of the housing element. The program was merely required to identify “adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with services 32 To the extent Hoffmaster supports plaintiffs' interpretation of former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A), we disagree with that case, which defers to the Department's Q's & A's for its statutory construction. (Hoffmaster, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1110–1114.) Moreover, Hoffmaster’s statement that “for identification to be meaningful, it must necessarily be specific” is arguably dictum. (Id. at p. 1114.) The court's holding in fact did not turn on the identification of the sites (the city had provided detailed maps showing their precise location) but on their availability for development. (Id. at pp. 1112–1113.) and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels … in order to meet the [City's] housing goals … .” (Former § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A), italics added.) [***63] The result in Buena Vista supports our conclusion. The court there rejected a challenge to a housing element on the basis that it did not meet the “adequate sites” requirement of former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A). The court did so even though the element had not identified particular sites that were being made available for certain types of housing and as to that matter, the program had indicated only that city-owned land “ ‘may be offered’ ” to the public and nonprofit housing agencies for development of affordable housing. (Buena Vista, supra, 175 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 300–301.) The element stated: “ ‘This will continue the program which has committed about 226 acres of City-owned land valued in excess of $ 22.9 million to production of over 1,700 affordable units.’ ” (Id. at p. 300.) The Department, in declining to certify that the housing element was in substantial compliance [*1205] with the law, asserted that the program did not evidence “ ‘a firm commitment to implementation’ ” and that there was “ ‘no indication of how much land will be made available, its zoning, or dwelling-unit capacity.’ ” (Ibid.) The Buena Vista court upheld [***64] the City's housing element in spite of the Department's conclusions about its legal deficiencies. In so doing, the court noted that the “City states [that] San Diego is divided into 40 subareas each with its own community plan and City has set forth the capacity of each subarea community plan and the capacity remaining for further residential development. The capacity remaining exceeds City's housing needs for the five-year time span contemplated by the element.” (Buena Vista, supra, 175 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 300–301, italics added.) The court further noted in finding substantial compliance with the statute that the City had “developed a computer program to monitor development projects throughout the development process and therefore [could] obtain ‘a picture of current patterns and a one- to three-year look into the future.’ ” (Id. at p. 301.) Thus, the bases of the court's finding of substantial compliance with the “adequate sites” requirement under the former version of the statute were the kinds of statements in the housing element that fell well short of plaintiffs' interpretation of the same requirement here. The Buena Vista court was [***65] satisfied with a 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1203; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **397; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***61 455 Page 26 of 28 Shawna Ballard general indication in the housing element that site development capacity exceeded housing needs and that the City had developed a program to monitor the development process over the next three years. The court in Hernandez likewise rejected a challenge to a housing element under former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A). There, the plaintiffs contended that the City had failed to identify adequate sites for low- and moderate-income housing. The court observed that the housing element's discussion, tables, and figures under different categories of sites disclosed “ample land site identification applicable to the [**399] various categories of housing needs. The housing element includes programs in each of the categories listed in [former] section 65583[, subdivision ](c)(1).” (Hernandez, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1067.) This, the court found, substantially complied with the “adequate sites” requirement. Notably, the court did not delve into the accuracy of the information given or analyze whether or when the programs in each category would yield the desired site development. “The petitioners' argument about the nonworkability of the housing element's facts [***66] and figures is a pure attack on the merits of this aspect of the plan based on an [expert's] opinion the court was under no obligation to accept.” (Id. at p. 1068.) Thus, Hernandez too interpreted former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A), in a far more lenient manner than that urged by plaintiffs here. Indeed, plaintiffs' construction of the former statute would impose on the [*1206] City stringent requirements that appeared nowhere in the text, or in any other part of the Housing Element Law in place when the 2002 housing element was adopted. We discern from Gilroy's housing element that its “quantified objectives” were to meet the unmet regional housing need. 33 [***68] In terms of this objective, we 33 Gilroy's quantified objectives don't expressly state this. But they do imply it because the unmet regional housing needs are what are quantified against the “total number of units possible.” The housing “goals” are stated in only general narrative terms and not in terms of quantified numbers. These goals include to incorporate “[e]ffective programs that respond to residents' housing needs … .” The “policies” are also stated in narrative and not quantified terms and they include the policy to “establish relationships, continue participation in Countywide housing assistance programs, and collaborate with other public agencies and non-profit housing sponsors in the use of available programs to provide lower-cost housing in see that the element, as shown through the Housing Background Report—and as expressed in terms of quantified, potentially developable units in the various zoning density categories 34—facially reflects that the City had the ability to accommodate the ABAG unmet total regional housing need by reference to vacant acres that had already been residentially zoned. (See Housing Background Report, table 7-1.) In isolating the unmet very-low- and low-income regional housing need—the subject of plaintiffs' [***67] challenge here—the City expressed its ability to accommodate this strata by resort to lands to be rezoned. 35 As the City points out, the report goes on to articulate various programs and action items that are a part of or consistent with the general plan and that are intended to result in the projected rezoning and the development of sufficient multifamily, high-density, affordable housing units, including implementation of the Neighborhood Districts plan, so as to satisfy the unmet regional housing need for low- and very-low-income families. Based on this information and these programs and action items, we conclude that [**400] the City substantially complied with the requirements of former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A), to provide “adequate sites.” While the City could have [***69] offered more specificity, and while the element does not express that its programs and action items will yield the desired results soon enough in the planning period to permit full development within that period, [*1207] these were not required for substantial compliance with the statute. We view plaintiffs' many attacks on the housing element and its programs (some specifically raised only in the reply brief) as amounting to “argument about the nonworkability of the housing element's facts and figures” and a “pure attack on the merits of the plan.” (Hernandez, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068.) Gilroy.” As to the legal obligation of a locality to meet its stated housing needs and quantified objectives, “we note [that] identified housing needs, like quantified objectives, are simply goals, not mandated acts. [Citation.]” (Hoffmaster, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 1109, fn. 7.) 34 These include those vacant acres already zoned and those to be rezoned “through Action 1.A of the Draft General Plan and implementation of the Neighborhood Districts land use designation (based on the minimum percent mix identified in the Draft General Plan).” (See Housing Background Report, table 7-1, p. 28.) 35 Here we assume in plaintiffs' favor that such need could only be accommodated by acreage to be zoned R4. 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1205; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **398; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***65 456 Page 27 of 28 Shawna Ballard 3.Former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A)(i) Former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A)(i), went on to provide that “[w]here the inventory of sites, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels pursuant to Section 65584, the program shall provide for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner-occupied and rental multifamily residential use by right, including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for [***70] very low and low-income households.” 36 Thus, a locality need not have satisfied the requirements of this subdivision unless it had failed to provide a land inventory under section 65583, subdivision (a)(3) that provided for adequate sites to meet the housing need for all income levels. Following their contentions that the land inventory referred to in Gilroy's 2002 housing element failed to meet the requirements of section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), and that the element further failed to identify adequate sites under former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A), plaintiffs further contend that Gilroy was consequently required to provide multifamily “by right” sites under former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A)(i), and that it failed to do so. 37 The City contends that it did comply with any obligation to provide “by right” sites. [***71] Having concluded that Gilroy's 2002 housing element substantially complied with section 65583, subdivision (a)(3), of the Housing Element Law then in effect, we need not, and therefore do not, decide whether Gilroy also complied with former section 65583, subdivision (c)(1)(A)(i). B.Gilroy Did Not Violate the Least Cost Zoning Law As noted, section 65913.1 is part of the Least Cost Zoning Law. It states in relevant part that “[i]n exercising its authority to zone for land uses and in [*1208] 36 The requirements of this former subdivision have been restated and subsumed in current subdivision (c)(1)(A) of section 65583 and section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). 37 “Use by right” meant that the “use [did] not require a conditional use permit, except when the proposed project [was] a mixed-use project involving both commercial or industrial uses and residential uses.” (Former § 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A)(ii)(B); see now § 65583.2, subd. (i).) revising its housing element … , a city, county, or city and county shall designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards, in relation to zoning for nonresidential use, and in relation to growth projections of the general plan to meet housing needs for all income categories as identified in the housing element of [**401] the general plan.”38 (§ 65913.1, subd. (a), italics added.) The purpose of the Least Cost Zoning Law “is to encourage local governments to approve needed and sound housing developments that will alleviate the ‘severe shortage’ of affordable housing for low and moderate income families.” (Shea Homes Limited Partnership v. County of Alameda (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1260 [2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 739].) [***72] The parties dispute the standard of review that we apply on appeal from the trial court's denial of plaintiffs' Least Cost Zoning Law challenge. Plaintiffs contend [***73] that the issue of Gilroy's compliance with the Least Cost Zoning Law is a question of law subject to our de novo review because there are no substantial evidentiary disputes. But we agree with the City that the challenge here is primarily to Gilroy's rezoning efforts pursuant to its policies and programs set forth in the general plan, of which the housing element is a part, and the City's zoning ordinance. These matters constitute legislative enactments. (§§ 65301.5,65850.)HN25[] As such, they are presumed to be valid and “a city need not make explicit findings to support its action. [Citations.] A court cannot inquire into the wisdom of a legislative act or review the merits of a local government's policy decisions. [Citation.] Judicial review of a legislative act under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 is limited to determining whether the public agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, entirely without evidentiary support, or procedurally unfair. [Citations.]” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1195 [24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543].) 38 “ ‘Appropriate standards’ means densities and requirements with respect to minimum floor areas, building setbacks, rear and side yards, parking, the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a structure, amenities, and other requirements imposed on residential lots pursuant to the zoning authority which contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of producing housing at the lowest possible cost given economic and environmental factors, the public health and safety, and the need to facilitate the development of housing affordable to persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, and to persons and families of lower income, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.” (§ 65913.1, subd. (a)(1).) 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1207; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **400; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***69 457 Page 28 of 28 Shawna Ballard Whether an action finds evidentiary support in the record is measured by [***74] the substantial evidence test. (Taylor Bus Service, Inc. v. San Diego Bd. of Education (1987) 195 Cal. App. 3d 1331, 1340 [241 Cal. Rptr. 379].) Plaintiffs contend that the Least Cost Zoning Law required the City to take action to actually rezone a sufficient supply of adequate sites to meet the City's lower income share of need and that this action was required to have [*1209] been completed within “a reasonably prompt time after the December 2001 deadline for revising [the City's] housing element.” The City responds that the Least Cost Zoning Law does not require immediate rezoning upon revision of the housing element, that such a requirement would conflict with the five-year planning periods contemplated by the Housing Element Law, and that the element's plan for meeting its share of the regional housing need through rezoning and implementation of the Neighborhood Districts plan is all that was required to comply with section 65913.1. Echoing their challenge under the Housing Element Law, plaintiffs reply that implementation of the Neighborhood Districts plan cannot constitute compliance with the Least Cost Zoning Law because it is only a plan to “ ‘[c]onvene a Task [***75] Force,’ ” not a program “to zone sites for higher density housing.” CA(14)[](14) We conclude that the City has the better argument. First, HN26[] there is no express requirement [**402] in section 65913.1 that a locality immediately rezone upon adoption of a revised housing element. Second, even as revised, the Housing Element Law, which works in tandem with the Least Cost Zoning Law, does not require immediate action and permits a locality to act within the planning period to meet regional housing needs. (§§ 65583, subd. (c),65913, subd. (a)(3).) Third, as we have already concluded, under the Housing Element Law then in effect, Gilroy's housing element designated sufficient rezoned land, through its programs and actions to update zoning and implement the Neighborhood Districts plan, to increase affordable housing and to satisfy the regional housing need for the low- and lower income categories. Plaintiffs have not shown these legislative actions to have been arbitrary, capricious, or entirely without evidentiary support. Fourth, there is substantial evidence in the record of the positive effect that implementation of the general plan through rezoning and the Neighborhood Districts program will have on the [***76] supply of higher density, lower income housing and that it will satisfy the regional housing need in all income categories. There is also evidence of Gilroy's efforts to implement its Neighborhood Districts plan after adoption of the 2002 housing element, which dispels plaintiffs' suggestion that the plan is only one to create a task force and nothing more. Further, it is clear that while the Neighborhood Districts plan, which was relied on by the trial court in finding Gilroy compliant with the Least Cost Zoning Law, is not purely an action to rezone, its rezoning aspects are designed to yield an increased supply of affordable housing units, and if implemented, will do so according to the City's planning expert, David Driskell. And nothing about the Least Cost Zoning Law requires that compliance with it be in the form of action that is purely related to rezoning and nothing else. In sum, substantial evidence supports that in revising its 2002 housing element and general plan, legislative acts which we have found substantially [*1210] complied with the then existing version of the Housing Element Law, the City was in compliance with the Least Cost Zoning Law. Plaintiffs have failed to carry [***77] their burden of showing otherwise. 39 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Premo, Acting, P. J., and Elia, J., concurred. Appellants' petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 18, 2007, S152338. End of Document 39 We decline to consider the document offered in this court by plaintiffs relative to Gilroy Ordinance No. 2003-5, which was included in one of their motions for judicial notice. The document was not before the trial court and we will accordingly disregard it. 148 Cal. App. 4th 1174, *1208; 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374, **401; 2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 418, ***73 458 Shawna Ballard No Shepard’s Signal™ As of: October 27, 2023 11:59 AM Z Californians for Homeownership v. City of La Cañada Flintridge Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles September 5, 2023, Decided; September 5, 2023, Filed Case No. 23STCP00699 Reporter 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016 * CALIFORNIANS FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP, INC., a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, Petitioner, v. CITY OF LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE, Respondent. Core Terms housing element, sites, rezoning, substantial compliance, inventory, planning, deadline, housing, non- vacant, residential development, discontinued, zoning, revision, methodology, general plan, compliant, compliance, motion for judgment, existing use, impediment, redevelopment, one year, households, parcels, housing development, pleadings, update, cause of action, accommodate, properties Judges: [*1] Hon. James C. Chalfant, Judge. Opinion by: James C. Chalfant Opinion [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT On July 11, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094. After considering the parties' papers and oral argument, the Court confirmed its tentative ruling, as modified, and issued the final decision attached hereto as Exhibit A, which provided that "[w]hen final judgment is entered, a writ of mandate and injunction will issue pursuant to sections 65587(d)(1) and 65755 compelling the City to perform the required rezoning." On July 18, 2023, at Petitioner's request, the Court dismissed the remaining cause of action not resolved in the Court's July 11, 2023 decision. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 1. A writ of mandate shall issue pursuant to Government Code section 65587(d)(1), requiring Respondent City of La Cañada Flintridge to complete the rezoning required by Government Code sections 65583(c)(1)(A), 65583.2(c), 65588(e)(4)(C)(i) within 60 days of the date of this judgment, and requiring Respondent to file a return to the writ within 90 days of the date of this judgment; and 2. [IF ADOPTING RESPONDENT'S POSITION:] Pursuant to Government Code section 65755(a)(1), Petitioner Californians For Homeownership, Inc. is not entitled to any relief or injunction thereunder. [OR] 2. [IF ADOPTING PETITIONER'S [*2] POSITION:] Pursuant to Government Code section 65755(a)(1), Respondent City of La Cañada Flintridge is hereby enjoined from issuing any building permit pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with section 17910) of the Health and Safety Code, and all other related permits, except for permits that create new residential bedrooms or units, and except for permits subject to Government Code section 65755(b), until such time as the Court determines that Respondent has complied with the writ of mandate issued pursuant to paragraph 1. 3. If a petition or other lawsuit is filed by any party with standing, seeking to enjoin (temporarily, preliminarily, and/or permanently) the City from approving the rezoning required by the writ of mandate issued by this court pursuant to paragraph 1 above, then (a) the operation of the writ of mandate, (b) the City's obligation to file a return, and (c) any injunction described in paragraph 2, shall all be suspended during the pendency of that action. If the City is permanently enjoined from approving the rezoning, then (a) the operation of the writ of mandate, (b) the City's obligation to file a return, and (c) any injunction described in paragraph 2, shall all be terminated. 4. Costs are awarded to Petitioner in the amount of __. Dated: __ 459 Page 2 of 25 Shawna Ballard /s/ [Signature] Hon. James C. Chalfant [*3] Judge of the Superior Court EXHIBIT A Californians for Homeownership, Inc. v. City of La Canada Flintridge, 23STCP00699 decisions on (1) motion for judgment: granted on [ILLEGIBLE TEXT] motion for judgment on [ILLEGIBLE TEXT] denied; (3) motion to strike: granted. In cross-motions, Petitioner Californians for Homeownership ("CFH") moves for judgment pursuant to CCP section 1094 and Respondent City of La Canada Flintridge ("City") separately moves for judgment on the pleadings. The City also moves to strike portions of the Petition's prayer for relief. The court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply, I and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1. Petition Petitioner CFH filed the Petition on March 3, 2023, alleging causes of action for writ of traditional mandamus to compel (1) compliance with the Housing Element Law, Government Code2 sections 65587 and 65751; and (2) rezoning under section 65587. The Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation ("RHNA") system is a process to assess and allocate housing targets on a periodic basis, generally every eight years. Pet., ¶16. The Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") performs an assessment of statewide housing needs and [*4] allocates them on a region-by-region basis at different levels of affordability, based on established criteria. Pet., ¶16. This need is meted out to individual localities by a regional council of governments. Pet., ¶16. These localities must then 1 The court ordered that CFH's opposition would double as the moving papers for its motion for judgment under CCP section 1094, the City's reply would double as its opposition to CFH's motion, and CFH would not be permitted a reply. 2 All statutory citations are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified, develop an action plan - the housing element - to enact land use policies that will produce enough housing to meet their RHNA. Pet., ¶17. The state is in the middle of the sixth statewide housing element update cycle. For the City's region, this cycle covers a planning period beginning October 15, 2021, by which time the City was required to update its housing element. Pet., ¶31. Under section 65589.5(d)(1), if a city does not have a compliant adopted housing element, it cannot use its general plan and zoning standards to reject certain housing development projects. Pet., ¶23. Under sections 65583(c)(1)(A),65583.2(c), and 65588(e)(4)(C)(i), if the HCD has not certified a city's adopted housing element by October 15, 2022, the city must complete all required rezoning by then. Pet., ¶24. The failure to do so bars the city from disapproving a housing development project on a site designated for rezoning by the housing element if the project complies with the objective zoning standards that would [*5] apply once the site is properly rezoned and meets certain additional requirements. Pet., ¶25. That city also cannot have a housing element found to be in substantial compliance until after the city has completed its rezoning. Pet., ¶26. In an action for traditional mandamus, if a city's housing element does not substantially comply with state law, the court must order the city to bring it into compliance within 120 days. Pet., ¶29. After the city adopts a compliant element, it then has 120 days to rezone to obtain consistency with the new housing element. Pet., ¶29. Instead of adopting a compliant housing element by October 15, 2021, the City submitted a draft housing element to HCD on October 6, 2021. Pet., ¶32. In a letter dated December 3, 2021, HCD responded that the draft needed specific changes to comply with state law. Pet., ¶33. On October 4, 2022, the City Council adopted a housing element that failed to remedy the deficiencies identified by HCD. Pet., ¶34. HCD confirmed this in a letter dated December 6, 2022, which again asserted that the City needed to provide more information on the realistic capacity for development on the City's listed sites and the suitability of the listed [*6] non-vacant sites. Pet, ¶ 36-37. In early 2023, the City published a draft amendment to 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *2 460 Page 3 of 25 Shawna Ballard the sixth cycle housing element update. Pet., ¶40. The City asserted that this amendment resolved the issues HCD had identified. Pet., ¶40. The 2023 amendment relies on non-vacant sites to satisfy more than 50% of the City's lower-income RHNA, without any evidence that the existing uses on each of these sites will be discontinued during the planning period. Pet., ¶44. The 2023 draft element's sites inventory fails to account for the impediment created by the existing uses, including the possibility that a site will be maintained in its current use rather than redeveloped during the planning period. Pet., ¶43. Because it fails to make the analysis required under section 65583.2(g)(1), the City did not make the findings required under section 65583.2(g)(2). Pet., ¶45. The 2023 housing element also does not identify any basis for the City's assumptions as to the realistic capacity of the listed sites for residential development. Pet., ¶46. The City fails to demonstrate that it will affirmatively further fair housing under section 65583(c)(10). Pet., ¶7. The City also fails to assess the relationship between that goal and the sites identified for housing development [*7] as required under section 65583(a)(3). Pet., ¶47. On February 21, 2023, CFH sent a letter to the City identifying deficiencies in the draft amended housing element. The City adopted the 2023 housing element later that day. Pet., ¶41. The City has failed to complete its required rezoning by the deadlines in sections 65583(c)(1)(A),65583.2(c), and 65588(e)(4)(C)(i). Pet, ¶48. The 2023 housing element does not substantially comply with state law and the City has not complied with the rezoning requirement and deadline in section 65583(c)(1)(A). Pet., ¶¶ 54, 62. CFH seeks (1) a writ of mandate compelling the City to adopt a revised housing element and complete the required rezoning and (2) an injunction. Pet. Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ 1-3. CFH also seeks a declaration that (1) the 2023 element does not substantially comply with state law, (2) the City has not had a compliant housing element from October 16, 2021 until the City passes a compliant one, (3) under section 65589.5(d)(1) and (d)(5), the City may not disapprove a housing development project where either at least 20% of the total units will be sold or rented to lower income households or 100% to moderate income households, or condition its approval in a manner that makes it infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or [*8] moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, and (4) section 65583(g) applies to the City because it did not timely complete required rezoning. Pet. Prayer for Relief, ¶4. CFH will also seek attorney's fees under CCP section 1021.5 and costs. Pet. Prayer for Relief, ¶¶ 5-6. 2.Course of Proceedings On March 6, 2023, the City served the City with the Petition. On April 25, 2023, the court set the instant hearing date for cross-motions for judgment pursuant to CCP section 1094, with instructions for the parties to stipulate to a briefing schedule. B.Applicable Procedure 1.Motion for Judgment A motion for judgment under section 1094 is a mechanism to obtain a streamlined review on a particular undisputed issue based on undisputed facts or the administrative record. Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara, (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1293.See also 2 CEB California Administrative Mandamus §13.23 (3d ed. 2007). When a question of fact is raised by the respondent's answer, the petitioner has the right to countervail it with proof.CCP §1091;Lassen v. City of Alameda. (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 44, 47. If the facts are undisputed or only a question of law is raised, the court may hear the matter upon the papers filed and argument. Id. at 47. The petitioner also may waive the right to present evidence and the matter may be heard under CCP section 1094. Ibid. If a question of fact is raised by the answer, a CCP section 1094 motion is not appropriate, and the matter must be [*9] heard at trial. See id. at 48. In denying a CCP section 1094 motion, the court may decide that the facts are disputed and hence the motion is procedurally defective, or it may decide that the undisputed facts/record show the moving party cannot prevail on that issue. 2.Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings A motion for judgment on the pleadings has the same function as a general demurrer, but it is made after the time for demurrer has expired. Weil & Brown, Civil Proceedings Before Trial, (1998) §7:275. The rules governing demurrers apply to statutory 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *6 461 Page 4 of 25 Shawna Ballard motions for judgment on the pleadings except as provided by CCP section 438.Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp., ("Cloud") (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999;Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indemnity Co. of America, ("Lance") (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 194, 198. A motion by defendant can be made on the ground that (1) the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject of one or more of the causes of action alleged or (2) the complaint (or any cause of action) does not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. CCP §438(c). Except with leave of court, a motion for judgment on the pleadings cannot be made after entry of a pretrial conference order or 30 days before the initial trial date, whichever is later. CCP §438(e). A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings [*10] or by matters that can be judicially noticed. See, e.g., Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, (1998) §§ 7:275, 7:322; Lance, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at 198. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Cloud, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 999.Both a demurrer and a motion for judgment on the pleadings accept as true all material factual allegations of the challenged pleading, unless contrary to law or to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. The sole issue is whether the complaint, as it stands, states a cause of action as a matter of law. Mechanical Contractors Assn. v. Greater Bay Area Assn., (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 672, 677;Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp., (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 27.On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court may take judicial notice of something that cannot reasonably be controverted even if it negates an express allegation of the pleading. See Columbia Casualty Co. v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co., (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 457;Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc., (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549. In addition to statutory grounds, a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made under the common law at any time either prior to or at the trial itself. See Stoops v. Abbassi, (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 644, 650; Weil & Brown, Civil Proceedings Before Trial (2015) §7:277. C.Governing Law 1.The General Plan In 1965, the Legislature enacted the Planning and Zoning Law (§65000 et seq.).County of Santa Barbara v. Purcell Inc., (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 169, 174. That law declares: "The Legislature […] finds that decisions involving the future growth of the state, most of which are made and will continue to be made at the local level [*11] should be guided by an effective planning process, including the local general plan, and should proceed within the framework of officially approved statewide goals and policies directed to land use, population growth and distribution, development, open space, resource preservation and utilization, air and water quality, and other related physical, social and economic development factors." §65030.1 (emphasis added). Under the Planning and Zoning Law, each city has a planning agency (or may choose its city council to play that role). §65100. Each city must "adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city." §65300. A general plan consists of a "statement of development policies […] setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals." §65302.) A general plan includes multiple elements: land use, circulation (movement of people and vehicles), housing, conservation, open space, noise, safety, and environmental justice. Ibid. The city's planning agency must implement (§65103) and administer (§65400 et seq.) the general plan. In 1971, the Legislature required general law cities' zoning ordinances to be consistent with their general plans. §65067. Before that, a general plan was considered [*12] "merely an 'interesting study.'" DeVita v. County of Napa, ("DeVita") (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 772 (quoting City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove, (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 532). The Legislature subsequently enacted statutes aimed at requiring cities to act consistently with their general and specific plans. See §65300.5 (requiring that city's general plan and elements "comprise an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies"); §65301.5 (subjecting adoption of general plan or amendment to mandamus challenge); §65359 (requiring city's specific plan to be consistent with general plan); §65450 (similar); §65454 (similar); §65455 (requiring local public works projects, tentative maps, parcel maps, and zoning ordinances to be consistent with specific plan); and §65460.8 (consistency requirement for transit villages). Also in 1971, the Legislature mandated that charter cities, not just general law cities, adopt general plans with the mandatory elements. DeVita, supra, 9 Cal.4th at 772; see §65300.5. In 1979, the Legislature extended the general plan consistency requirement to charter 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *9 462 Page 5 of 25 Shawna Ballard cities with more than two million people (i.e., Los Angeles). City of Los Angeles v. State of California, (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 526, 531. All jurisdictions, including charter cities, must include a housing element in the general plan. §65302(c); Building Industry Assn. v. Marin Mun. Water Dist., (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1641, 1650. In taking actions pursuant to the planning and zoning laws, a city, county, or local agency3 cannot prohibit or discriminate against any [*13] residential development or emergency shelter based on: (1) method of financing; (2) the occupation, age (except housing for older persons), race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, or genetic information of owners or intended occupants; (3) income level of intended residents; or (4) status as a multifamily residential project that is consistent with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. §65308(b). Prohibited discrimination includes the denial or conditioning or residential development or shelter because of the method of financing or occupancy by those against whom discrimination is prohibited. §65308(c). 3.The Housing Element Law In 1969, the Legislature enacted the Housing Element Law. §65580 et seq. The Housing Element Law declares that the state has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. §65589.5(a)(2)(A). The "availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Califoraian is a priority [*14] of the highest order." §65580. The Housing Element Law recognizes the shared responsibility of state and local government to facilitate housing development for "all economic segments of the community" (§65580(b), (d)), and the need for "cooperation of all levels of government" for the provision of low- and moderate-income housing (§65580(c)). The Legislature declared that "[designating and maintaining a supply of land and adequate sites suitable, feasible, and available for the development of 3 For convenience, the court will refer to cities and not counties or other local agencies in discussing the Housing Element Law. housing sufficient to meet the locality's housing need for all income levels is essential to achieving the state's housing goals…." §65580(f). "It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article [to] assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal." §65581; see also San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco, (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 596, 609 (discussing purpose of Housing Element Law). The housing element of a general plan must contain four basic sections: (1) an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of the resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs (§65583(a)); (2) a statement of the city's goals, objectives, and policies relative to maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing (§65583(b)); (3) a [*15] five- year schedule of action to achieve the goals and objectives (§65583(c)); and (4) a review and evaluation of the prior element (§65583(d)). The housing element must be consistent with the policies identified in the general plan. §§ 65300, 65582(f). To plan for the community's share of the state housing needs, a housing element must include an assessment of the existing and projected housing need for each income level, identify resources and constraints relevant to meeting that need, and implement programs to address the need. §65583(a), (c). The five-year schedule of action must list actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city's share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory without rezoning. §65583(c)(1). This program shall identify sites as needed to affirmatively further fair housing and to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multi-family rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive [*16] housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. §65583(c)(1). When this inventory does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels, rezoning shall be completed no later than three years after either the adoption of the housing element or 90 days after receipt of comments from the relevant department. §65583(c)(1)(A). 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *12 463 Page 6 of 25 Shawna Ballard Notwithstanding the foregoing, a city that fails to adopt a housing element that HCD has found to be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law within 120 days of the statutory deadline for adoption of the housing element shall complete rezoning of those sites no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element. §65583(c)(1)(A). At least 90 days before the city adopts a housing element, or at least 60 before adoption of an amendment to the housing element, it must be submitted to HCD to review whether it complies with the Housing Element Law. §65585(b)(1). A city also must regularly review and revise its housing element to make sure that it continues to advance the city's goals, objectives, and policies. §65588(e)(4). Each year, the city must report to both the Governor's Office of Planning & Research and HCD the progress [*17] made in implementing the programs of the housing element. §65400. Based on that report, HCD has the power to find that a housing element is not in compliance with the city's general plan. §65585(d). In such an instance, HCD may refer the matter to the Office of the Attorney General for an enforcement action. §65585(i), (j). Cities are required to periodically update their housing element consistent with the schedule set forth by the Legislature. §65588(e). 4. Contents of the Housing Element Every eight years, HCD, relying on data supplied by the Department of Finance, assigns a target number or goal for additional housing units in each region of the state in a RHNA divided into four income levels: very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income. §65584(a)(1), (f). HCD, in consultation with the regional council of governments, allocates a share of the regional housing need for each income level to each city and county in its region. §§ 65584.01, 65584.05. The city must prepare a housing element that accommodates its allocated share of the RHNA. See §§ 65583, 65583.2. The city shall consider HCD-adopted guidelines in preparation of the housing element. §65585(a). HCD is required to review the drafts and make written findings whether the draft substantially complies with [*18] state law. §65585(b), (d). The city shall consider HCD's findings in adopting its housing element. §65585(e). In any action challenging the housing element, there is a rebuttable presumption of its validity if HCD has made a finding that the housing element substantially complies with the Housing Element Law. §65589.3. A city's housing element shall include an inventory of sites suitable and available for residential development during the planning period. §§ 65583(a)(3), 65583.2(a). The inventory must detail information about the sites - such as size and type of zoning -- as well as a determination of what portion of the RHNA each site can accommodate by income level. §65583.2(b), (c). To aid this determination, the Housing Element Law provides set densities (housing units per acre) deemed appropriate to accommodate lower-income housing. §65583.2 (c)(3)(B). For jurisdictions in a metropolitan county, sites allowing at least 30 units per acre represent the appropriate density to facilitate lower- income development. §65583.2(c)(3XB)(iv). When a jurisdiction's inventory lacks the sites to accommodate its full RHNA allocation, its housing element must include a program to rezone and make additional sites available within three years to accommodate any unmet RHNA. §65583(c)(1)(A). The inventory of land [*19] shall include, inter alia, a listing of properties by assessor parcel number, the size of each property and its zoning, and a map of their location. §65583.2(b). For non-vacant sites, the inventory shall also include a description of the existing use of each property. §65583.2(b)(3). If the site is owned by the city or county, the description shall also include whether there are any plans to dispose of the property during the planning period and how the city or county will comply with the Government Code's provisions on surplus lands (§54220 et seq.) §65583.2(b)(3). 5. The 2017 Amendment to Section 65583.2 On September 15, 2017, the Assembly released an Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 1397, which would modify elements of the Housing Element Law. RJN 754. The author of AB 1397 made the following observation about the then-existing site inventory requirements in state Housing Element Law: "[C]urrent law has a number of gaps that allow jurisdictions to circumvent this critical planning obligation, relying on sites that aren't truly available or feasible for residential development, especially multifamily development. For example, the law permits local governments to…designate non-vacant sites with an ongoing commercial or residential use, even though 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *16 464 Page 7 of 25 Shawna Ballard the current [*20] use is expected to continue indefinitely. Even after many years of relying on these sites that never end up as new housing, the law allows jurisdictions to continue to count them as a potential location for housing. RJN 759 (emphasis added). The adopted AB 1397 made changes to the Housing Element Law, including imposing more specific requirements on housing element sites inventories and including a new requirement codified in section 65583.2(g)(2): "[W]hen a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites…to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use…does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. As adopted, section 65583.2 provides in pertinent part as follows. The city shall specify the additional development potential for each non-vacant site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology [*21] used to determine the development potential. §65583.2(g)(1). The methodology shall consider factors that include the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the city's or county's past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.§65583.2(g)(1). When the city or county is relying on non-vacant sites to accommodate 50% or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology shall demonstrate that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. §65583.2(g)(2). An existing use is presumed to impede additional residential development absent contrary findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. §65583.2(g)(2). 6.The [*22] Penalty for Untimely Compliance Historically, there was no statutory penalty for a city's failure to timely adopt a housing element. In 2008, the Legislature modified the update schedule for housing elements and added a penalty provision. Under the new schedule, housing elements were required to be updated every eight years, but tardy local governments were subject to a new requirement for a mid-cycle housing element update after four years. Stats. 2008, ch. 728 (SB 375). This schedule and penalty provision lasted through the fifth housing element update cycle. On July 5, 2021, AB 1398 proposed to amend section 65588 to state that if a jurisdiction adopts a housing element more than one year after the statutory deadline, HCD shall not find that jurisdiction's housing element in substantial compliance per section 65585 until all required rezoning is complete. RJN775. On September 9, 2021, the Assembly released an Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 1398. RJN 762. This bill added a new penalty to the Housing Element Law. RJN 762. Until then, local governments that failed to timely update housing elements would have to pass such updates every four years instead of eight. RJN 762. That approach had failed to facilitate [*23] housing production despite requiring a substantial amount of additional work for local governments and the HCD. RJN 762. Per AB 1398, a city that adopted its housing element over 120 days late would be required to complete all housing element rezonings within one year of the housing element deadline rather than the more than three years afforded to cities that timely adopt housing elements. RJN 762. The Assembly analysis explained: "This bill would revise the penalty for failure to adopt a housing element in a timely way. It removes the existing requirement that non-compliant local governments update their housing element approximately every four years…. "In place of the existing requirement, this bill would require that any local government that fails to adopt its housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline would only have one year from the housing element's statutory deadline to complete any required rezonings, instead of the current allotment of three years and 120 days…." 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *19 465 Page 8 of 25 Shawna Ballard "This bill also adds that, to avoid the expedited timeline, the housing element must be determined by HCD to be substantially compliant with Housing Element Law. This change removes the circumstances [*24] where jurisdictions adopt non-compliant housing elements to avoid penalties." RJN 762-63 (emphasis added). As provided in AB 1398, for the sixth revision thereafter, a local government that does not adopt a housing element that HCD has found to be in substantial compliance within 120 days of the applicable deadline shall comply with sections 65583(c)(1)(A) and 65583.2(c) within one year of the statutory deadline to revise the housing element. §65588(e)(4)(C)(i). If a city adopts a housing element more than one year after the statutory deadline, it is not in substantial compliance until it has completed the rezoning required by sections 65583(c)(1)(A) and 65583.2(c). §65588(e)(4)(C)(iii). This new penalty applied to all housing element updates developed as part of the sixth housing element cycle, including housing elements in Southern California. After the law was passed, Southern California jurisdictions expressed concerns that it heightened the penalty for late adoption close to the due date for sixth cycle housing elements in that region. Southern California successfully lobbied for a limited exception that was enacted in 2022. As codified in section 65583.4(a), a city qualifies for an exception to the section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii) penalty if it "adopts a sixth revision of the housing element and the department finds the adopted element [*25] to be in substantial compliance with this article within one year of the statutory deadline established pursuant to Section 65888 for adoption of the housing element". §65583.4(a)(3) (emphasis added). 7. The Builder's Remedy Where a city fails to timely complete required zoning, it may not disapprove a project that is on a site required to be rezoned and complies with the applicable objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria. §65583(g)(1). A city may not disapprove a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless it makes written findings based upon a preponderance of evidence as to one of five conclusions. §65589.5(d). One such conclusion is that the city has adopted a housing element that has been revised in accordance with section 65588, the housing element complies with the Housing Element Law, and the city has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. §65589.5(d)(1). Alternatively, the city may find that the housing development project or emergency shelter is inconsistent [*26] with both the jurisdiction's zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the application was deemed complete, and the city has adopted a revised housing element in accordance with section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. §65589.5(d)(5). 8. Judicial Review Any judicial review of a housing element under the Housing Element Law shall be brought as traditional mandamus pursuant to CCP section 1085 and shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements therein. §65587(b). D. Statement of Facts4 1. The City's Evidence California is currently in its sixth housing-element update cycle. For cities within the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") region, the statutory deadline was October 15, 2021 for adoption of the sixth revision of the housing element for the October 15, 2021-October 15, 2029 planning period. §65588(e)(3)(A) (deadline is eight years after deadline for the fifth cycle, which was October 15, 2013). Various extensions have been granted provided cities meet 4 The City requests judicial notice of (1) City Resolution No. 22-35 adopted by the City Council on October 4, 2022 (City RJN Ex. 1) and (2) Resolution No. 23-08 adopted by the City Council on February 21, 2023 (City RJN Ex. 2). The requests are granted. Evid. Code §452(b). CFH requests judicial notice of (1) the September 15, 2017 Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 1397 (CFH RJN Ex. 1), (2) the September 9, 2021 Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 1398 (CFH RJN Ex. 2), and (3) the bill text of AB 1398 as of July 5, 2021 (CFH RJN Ex. 3). The requests are granted. Evid. Code §§ 452(b), (c). 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *23 466 Page 9 of 25 Shawna Ballard rezoning requirements. See City Mot. at 11. 2. The October 2022 Housing Element [*27] On October 3, 2021, the City submitted a draft of its 2021-2029 housing element to HCD. RJN 5. On December 3, 2021, HCD provided the City with a comment letter on this draft. RJN 5. The City revised the proposed housing element to comply with the Housing Element Law and HCD's comments. RJN 5. On August 25, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-51 to recommend approval of the City's housing element. RJN 11. The City Council held duly noticed public hearings for interested parties to comment on the 2021-2029 housing element. RJN 12. On October 4, 2022, the City Council passed Resolution No. 22-35 adopting the housing element. RJN 12. 3. The 2023 Housing Element On February 21, 2023, the City Council passed Resolution No. 23-08 adopting a revised version of the housing element. RJN 11, 16. The recitals acknowledge that the October 4, 2022 housing element had been submitted to HCD and that the City received a comment letter from HCD on December 6, 2022. RJN 12. The recitals assert that, on January 12, 2023, the City and HCD had a technical discussion of the items identified in HCD's letter. RJN 12. During this discussion, HCD representatives determined that the October 2022 housing [*28] element required no substantive changes or new data or policy decisions, and the City only needed to provide clarifications about the existing information in the housing element. RJN 12. The 2023 housing element provides these clarifications without substantive policy changes. RJN 12. The 2023 element explains that there are limited opportunities for new housing in the City due to the small amount of undeveloped land, the 3-4% commercial vacancy rate, the narrow commercial panels that that make redevelopment difficult, the fact that single family homes have never been redeveloped to multi-family, the use of open spaces as joint use facilities by other entities, and the lack of any land zoned for industrial use. RJN 12, 15-16. The 2023 housing element explains that the City contacted all commercial property owners and religious institutions and removed sites whose owners reported insurmountable impediments from the inventory. RJN 13, 15. The Resolution's recitals state that the October 2022 housing element was already substantially compliant with Housing Element Law and the 2023 version only clarifies existing information. RJN 14. Because more than 50% of the parcels in the City's site [*29] inventory are non-vacant, the City adopted a finding that the existing uses will likely be discontinued during the planning period and the development potential on these nonvacant sites would not constitute an impediment to future housing development. RJN 15 (§4). There is substantial evidence in housing element section 9.4 and Appendix C to support this finding. RJN 15. In selecting the parcels included on the site inventory, the City contacted all commercial property owners and religious institutions and removed from the inventory those that requested it or reported insurmountable impediments. RJN 15. It increased the minimum density for lower income units based on an economic development analysis. RJN 15. As to religious institution overlay sites, the City only included 50% of the parking area and currently undeveloped areas. RJN 15. As to other areas, the City considered the small amount of undeveloped land, the 3-4% commercial vacancy rate, small and narrow commercial parcels that that make redevelopment difficult, the fact that there is no history of single-family homes being redeveloped to multifamily homes, the use of open spaces as joint use facilities by other entities, and the lack [*30] of any land zoned for industrial use. RJN 15-16. a. Housing Element Section 9.4 Housing element section 9.4 discusses how the City identified housing opportunities and resources for this cycle. RJN 105-24. Section 9.4.1.2 notes that the City has approved 35 housing units as of July 1, 2021, and has 91 units in various stages of review and approval. RJN 107-08. Outside agencies still need to approve the units, and the City has no control over that timeline. RJN 108. After accounting for units approved and pending approval, a remaining need for 486 units exists. RJN 108. See RJN 109. Section 9.4.1.3 explains that the City has very little vacant land left and it had to identify vacant properties and underutilized sites to fulfill its RHNA obligations. RJN 109. The City's strategy is to identify such properties by primarily focusing on the Foothill Boulevard corridor. RJN 109. The University of California at Berkeley ("UC Berkeley") has developed a methodology for the State of California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *26 467 Page 10 of 25 Shawna Ballard ("BTHA") that uses the ratio of land improvements to land value (sometimes, 'TLR") to facilitate identification of underutilized sites with potential for infill [*31] or redevelopment at a higher density residential. RJN 110. Based on this measure, properties in non-single-family areas are underutilized if the total value of improvements on the site is less than the total value of the underlying land. RJN 110. Additionally, section 9.4.1.3 notes the national trend for online shopping with a consequent decline in demand for commercial business areas. RJN 110. There is a need to provide greater flexibility in land use, including mixed use development and even stand-alone uses in traditional commercial areas. RJN 110. Additionally, there are many underutilized parcels in the City constructed prior to the 1980s, with 1953 as the median year for construction of these older parcels. RJN 110. Many are antiquated commercial uses with significant amounts of surface parking. RJN 110. These properties have similar characteristics as other properties that were redeveloped in the past, including the Town Center project. RJN 110. Section 9.4.1.4 provides an overview of each zone and residential use. RJN 111-20. It also calculates the development potential based on the lower limit of development density. RJN 111. To estimate development potential, the lower limit [*32] of development density was used rather than maximum density. RJN 111. The City met with developers and identified development standards that can facilitate R-3 and mixed-use development at the target density, which is a component of the program. RJN 111. Section 9.4.1.4's discussion of a proposed religious institution overlay zone asserted that the existing development on religious institution parcels will not impede development of housing. RJN 116. The acreage identified on the sites inventory is limited to 50% of the parking area and open space areas of these institutions which allows existing buildings to remain. RJN 116. The number of constructed accessory dwelling units ("ADU") per year drastically increased: five in 2018, two in 2019, 13 m 2020, and ten in 2021. RJN 118. The City issued 24 permits for ADUs and junior ADUs ("JADU") in just the first six months of 2022. RJN 118-19. The City estimates approval of 15 ADUs annually, a total of 120 ADUs over the eight-year planning period. RJN 119-20. Section 9.4.1.6 summarizes the adequacy of the site inventory to meet the City's RHNA share. RJN 120. Table HE-48 summarizes the City's accommodation of the RHNA for all income groups by [*33] zone - a total of 689 units across all income groups and 483 units for lower-income groups. RJN 120. Table HE-49 calculates a surplus of 323 units in the lower income category. RJN 120-21.5 b. Housing Element Section 9.5 Section 9.5 focuses on the housing plan and outlines goals and policies the City wants to implement to address important housing-related issues during the 2021-2029 planning period. RJN 125. Goals include providing a wide variety of housing types to meet the needs of existing and future residents, ensuring maintenance and preservation of existing housing, facilitating housing for low- and moderate-income households and those with special needs, ensuring compatibility with the natural and built environment and the safety of persons and property, and promoting equal housing opportunity. RJN 125-26. Section 9.5.1.5 cites AB 686, which creates an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing through the housing elements. RJN 130. To make adequate provision for the housing needs of all segments of the community, the City must ensure equal and fair housing opportunities are available to all residents through its policies and programs, RJN 131. Section 9.5.2 lists the programs [*34] that define specific activities for the City to achieve the goals and policies of the 2023 housing element. RJN 131-32. Program 1 admits that the City's rezoning of adequate sites was due October 15, 2022. RJN 132. The City sought to adopt the housing element in October 2022 and was actively pursuing the implementation of the rezoning program. RJN 132. After it adopts the housing element, it plans to amend the land use element to redesignate and amend the Zoning Map to rezone the properties identified in the sites inventory to accommodate the RHNA by October 2023. RJN 132. 5 Appendix C is a site inventory spreadsheet that details each parcel's parcel number, size, general plan and zoning, existing uses on non-vacant sites, realistic capacity, and level of affordability by income group, as well as address, consolidation potential, density range and density factor, unit potential, year built, whether the ILR exceeds 1.0, and criteria for including the site. RJN 633-46. Under "Criteria," many of the entries state that the site is currently underutilized based on its ILR, its buildings are over 30 years old, and/or has antiquated commercial uses with significant surface parking. RJN 634-40. 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *30 468 Page 11 of 25 Shawna Ballard Program 3 commits the City to addressing governmental constraints to development of multifamily and affordable housing. RJN 134. It provides ten quantified objectives and associated timeframes to meet this requirement, mostly through modifications to the City's zoning code. RJN 134-35. Program 4 focuses on changes to the Downtown Village Specific Plan ("DVSP"), including rezonings, revisions to development standards, and allowing residential uses in the DVSP ministerially. RJN 135-36. Program 5 involves adoption of a religious institution housing overlay zone that would encourage churches to build or partner with others [*35] to build affordable housing by-right. RJN 137. The use of church land for affordable housing helps affordable housing developers by minimize the cost for land, risk, and time to process development applications. RJN 137. The overlay would require units to be affordable to extremely low- and lower-income households, or to moderate-income households, at a percentage to be determined. RJN 137-38. Program 6 amends the Zoning Code to require by-right approval of a housing development that includes 20% of the units as housing affordable to lower income households. RJN 138. Program 8 includes several programs to encourage development of ADUs and JADUs. RJN 139. The City would develop and advertise programs that facilitate the development of a minimum of 15 ADUs/JADUs per year with immediate implementation. RJN 139. It would also develop a monitoring program to ensure the City is on track to meeting ADU construction goals in advance of the 2023 Annual Progress Report that must be submitted to HCD. RJN 140. The monitoring program would include questions about proposed rent on the ADU building permit application. RJN 140. Another program would provide incentives to those who participate in the [*36] ADU Amnesty Program if they commit to renting to extremely low-income households. RJN 140. Program 13 focuses on upgrading and repairing apartment buildings to provide more multi-family housing. RJN 144-45. The City plans to fund this through continued participation in the San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust Fund. RJN 144. Program 23 commits the City to promoting housing opportunities for all people and explains that the City will be engaged in a variety of activities and programs to achieve this. RJN 151. Table HE-50 highlights actions to address priority issues, programs and objectives, specific commitments, timeline, geographic targeting, and metrics. RJN 152-55. Table HE-51 summarizes quantified objectives for the planning period by income level, including the number of units to be constructed and rehabilitated, at-risk units to be preserved, and households to be assisted. RJN 157. c. Housing Element Assessment of Fair Housing Appendix D contains the City's Assessment of Fair Housing. RJN 648-719. Section D.2.3 presents Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") information on racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty in the vicinity of the City. RJN 673. There are none [*37] in the City itself, with the closest area to the south and west in the City of Los Angeles. RJN 673. Section D.3 discusses access to opportunity based on race or ethnicity and poverty status. RJN 678. The Tax Credit Allocation Committee ("TCAC") found that the entire City was in a "Highest Resource" area. RJN 681. The section also summarizes the City's economic, education, environmental health, and transportation access scores. RJN 684. Section D.4 summarizes housing problems by ethnicity, tenure, and location. RJN 692-701. Housing problems include housing, overcrowding, and cost burden. RJN 692. Figure D-23 shows that no sensitive communities within the City were vulnerable, or at risk of displacement. RJN 704. Section D.5 describes the history of residential development in La Canada Flintridge, including key factors that influenced the patterns and types of housing constructed in the City. RJN 705-06. This includes Home Owners' Loan Corporation Neighborhood Redlining Grade maps, historical socioeconomic factors, and topographic and fire challenges that have influenced development in the City. RJN 705-06. Section D.6 summarizes the sites inventory by neighborhood. RJN 707. It emphasizes [*38] the Foothill Boulevard Corridor as the only area in the City with both sewer and access to public transportation. RJN 707. Figure D-25 shows the geographic distribution of sites in the sites inventory by census tract and income category. RJN 710. Section D.7 and Table D-24 summarize fair housing issues and group them based on whether they concern enforcement and outreach, integration and segregation, 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *34 469 Page 12 of 25 Shawna Ballard racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, access to opportunities, and disproportionate housing needs. RJN 715-16. Section D.8 identifies and prioritizes key contributing factors that affect fair housing choices. RJN 717-19. These include insufficient or inaccessible outreach and enforcement, concentration of senior population, lack of income diversity, displacement risk to low-income households due to economic pressures, and lack of affordable housing. RJN 717-19. 2. CFH's Evidence On July 15, 2022, HCD sent an email to the City and other jurisdictions in SCAG that had not been found in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. Coy Deck, ¶11. The letter outlined the compliance timeline under section 65583.4(a). Coy Deck, ¶11. If HCD found an adopted housing element in compliance by October 15, 2022, that jurisdiction [*39] may maintain the three-year rezoning deadline. Coy Deck, ¶11. A housing element is only "in compliance" once HCD has completed its review of the adopted element and issued a review letter finding the element in compliance with Housing Element Law. Coy Deck, ¶11. HCD later posted the same information on its website. Coy Deck, ¶11. On October 7, 2022, HCD received the City's October 2022 sixth cycle housing element update. Coy Deck, ¶6. On December 6, 2022, after review of the element, HCD determined that that it was not in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law under section 65585. Coy Deck, ¶6. The October 2022 element needed critical revisions, including additional analysis to demonstrate the adequacy of the sites included in its site inventory and policy and programmatic changes. Coy Deck, ¶6. On January 12, 2023, HCD and City staff met to discuss HCD's review of the October 2022 housing element. Coy Deck, ¶7. The City has called this a "technical discussion" where the HCD said that the City did not need to make substantive changes or provide new data or policy decisions and just needed to clarify the information already in the element. Coy Deck, ¶7. This description is inaccurate. Coy Deck, ¶8. In truth, HCD offered advice on additional analysis the City [*40] could include to demonstrate compliance with sites inventory and to further fair housing requirements. Coy Deck, ¶8. HCD also suggested potential policy and program changes. Coy Deck, ¶8. On February 23, 2023, the City sent HCD the 2023 housing element. Coy Deck, ¶9. On April 24, 2023, after review of the 2023 element, HCD determined that it could not find the City's element in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. Coy Deck, ¶9. Pursuant to section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii), HCD remains unable to certify the housing element or any subsequent revision until the City completes all the rezoning required. Coy Decl., ¶9. The City's adopted housing element provides minimal analysis of the impediment that existing uses on the City's non-vacant housing element sites presents. Gelfand Decl., ¶3. By comparison, cities like South Pasadena provide details like whether a property owner has expressed interest in developing higher density housing during the planning period. Gelfand Decl, ¶3. On May 1, 2023, the City Council considered an appeal related to a proposed builder's remedy project. Gelfand Decl., ¶4, Ex. A. The project had 80 units, 20% of which would be for low-income residents. Gelfand Decl., ¶4, Ex. A. The City determined that [*41] the builder's remedy under the HAA is not available to applicants pursuing housing projects in the City since October 4, 2022. Gelfand Decl, ¶4, Ex. A. Because HCD did not determine that the City's housing element was in substantial compliance by October 15, 2022, the City cannot rely on the three-year deadline to rezone. Coy Decl., ¶11. Contrary to the City's contention, cities can and have completed required rezoning prior to or simultaneously with adopting housing element updates and have achieved HCD certification in that approach. Coy Decl., ¶12. D. Analysis Petitioner CFH moves for judgment under CCP section 1094. Respondent City moves for judgment on the pleadings for both causes of action of the Petition. The City also moves to strike portions of the Petition's prayer for declaratory relief. 1. Meet and Confer The rules governing demurrers apply to statutory motions for judgment on the pleadings except as provided by CCP section 438. Cloud, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at 999. The City presents evidence that it complied with the requirement to meet and confer before filing this motion. See CCP §430.41(a). On March 29, 2023, the City's counsel contacted CFH's 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *38 470 Page 13 of 25 Shawna Ballard counsel to schedule a meet and confer. Villareal Decl., \2. During a call later that day, the City asserted [*42] that the Petition's conclusory statements about the City's housing element are insufficient to support the Petition's two causes of action and requested declaratory relief. Villareal Decl., ¶¶ 2-4. CFH disagreed. Villareal Decl., ¶ 3-4. Subsequent meet and confer efforts in April 2023 failed to resolve the dispute. Villareal Decl., ¶5. The City filed a demurrer and motion to strike, but the court then ordered the parties to instead submit cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings because the matter presents only an issue of law. Villareal Deck, ¶¶ 6-7.6 The City has complied with its meet and confer requirement. No meet and confer is required for a CCP section 1094 motion for judgment. 2. Improper Evidence The City asks the court to disregard the two declarations supporting CFH's motion. Mot. at 2.7 The City asserts that a motion for judgment on the pleadings is limited to judicially noticeable matters and those on the face of the Petition. Id; Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999. The City confuses CFH's motion for judgment with a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On April 25, 2023, the court permitted the parties to file cross- motions for judgment under CCP section 1094. If a petition for writ of mandate presents no triable issue of fact or is based [*43] solely on an administrative record, the matter may be determined by the court by noticed motion of any party for a judgment on the peremptory writ. CCP §1094. CCP section 1094 expressly permits use of either the administrative record or undisputed facts. There is only one piece of disputed evidence. Resolution No. 23-08 asserts that during a discussion between the City and HCD on January 12, 2023, HCD representatives determined that the October 2022 housing element required no substantive changes or new data or policy decisions. RJN 12. A HCD employee asserts that Resolution No. 23-08 mischaracterizes the 6 This is incorrect. The court permitted motions for judgment pursuant to CCP section 1094. 7 The court will cite to the City's motion as "Mot.", CFH's motion and opposition as "Opp.", and the City's opposition and reply as "Reply". conversation. Coy Decl., ¶7. In the January 12, 2023 conversation, HCD both suggested policy and program changes and offered advice on additional analysis to demonstrate compliance with sites inventory and to further fair housing requirements. Coy Decl., ¶8. As this evidence is disputed, the court cannot consider it for CFH's motion for judgment. With the exception of this disputed evidence, the City's written objection is overruled for CFH's motion for judgment. CFH's evidence will not be considered for the City's motion for judgment on the pleadings. 3. First Cause of Action a. The Housing Element and Judicial [*44] Review The court's role in a challenge to a city's housing element is to determine whether it substantially complies with the requirements of the Housing Element Law. Fonseca v. City of Gilrov, ("Fonseca") (1174) 148 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1191. "Substantial compliance" refers to actual compliance with respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute and disregards simple technical imperfections of form. Buena Vista Gardens Apartments Assn. v. City of San Diego Planning Pent., (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 289, 297- 298. A city's adoption of a housing element is a legislative act entitled to some deference and there is a presumption it is valid. Fonseca, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 1191. The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate that the housing element is inadequate. Id. If the city substantially complies with statutory requirements by containing the elements mandated by the statute, the legislative action will not be set aside unless arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. Id. Judicial review of a housing element does not examine the merits of the element or the wisdom of the city's determination of policy. Id. at 298. The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate that the housing element is inadequate. Fonseca. 148 Cal.App.4th at 1191. In this regard, HCD's recommendations are advisory. §65585(a); Fonseca, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 1193. Although courts generally will not depart from the HCD determination unless clearly erroneous or unauthorized, [*45] its informal interpretation of statutory requirements is not binding on the court and any deference due to the HCD's interpretation may be overcome by the plain meaning of the statute's text. Martinez v. City of Clovis, ("Martinez") (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 243 (interpreting section 65583.2(h) to impose a minimum density requirement when a 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *41 471 Page 14 of 25 Shawna Ballard jurisdiction is required to rezone and finding that while RHN overlay satisfied this density, base zoning did not). A housing element's site inventory shall include a description of the existing use of each non-vacant site. §65583.2(b)(3). The city shall specify the additional development potential for each non-vacant site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential. §65583.2(g)(1). The methodology shall consider factors that include the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the city's or county's past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market [*46] conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. §65583.2(g)(1). When the city or county is relying on non-vacant sites to accommodate 50% or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology shall demonstrate that the existing use does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. §65583.2(g)(2). An existing use is presumed to impede additional residential development absent contrary findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. §65583.2(g)(2). b. The Scope of CFH's Motion on the First Cause of Action The Petition's first cause of action generally asserts that the City's 2023 housing element does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law. Pet., ¶54. The 2023 housing element relies on non-vacant sites to satisfy more than 50% of the City's lower-income RHNA without any evidence that the existing uses on each of these sites will be discontinued during the planning period. Pet., ¶44. The 2023 element's sites inventory fails to account for the impediment created by the existing uses, including [*47] the possibility that a site will be maintained in its current use rather than redeveloped during the planning period. Pet., ¶43. Because it fails to make the analysis required under section 65583.2(g)(1), the City did not make the findings required under section 65583.2(g)(2). Pet., ¶45. The 2023 element also does not identify any basis for the City's assumptions as to the realistic capacity of the listed sites for residential development. Pet., ¶46. The City fails to demonstrate that it will affirmatively further fair housing under section 65583(c)(10). Pet., ¶47. The City also fails to assess the relationship between that goal and the sites identified for housing development during the planning period as required under section 65583(a)(3). Pet., ¶47. The City first argues that the Petition lays out an incorrect-and impossible-standard by alleging that the City failed to identify any evidence that the existing uses on each of these sites will be discontinued during the planning period. Although section 65583.2(g)(2) states that an "existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development," the City is not required demonstrate that such use will be discontinued, only that the use is likely to be discontinued. The Petition's interpretation of the statutory language [*48] imposes on the City the impossible burden of predicting and guaranteeing what the private market will do. This interpretation of section 65583.2(g)(2) would unduly punish built out cities such as the City, which have no surplus land and must rely solely on nonvacant sites to comply with the Housing Element Law. As such, this unreasonable standard would fail a rational basis test. Nor is it a proper interpretation of the statute. See CCP §1858 ("the office of the Judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained [in a statute], not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted"). Mot. at 13-14. The court and CFH agree (Opp. at 13) that the plain language of section 65583.2(g)(2) does not require the City to guarantee that each site in its site inventory will be redeveloped by 2029. Section 65583.2(g)(2) only requires the City to provide evidence that each non- vacant low-income site "is likely to be discontinued during the planning period"-i.e., by October 15, 2029. CFH adds that this requires hard work, but it is attainable even though private parties ultimately control how their property will be developed in the City because other cities have risen to the challenge. See Gelfand Decl., ¶3. If the City [*49] cannot obtain appropriate evidence about a particular parcel, it should be removed from the non-vacant sites relied on to accommodate the housing need for lower income households. If this results in the elimination of needed sites, the City must rezone to increase the density on more plausible sites to account for the lost units. Nothing about this is impossible. Opp. at 13-14. 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *45 472 Page 15 of 25 Shawna Ballard The City argues that it specified the additional development potential within the planning period of each non-vacant site and provided an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential as required by section 65583.2(g)(1) and adopted findings supported by substantial evidence that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period as required by section 65583.2(g)(2). RJN 15-16 (§4). The explanation of methodology, findings, and evidence are contained within Housing Element section 9.4 and Appendix C. AR 105-24, 633- 46. Specifically, the City determined that, because more than 50% of the parcels included in the housing element sites inventory are non-vacant, the existing sites identified are likely to be discontinued during the 2021- 2029 planning period, and the development potential on these non-vacant [*50] sites would not constitute an impediment to future housing development. Section 9.4 and Appendix C identify the City's site inventory, which identifies over 115 sites and an includes an analysis of each. Id. Mot. at 14-15. The Petition also alleges that the housing element does not identify any basis for the City's assumptions about the realistic capacity of the listed sites for residential development, including the expected income levels of the housing anticipated on those sites. Pet., ¶46. This is a reference to section 65583.2(c)(2)'s requirement that the number of units for development shall be adjusted in part by the realistic development capacity for the site. The City argues that the Petition's allegation is not true. Section 9.4 provides a parcel specific analysis on properties within the City to identify vacant and underutilized properties according to methodology developed by the UC Berkeley for BTHA, the ratio of land improvements to land value, which can facilitate identification of underutilized sites with potential for infill or redevelopment with higher density residential and/or mixed-use developments. RJN 105-24. Therefore, the housing element outlines the bases for the realistic capacity [*51] of the sites identified to be developed. Mot. at 15. The City also considered the expected income levels of housing occupants anticipated for those sites by analyzing the adequacy of the City's site inventory to meet the City's RHNA share by income level as required by section 65583.2(c). RJN 120 (Tables HE-48, HE-49); RJN 633-64 (Tables HE-A1 through HE-A5 depict the location of pertinent parcels in Table HE-49), Mot. at 15. The Petition includes broad allegations that the housing element does not comply with the City's obligation to demonstrate that it will affirmatively further fair housing (sometimes, "AFFH") under section 65583(c)(10) and will assess the relationship between that obligation and the sites it has identified for housing development as required by section 65583(a)(3). Pet., ¶47. Housing element section 9.5 specifically analyzes the City's obligation for AFFH. RJN 125-57. HE Policy 5.1 is the City's policy for AFFH, and it promote equal housing opportunities for persons of all socioeconomic segments. RJN 130-31. Appendix D contains the City's Assessment of Fair Housing. RJN 648-719. The City's housing plan includes programs and objectives that address all the issues identified in the housing element, including those to mitigate [*52] AFFH issues identified in Appendix D. Figure D-25 shows the geographic distribution of the Sites Inventory by Census tract. RJN 170. Table HE-50, the City's AFFH Meaningful Actions Matrix, highlights the City's meaningful actions to address the priority issues identified in Appendix D, including the programs/objectives, specific commitments, timeline, geographic targeting, and metrics. RJN 152-55. Therefore, the City has complied with its obligation to demonstrate that it will affirmatively further fair housing. City Mot. at 16. CFH does not respond to the City's arguments about the realistic capacity of the listed sites for residential development, the expected income levels of housing occupants, and AFFH. As a result, those issues are conceded for purposes of the parties' motions. CFH limits the dispute to whether the use of non-vacant sites for over 50% of the site inventory complies with the Housing Element Law, in particular sections 65583.2(g)(1)-(2). Opp. at 1, 12-17. c. Martinez The City relies on the recent decision of Martinez, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at 193. City Mot. at 14. In Martinez, the court addressed in part the City of Clovis' housing element's inventory of non-vacant sites and compliance with section 65583.2(g)(1). Id. at 246- 47. First, the court concluded that section 65583.2(g)(1) does [*53] not require the city to specify the additional development potential of each non-vacant site and provide an explanation for the methodology used to determine development potential in the housing element itself. Id. at 247-49. It is sufficient if that information is provided in separate documents. The court declined to add language; to the statute that is not present. CCP 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *49 473 Page 16 of 25 Shawna Ballard §1858. Id. This approach is supported by section 65583.2(b), which explicitly identifies what "[t]he inventory of land shall include" and demonstrates the Legislature knew how to express an intention that information be provided in a particular document. Id. at 248. Second, the court addressed whether the city substantially complied with section 65583.2(g)(1)'s requirements for information about the development potential of two specific sites. Id. The first site (No. 3) was ten developable acres with access to two streets and would be available in the planning period. Id. at 249. Letters showed that the site was owned by a university which was not interested in rezoning the site for residential purposes because it was being used for agricultural education. Ibid. The city asserted that its discussions with university staff showed that it was supportive of rezoning the land. Ibid. The city concluded [*54] that, even though the university was immune from the city's zoning regulations, it was not required to make arrangement with the university to develop its property prior to making zone changes to satisfy its RHNA allocation, and the fact remained that the site could easily be developed for affordable housing which satisfied the law. Ibid. HCD implied agreed with the city in concluded that the housing element complied with the Housing Element Law. Id. at 249-50. The court agreed. Id. at 250. Although there was missing information of other factors in section 65583.2(g)(1), this was at most a technical imperfection and not a substantial failure to comply with the law. Id. at 250. The second site (No. 8) was 2.3 developable acres owned by the city. Id. at 250. The site inventory stated that the property would be marketed to housing developers as potential sites for affordable housing. Id. HCD impliedly agreed that the information provided fulfilled its obligation to address the site's development potential. Id. at 251. HCD's finding of compliance is presumptively valid and petitioner had not rebutted it. Id. The Martinez court concluded that the city's information substantially complied with the statutory requirements and the judiciary's role does not extend to [*55] whether the sites are adequate to meet program objectives. Id. CFH argues that he City's reliance on Martinez is misplaced for three reasons. First, the petitioners in Martinez sought to enforce the requirements of subdivision (g)(1), not subdivision (g)(2). Subdivision (g)(2) did not apply to the city's housing element because the city used vacant sites to accommodate most of its low-income RHNA allocation. Id. at 247, n. 19. While subdivision (g)(1) requires local governments to identify a "methodology used to determine the development potential" of the non-vacant parcels listed in the sites inventory, it does not require them to make specific findings or identify specific evidence. In contrast, subdivision (g)(2) creates a presumption that a non-vacant site is inappropriate for inclusion unless the local government makes "findings based on substantial evidence that the use [of the site] is likely to be discontinued during the planning period." While these findings can be made outside of the four corners of the housing element-e.g., in a City Council adopting resolution-they must be made somewhere. Opp. at 16- 17. Second, Martinez relied heavily on the presumption of compliance resulting from HCD's [*56] certification of Clovis' housing element in analyzing its compliance with section 65583.2(g)(1). Id. at 249-51. See §65589.3. The City is not entitled to this presumption because its housing element has not been certified by HCD. Coy Deck, ¶¶ 9-10. Opp. at 17. Third, although Clovis was only required to comply with 65583.2(g)(1), the analyses conducted by that city and endorsed by Martinez for the two sites at issue were more robust and site-specific than the City's repetitious references to building age and assessed value. Compare id at 249-51 with RJN 634-40. Opp. at 17. The City replies that it cited Martinez for the proposition that the section 65583.2(g)(1) and (g)(2) analysis need not be contained within the housing element itself. The Petition alleges that the City failed to comply with both subdivisions. There also is no reason why Martinez's holding regarding the location of the (g)(1) analysis should not also apply to the (g)(2) analysis. Subdivision (g)(2) specifically imposes additional requirements for the "methodology" used in the "analysis" required by paragraph (g)(1). Reply at 5-6. Both parties are correct. Martinez is distinguishable, but it stands for the propositions that (a) section 65583.2(g)(1) does not require a city to specify the additional development potential of each non- vacant [*57] site, and provide an explanation for the methodology used to determine development potential, in the housing element itself, a proposition that applies equally to (g)(2) and (b) a city substantially complies with section 65583.2(g)(1)'s requirements for information about the development potential of non- vacant inventory sites when its evidence of one or more 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *53 474 Page 17 of 25 Shawna Ballard of the statute's factors show that substantial compliance, even though not all factors were considered. d. Merits CFH argues that the City has not made the findings supported by substantial evidence as required by section 65583.2(g)(2) for non-vacant low-income sites. All but 19 of the low- and very low-income units planned in the housing element are attributed to non-vacant parcels. Thus, the City is relying on non-vacant sites to provide well over 50% of the City's RHNA allocation of 387 units in these income categories. As a result, the City is subject to section 65583.2(g)(2). Opp. at 13. CFH argues that the City does not have substantial evidence that the existing uses on the non-vacant low- income sites are likely to be discontinued during the planning period. The City's site inventory is Appendix C. RJN 633-46. Under "Criteria," Appendix C lists the evidence that each site is likely to experience [*58] redevelopment and that the existing use is likely to be discontinued by 2029. A small number of these sites are properly supported by the City's evidence. For example, the La Canada United Methodist Church is in active discussions with a multifamily residential developer regarding the redevelopment of its property (APN 5823- 001-016). But the evidence for the remaining sites has no obvious relationship with section 65583.2(g)(2)'s requirement. The listed factors may be evidence of something, but the City has not presented evidence that they show the existing use on each site is "likely to be discontinued during the planning period." Opp. at 14. CFH criticizes Appendix C's use of the following factors: (1). The presence of buildings older than 30 years. CFH criticizes the City's failure to cite any evidence that building age is indicative of a likelihood that the existing use will be discontinued, as well as its failure to provide evidence supporting the mid-1990s cut-off. The mere presence of many buildings over 30 years old appears to demonstrate that such buildings are regularly maintained in their existing use and the properties will not be redeveloped. (2). Improvement-to-land-value ratio less than 1.0. [*59] CFH argues that this metric appears focused on the potential for economically beneficial development, rather than the likelihood that the existing use will be discontinued. The City has not presented any evidence to support its use as a metric for likely discontinuation of use. Nor has it provided evidence of the City's arbitrary use of a 1.0 ratio. Additionally, due to Prop 13's limits on assessment and reassessment, comparisons using the Tax Assessor's assessment figures have limited value. (3). Lack of recent reassessment. CFH contends that, due to the Prop 13 limits on property tax reassessment, this does not appear to be a measure of anything meaningful other than the date of the last sale transaction between parties who failed to avoid reassessment. (4). The presence of "antiquated commercial uses with significant surface parking." CFH notes that this is a qualitative assessment and the City's definition of "antiquated commercial uses" appears to include established national chain businesses with long-term leases. The City has not included any analysis whether the parking is. needed to serve these commercial uses. Opp. at 14-15. CFH contends that the City's housing element does not [*60] distinguish between its analysis under section 65583.2(g)(1) and (g)(2), and the factors it used generally seem focused on the development potential of sites once their existing uses have been discontinued. The Legislature expressly distinguished between the requirement to analyze new development potential which applies to all cities under section 65583.2(g)(1)), and the requirement to show evidence of likely discontinuation of use which applies to a narrower set of cities under section 65583.2(g)(2). The Legislature adopted section 65583.2(g)(2)'s requirement to combat the practice by cities of relying on sites with continuing uses, recognizing that a parcel that might otherwise be attractive for residential development will be unlikely to overcome an established use - such as a retail tenant with a long-term lease or a well-attended, built-out private school. See RJN 759. Opp. at 15. The City's housing element relies on just those sorts of inappropriate sites, despite evidence for a number of inventory sites that the existing use will continue throughout the planning period. CHP provides three examples. Opp. at 15. First, the City received a letter from the owner of a preschool (App. C site #59) indicating that the current existing use of the school will not be discontinued [*61] during the planning period. RJN 623 ("Although the City wishes to include my site…, the school has a long and successful history and there is no intention of 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *57 475 Page 18 of 25 Shawna Ballard discontinuing the current use of this property during the next eight-year planning period. As such, we do not intend to redevelop my property, or any portion thereof, into housing within the next eight (8) year planning period."). The City declined to remove this site from its inventory. Opp. at 15. Second, the owner of several contiguous sites (App. C sites #86-89) informed the City that the property is under a 20-year lease to a major retailer, Big Lots, with two ten-year extension options, and the owner has no intention of discontinuing the existing commercial use. RJN 625. The City kept these sites in the inventory, albeit with an acknowledgment that two of the four parcels are "not currently available." RJN 638-39. Third, the City concedes that the sites currently occupied by JOANN Fabric and Crafts store (App. C sites #98 and 99) are "not currently available." RJN 639- 40. Yet, it retained "not currently available" sites on the inventory as a "buffer". Id. CFH argues that there is no law permitting buffer sites to be listed [*62] with a lessened evidentiary requirement. Opp. at 15-16. CHP concludes that the City's minimal site-specific analysis falls far short of the kind of analysis required to overcome the presumption that an existing use is presumed to impede additional residential development under section 65583.2(g)(2). The City has no evidence that the existing uses on these sites are likely to discontinue and has for some sites compelling evidence that these uses will continue. Opp. at 16. The City replies that its housing element unequivocally demonstrates that the City has substantially complied with the analysis required under section 65583.2(g)(2). The City Council's Resolution 23-08, adopted on February 21, 2023, adopted findings that housing element section 9.4 and Appendix C contain substantial evidence that the site inventory's existing uses are not impediments to accommodate new housing and will likely be discontinued during the 2021-2029 planning period. RJN 15-16(§4). This meets the requirements of section 65583.2(g)(1) and (2). The identified criteria used to determine likelihood of discontinued use include underutilization of the site, the age of current buildings, and the owner's interest to redevelop the site. RJN 633- 46. The City notes that the Petition alleges that [*63] the City's housing element did not identify any evidence that the existing uses at each of the non-vacant site will be discontinued during the planning period (Pet., ¶44), and that the housing element does not contain the analysis required under section 65583.2(g)(1) and (g)(2). Pet., ¶45. The fallacy of both contentions is rebutted by Appendix C. Reply at 5. The City contends that CFH now argues that the housing element includes only a minimal section 65583.2(g)(2) analysis.8 Section 65583.2(g)(2) only requires substantial evidence of the likely discontinuance of a site's current use and does not outline any specific factors that a city must consider. CFH offers no legal authority why the criteria used for the City's analysis is insufficient, only arguing that the analysis falls short for some specific sites. This runs afoul of what is statutorily required. The court is not required to engage in a site-specific analysis regarding "the merits of the element or to interfere with the exercise of the locality's discretion in making substantive determinations and conclusions." Martinez, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at 237. Section 65583.2(b) is explicit about what the site inventory "shall include" and any other requirements are not supported by the statute. Reply at 5. CFH has the burden to show that the City does [*64] not have substantial evidence that the existing uses of the non-vacant sites listed in the site inventory are likely to be discontinued during the planning period. The City relies solely on Resolution Nos. 22-35 and 23-08, the 2023 housing element, and its appendices. RJN 11-16, 105-57, 633-46, 648-719. If these documents do not demonstrate substantial evidence to support a finding that existing uses will discontinue during the planning period, then the 2023 housing element does not comply with section 65583.2(g)(2). CFH's attack on the City's compliance is focused on the criteria that the City principally relied upon in Appendix C to show that the existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development under section 65583.2(g)(2). Those criteria are: (1) the presence of buildings older than 30 years; (2) improvement-to-land- value ratio less than 1.0; (3) lack of recent 8 The City argues that CFH's argument that the housing element contains only a minimal section 65583.2(g)(2) is outside the scope of the Petition, which alleged that the housing element did not identify any evidence that the existing uses at each of the non-vacant site will be discontinued during the planning period (Pet., ¶44), and does not contain the analysis required under section 65583.2(g)(1) and (g)(2). Pet., ¶45. Reply at 5. The court does not agree. CFH's contention of insufficient analysis and evidence is subsumed within the Petition's allegations.. 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *61 476 Page 19 of 25 Shawna Ballard reassessment; and (4) the presence of "antiquated commercial uses with significant surface parking." CFH's criticism of these criteria is mostly based on a lack of evidence that these criteria are significant, the arbitrary nature of their selection, and what they appear to demonstrate. This is insufficient to show that the criteria are inappropriate. [*65] There is nothing in section 65583.2(g)(1) or (2) that expressly requires the criteria used to evaluate the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to residential development to be itself supported by substantial evidence. The appropriateness of the criteria is a matter to be demonstrated at trial with expert or other witness declarations. Section 65583.2(g)(1) does require that the City "provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the developmental potential, including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development." Additionally, section 65583.2(g)(2) requires the City, which is relying on more than 50% of non-vacant sites for its RHNA share, to demonstrate in its methodology that the existing uses are not an impediment to residential development. Therefore, the City must discuss its methodology and how it demonstrates that the existing uses are not an impediment to residential development. This is not a site-specific analysis but rather an analysis of the methodology used. It is in the course of this discussion that the criteria should be addressed. In purported compliance with this requirement, the housing element notes in Section 9.4.1.3 that the City has very [*66] little vacant land left and it had to identify underutilized sites to fulfill its RHNA obligations. RJN 109. The City's strategy is to identify such properties by primarily focusing on the Foothill Boulevard corridor. RJN 109. UC Berkeley has developed a methodology for BTHA that uses the ratio of land improvements to land value to facilitate identification of underutilized sites with potential for infill or redevelopment at a higher density residential. RJN 110. Based on this measure, properties in non-single-family areas are underutilized if the total value of improvements on the site is less than the total value of the underlying land. RJN 110. Additionally, section 9.4.1.3 notes the national trend for online shopping with a consequent decline in demand for commercial business areas. RJN 110. There is a need to provide greater flexibility in land use, including mixed use development and even stand-alone uses in traditional commercial areas. RJN 110. Additionally, there are many underutilized parcels in the City constructed prior to the 1980s, with 1953 as the median year for construction of these older parcels. RJN 110. Many are antiquated commercial uses with significant amounts [*67] of surface parking. RJN 1.10. These properties have similar characteristics as other properties that were redeveloped in the past, including the Town Center project. RJN 110. This analysis of the City's methodology may or may not comply with section 65583.2(g)(1) and (2). As CFH does not expressly attack the housing element's methodology discussion, only attacking the narrower issue of the criteria used for that methodology, the court need not decide this issue for purposes of CFH's motion. On the other hand, CFH's criticisms of the criteria have some facial validity. The City has not shown a causal link between these factors and the probability that a property's current use will be discontinued during the cycle's planning period. Although the City relies on the Resolution No. 23-08 finding that in section 9.4 and Appendix C contain substantial evidence that the existing uses are not impediments to new housing and are likely to be discontinued during the planning period (AR 15), this is a mere conclusion that is not necessarily supported by section 9.4 and Appendix C. Additionally, CFH provides examples of sites that should not have been included in the site inventory. These examples can be used to illustrate [*68] that the City has not substantially complied with the Housing Element Law because the use of examples is not the same as a site-specific analysis. The inclusion in the site inventory of properties whose owner has expressed disinterest in redevelopment may be used to aid CFH in demonstrating the City's non-compliance with section 65583.2(g)(2). If the City's reasons fail for specific sites, that fact is some evidence undermining the City's assertion that the analysis is compliant with section 65583.2(g)(2). e. Conclusion CFH criticizes the criteria used to show that the existing uses are not an impediment to additional residential development under section 65583.2(g)(2). CFH's criticism and examples are insufficient to warrant a CCP section 1094 judgment on the first cause of action. An evaluation of the appropriateness of the criteria must occur in an examination of the City's methodology required by section 65583.2(g)(1) and (g)(2), and is a 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *64 477 Page 20 of 25 Shawna Ballard matter for expert or other witness declaration. The City's demonstration of its methodology may or may not meet the requirements of section 65583.2(g)(1) and (2), but that is a matter for trial. Conversely, the Petition sufficiently alleges that the City's site inventory does not account for the possibility that a site will remain in its current use (Pet. 143), that the City's [*69] criteria for concluding that the existing uses are not an impediment to residential development are suspect, that the housing element does not contain the analysis required under section 65583.2(g)(1) (Pet. 1J45), and that the housing element did not make the findings required by section 65583.2(g)(2) (Id.). The facts judicially noticed at the City's request do not show otherwise. Therefore, both motions are denied on the Petition's first cause of action alleging that the City's adopted housing element does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law. 4. Second Cause of Action a. The Penalty for Untimely Housing Element Approval A city that fails to adopt a housing element that HCD has found to be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law within 120 days of the statutory deadline for adoption of the housing element shall complete rezoning of those sites no later than one year from the statutory deadline in Section 65588 for adoption of the housing element. §65583(c)(1)(A). If a city fails to adopt a housing element that HCD has found to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline, rezoning shall be completed no later than one year from that statutory deadline. §65583.2(c). As provided in AB 1398, for the [*70] sixth revision thereafter, a local government that does not adopt a housing element that HCD has found to be in substantial compliance within 120 days of the applicable deadline shall comply with sections 65583(c)(1)(A) and 65583.2(c) within one year of the statutory deadline to revise the housing element. §65588(e)(4)(C)(i). If a city adopts a housing element more than one year after the statutory deadline, it is not in substantial compliance until it has completed the rezoning required by sections 65583(c)(1)(A) and 65583.2(c). §65588(e)(4)(C)(iii). Notwithstanding sections 65583(c)(1)(A), 65583.2(c), and 65588(e)(4)(C), a local government shall have three years and 120 days from the statutory deadline for adoption of the housing element to complete any rezoning if (1) the deadline was in 2021, (2) the local government failed to adopt an element that the HCD found to be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law within 120 days of the deadline, and (3) it did adopt an element that the HCD found to be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law within one year of the deadline. §65583.4(a). b. The Second Cause of Action The Petition's second cause of action seeks a writ of mandate to compel the City's compliance with the rezoning deadlines. The Petition alleges that, under sections 65583(c)(1)(A), 65583.2(c), and 65588(e)(4)(C)(i), if the HCD [*71] has not certified a city's adopted housing element by October 15, 2022, the city must complete all required rezoning by that date. Pet., ¶24. The City failed to complete its required rezoning by the October 15, 2022 deadline. Pet., ¶48. This bars the City from disapproving a housing development project on a site designated for rezoning by the housing element if the project complies with the applicable objective zoning standards that would apply once the site is properly rezoned and meets certain additional requirements. Pet., ¶25. c. Merits The City submitted its initial draft housing element to HCD on October 3, 2021. HCD provided its review on December 3, 2021. The City adopted its housing element on October 4, 2022. On December 6, 2022, HCD issued its determination that the City's adopted housing element was legally inadequate. The parties dispute whether HCD's finding of inadequacy was substantive or merely technical. On February 21, 2023, the City adopted the amended housing element which is the subject of this litigation. The February 2023 housing element requires that the City rezone parcels in order to meet the City's obligations under Housing Element Law. The document acknowledges [*72] that the deadline to complete these required rezonings was October 15, 2022. RJN 132. The City has not completed this rezoning process. On April 24, 2023, after review of the 2023 element, HCD determined that it could not find the City's element in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. Coy Decl, ¶9. Pursuant to section 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *68 478 Page 21 of 25 Shawna Ballard 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii), HCD remains unable to certify the housing element or any subsequent revision until the City completes all the rezoning required. Coy Deck, ¶9. The City acknowledges that October 15, 2021 was the SCAG region's statutory deadline for adoption of the sixth revision of the housing element for the planning period of October 15, 2021-October 15, 2029. See §65588. Section 65588(e)(4)(C)(i) provided a one-year extension to complete rezoning to October 15, 2022 for those cities that did not adopt a substantially compliant housing element within 120 days of October 15, 2021. Mot. at 16. The City argues that it adopted a substantially compliant 2021-2029 housing element on October 4, 2022, which was subsequently updated on February 21, 2023 without substantive changes. RJN 11-16. The City is currently in the process of rezoning in accordance with its housing element, and the rezoning will be completed by October 2023. [*73] RJN 132. The City's housing element commits the City to implement its rezoning program by October 2023. The City's adopted housing element Program 1 is the City's identified program to rezone the properties identified in the site inventory. RJN 132. Program 1 states: "The rezoning of adequate sites is due October 15, 2022. The City is proposing to adopt the Housing Element in early October 2022, and is actively pursuing the implementation of the rezoning program. Following adoption of the Housing Element, the City will…rezone the properties identified in the Sites Inventory to accommodate the RHNA by October 2023." Id. Mot. at 18. The City argues that its October 4, 2022 substantially compliant housing element was timely adopted within a year of the October 15, 2021 statutory deadline under section 65588(e)(4)(C)(i) (city must adopt housing element within a year of the statutory deadline). Section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii), which requires completion of rezoning before a city's housing element can be determined to be in substantial compliance, applies only when a local agency adopts a housing element more than one year after the statutory deadline. Reply at 2-3. These arguments are untenable because HCD has not found the October 2022 housing [*74] element to substantially comply with the Housing Element Law. For an adopted housing element to be timely, all of sections 65583(c)(1)(A), 65583.2(c), and 65588(e)(4)(C)(i) require that a city's housing element be found by HCD to be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. Without such a finding, the city must complete rezoning within a year from the statutory deadline. §§ 65583(c)(1)(A)), §65583.2(c), 65588(e)(4)(C)(i). Additionally, the city's housing element cannot be found to be in substantial compliance until it has completed the rezoning. §65588(e)(4)(C)(iii). As CFH responds (Opp. at 9), when the Legislature created the rezoning deadline penalty for late housing element adoption in 2021, it understood the risk that cities would attempt to adopt untimely housing elements without complying with the new punitive rezoning deadline. To combat this, the Legislature created a statutory bar to housing element compliance for cities that adopt housing elements after the rezoning deadline in section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii), which provides: "A jurisdiction that adopts a housing element more than one year after the statutory deadline… shall not be found in substantial compliance with this article until it has completed the rezoning required" under Housing Element Law. The language of [*75] section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii) originally provided that "[i[f a jurisdiction adopts a housing element more than one year after the statutory deadline, the department shall not find that jurisdiction's housing element to be in substantial compliance with this article pursuant to Section 65585 until all required rezoning is complete." RJN 775 (emphasis added). In a September 3, 2021 amendment to section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii), the reference to "the department" was removed and revised to mandate that the offending jurisdiction "shall not be found in substantial compliance" until it has completed the rezoning. This legislative history makes clear that the Legislature intended this statutory bar to apply not only to HCD's review of a local government's housing element, but also to judicial review. In other words, if the City's housing element is adopted more than one year after the section 65.588 deadline, a court shall not find the city's housing element to be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law until the required rezoning is complete. The City was required to update its housing element by October 15, 2021. Because the City did not adopt a housing element within 120 days from that date, it is subject to the section 65588(e)(4)(C)(i) penalty requiring it to complete its rezoning [*76] within one year of the statutory deadline-i.e., by October 15, 2022. The City's housing element acknowledges that it is subject to this penalty and that its rezoning was due by October 15, 2022. RJN 132. The City's challenged housing element was not adopted until February 21, 2023, over one year 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *72 479 Page 22 of 25 Shawna Ballard after the statutory deadline of October 15, 2021, and has not been certified by HCD. The City is therefore subject to the statutory bar in section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii). The City argues that it is subject to three year and 120 days exception to the rezoning penalty after adoption of the housing element that was provided to qualifying Southern California jurisdictions in section 65583.4(a). Mot. at 17. This argument is at odds with the City's own housing element, which states that "[fjhe rezoning of adequate sites is due October 15, 2022." RJN 132. It also is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the section 65583.4 exception, which is limited to circumstances where "[t]he local government adopts a sixth revision of the housing element and the department finds the adopted element to be in substantial compliance with this article within one year of the statutory deadline established pursuant to section 65888 for adoption of the housing element". §65583.4(a)(3) (emphasis added). This [*77] language plainly contains two elements: (a) an adopted housing element in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law and (b) HCD approval. Only then is there an extension for the rezoning required by section 65583(c)(1)(A). As the meaning of section 65583.4 is plain, there is no need to resort to its legislative history. MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. California Dept. of Tax & Fee Administration, ("MCI") (2018) 28 Cal. App. 5th 635, 643 (no need to resort to legislative history if statute's words are clear and unambiguous); Maclsaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc., (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1082 (if a statute is ambiguous, the court may resort to extrinsic aids such as legislative history). To the extent that the court should resort to the legislative history or section 65583.4, it shows that the dual requirement of the adoption of a substantially compliant housing element and certification by HCD was no accident. "This bill also adds that, to avoid the expedited timeline, the housing element must be determined by HCD to be substantially compliant with Housing Element Law. This change removes the circumstances where jurisdictions adopt non-compliant housing elements to avoid penalties". RJN 763. HCD reminded the City that it could obtain the three- year rezoning deadline only if its housing element is found to be in compliance by October 15, 2022. Coy Decl., ¶11. The City failed to adopt and submit its housing element [*78] to HCD on a timely basis. As a result, the penalty of section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii) applies and the city's housing element will not be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law until the required rezoning is complete. The City argues that it would be legally absurd to penalize a city which has adopted a substantially compliant housing element. A city must adopt a housing element before rezoning, and the imposition of section 65588(c)(4)(C)(iii)'s penalty would require late-adopting local governments to complete these steps in the wrong order. Mot. at 17. Aside from the fact that neither HCD nor the court has found the City's housing element to be substantially compliant, the short answer is that the purpose of section 65588(c)(4)(C)(iii) is to penalize cities which fail to timely comply with their housing element obligations and a city can avoid the rezoning penalty by timely complying. Moreover, the City operates under a false assumption that housing element approval must come before rezoning. The undisputed evidence is that other cities have perform rezoning in conjunction with housing element updates. Coy Decl., ¶12. The City argues that CFH is not entitled to mandamus based on the City's failure to complete rezoning by October 15, 2022 because the timetables [*79] for housing element revision in the Housing Element Law are directory, not mandatory. See Fonseca, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 1184. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the one-year extension to adopt a substantially compliant housing element under section 65588(e)(4)(C)(i). A city cannot move forward with rezoning until it adopts a substantially compliant housing element. The Legislature recognized the impracticalities of a short turnaround to approve zoning code amendments and passed SB 197, codified in section 65583.4, which allows cities with a substantially compliant sixth revision of the housing element up to three years and 120 days from October 15, 2021 to complete rezoning. City Mot. at 16-17; Reply at 2-3. In Fonseca, the plaintiff's challenged the City of Gilroy's 2002 housing element in part because it did not contain an inventory and analysis of residentially zoned land in violation of the relevant version of section 65583(a)(3) and violated former section 65583(c)(1)(A) in that it does not identify adequate housing sites to meet the city's allocated share of regional housing need at all income levels for the planning period. Id. at 1179. The court stated that, while many of plaintiff's arguments concerning the Housing Element Law were logical in 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *76 480 Page 23 of 25 Shawna Ballard terms of its goals of promoting affordable housing, [*80] their arguments would require the court to rewrite the law. Id. at 1180. In fact, recent amendments to the Housing Element Law appear to have addressed the issues raised by the plaintiffs. Id. The court rejected the plaintiffs' challenge. The court held that, prior to legislation in 2004, local governments were not required to include parcel-specific analyses as part of their housing elements. Id. at 1195-96. As CFH correctly responds (Opp. at 11), Fonseca's 2002 analysis of the Housing Element Law's requirements in 2002 is of limited value. The Fonseca court acknowledged that the substantive housing element requirements had already been amended by the time of its decision. Over the last decade, the Legislature repeatedly has amended the Housing Element Law, transforming the housing element system into a highly specified process involving meaningful HCD review and strict requirements. More recent bills have amended the Housing Element Law to significantly increase a city's analytical and evidentiary obligations for housing elements and the penalties associated with non-compliance. Thus, Fonseca's discussion of section 65583 as it existed in 2002 does not significantly bear on the statute as it exists now. The City argues [*81] that Fonseca is still good law and was cited extensively in Martinez's discussion of a city's substantial compliance with its housing element obligations. Reply at 2-3. However, the portions of Fonseca cited by Martinez concern the definition of substantial compliance and the scope of judicial review:, not whether the timetables in section 65588 remain directory. 90 Cal. App. 5th at 237. In discussing general Housing Element Law, the Fonseca court cited San Mateo County Coastal Landowners' Assn. v. County of San Mateo, ("San Mateo") (1995) 38 Cal. App. 4th 523, for the proposition that section 65588(e)'s schedule for a city or county's revision of its housing element was "directory, not mandatory, such that non-compliance with the schedule does not automatically invalidate a housing element or, by extension, a general plan. Id. at 544-45. The City relies on this holding, adding that statutory time limits are usually deemed to be directory. Sunset Drive Corp. v. City of Redlands. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 215, 223. Reply at 3. CFH responds that San Mateo's analysis of section 65588's housing element deadlines as directory also is outdated. At the time San Mateo was decided, there were no statutory penalties for failing to timely adopt a housing element and the court held that the absence of statutory penalties for non-compliance "strongly suggests that the provision is merely directory." 38 Cal.App.4th at 544-45 (citation omitted). Today, there are at least two significant penalties [*82] for failing to timely adopt a housing element. First, there is the rezoning penalty in section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii) that is the subject of this litigation. Second, the HAA contains builder's remedy that limits a city's ability to deny a development for low-cost housing unless its housing element has been revised in accordance with section 65588 and is. in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. §65589.5(d)(1), (d)(5). Opp. at 11. An ordinance's mandatory language may be only directory. The "mandatory" or "directory" designation denotes "whether the failure to comply with a particular procedural step will or will not have the effect of invalidating the governmental action to which the procedural requirement relates." City of Santa Monica v. Gonzalez, ("Gonzalez") (2008) 43 Cal.4th 905, 923. Courts determining whether an obligatory statutory provision should be given mandatory or directory effect by ascertaining the legislative intent. Id. at 924. In ascertaining the consequences of not obeying the obligation, the court should "look to the procedure's purpose or function. If the procedure is essential to promote the statutory design, it is 'mandatory' and noncompliance has an invalidating effect. If not, it is directory." Id. The City was required to complete its sixth cycle housing element by October 15, 2022. If it failed to do so, [*83] section 65588(e)(4)(C)(iii) provides a penalty that the housing element will not be in substantial compliance until it has completed the rezoning required by sections 65583(c)(1)(A) and 65583.2(c). The HAA contains builder's remedy that limits a city's ability to deny a development for low-cost housing unless it has a substantially compliant housing element. §65589.5(d)(1), (d)(5). These penalties make all the difference in interpreting section 65583's deadlines, which are now mandatory and not directory.9 9 CFH adds that, even if the deadlines in Housing Element Law are directory, the distinction between a mandatory and a directory rule applies only when a party is seeking to bar the enforcement of a policy that contravenes that rule. See San Mateo, supra, 38 Cal. App. 4th at 544-45 (attempt to bar the enforcement of county's general plan based on failure to timely 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *79 481 Page 24 of 25 Shawna Ballard e. Conclusion The City failed to adopt a housing element certified by HCD by October 15, 2022, and therefore the statutory bar under section 65588(c)(4)(C)(iii) applies. The City cannot be considered to be in substantial compliance until it has completed the rezoning required by sections 65583(c)(1)(A) and 65583.2(c). 5.Declaratory Relief The HAA contains builder's remedy that limits a city's ability to deny a development for low-cost housing unless its housing element has been revised in accordance with section 65588 and is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. §65589.5(d)(1), (d)(5). Where a city fails to timely complete required zoning, it may not disapprove a project that is on a site required to be rezoned and complies with the applicable objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria. §65583(g)(1). The Petition seeks a declaration that (1) the 2023 element [*84] does not substantially comply with state law, (2) the City has not had a section 65588 compliant housing element from October 16, 2021 until the City passes one, (3) pursuant to sections 65589.5(d)(1) and (d)(5), the City may not disapprove a housing development project where either at least 20% of the total units will be sold or rented to lower income households or 100% to moderate income households, or condition its approval in a manner that makes it infeasible for development for the use of very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, and (4) section 65583(g) applies to the City because it did not timely complete the required rezoning. Pet. Prayer for Relief, ¶4. The City focuses on the prayed for declarations under section 65589.5(d)(1) and (5) and section 65583(g)(1). The City contends that such a declaration is not available under either of Petition's causes of action. The Petition's traditional mandamus claim is limited to an order that the City comply with specific sections of the Housing Element Law. The Petition does not include a separate declaratory relief claim. Therefore, the declaratory relief requested in Paragraph 4.a through update housing element). CFH notes that "even directory time limits may be enforced by a writ of mandate compelling the agency to act." Sunset Drive Corp. v. City of Redlands, (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 215, 223 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Opp. at 11-12. 4.d of the Petition's Prayer exceeds the relief allowed under sections 65587, 65751, 65587(d), and CCP section 1085. The Petition also does not allege [*85] that CFH has applied to the City for a housing development project or intends to at any future date. Consequently, there is no controversy between the City and CFH about the applicability of section 65583. Mot. at 18-19. "An action for declaratory relief lies when the parties are in fundamental disagreement over the construction of particular legislation, or they dispute whether a public entity has engaged in conduct or established policies in violation of applicable law." Alameda County Land Use Assn. v. City of Hayward, (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1716, 1723. The object of the declaratory relief statute is to afford a new form of relief where needed and not to furnish a litigant with a second cause of action for the determination of identical issues. California Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Superior Court, (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1617, 1623-24.However, "[wjhere the allegations of the mandamus petition are sufficient, declaratory relief may be awarded in a mandamus action."Malott v. Summerland Sanitary District, (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1102, 1109."[J]udicial economy strongly favors the use of declaratory relief to avoid a multiplicity of actions to challenge [a city's] statutory interpretation or alleged policies." Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, (1996) 47 Cal. App. 4th 1547, 1566-67. "As against the piecemeal review of similar issues by individual challenges to specific permit applications," a request for declaratory relief "appears singularly economical." Id. at 1567. CFH notes that declaratory relief determining that the [*86] City is subject to the limits in section 65589.5(d)(1) and (d)(5) of the HAA is commonly referred to as the "builder's remedy" because they permit builders of proposed mixed- and moderate- income housing developments to disregard some local development standards in cities that have not "adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance" with Housing Element Law. CFH's concern about the City's future compliance with the builder's remedy is real. While this case has been pending, the City Council determined that an 80-unit, 20% affordable project could not proceed under the builder's remedy based on the City's contention that its housing element is substantially compliant. Gelfand Decl. ¶4. By issuing a declaratory judgment that the City is subject to the builder's remedy provisions, the court will reduce the risk that housing development applicants will be forced to litigate its 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *83 482 Page 25 of 25 Shawna Ballard applicability individually. Opp. at 18. The City replies that, while a court may grant declaratory relief as part of a mandamus claim, the petitioner still must plead sufficient allegations to support a declaratory relief cause of action. See Malott v. Summerland Sanitary District. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1102, 1109-10 ("Where a party mistakenly files a section 1094.5 petition, instead [*87] of traditional mandamus (§1085) or declaratory relief causes of action, relief will not be denied where the allegations of the section 1094.5 petition are sufficient to support the other two causes of action."). It is insufficient to simply ask for declaratory relief. CFH' s Petition contains no allegations to support a declaration regarding a builder's remedy. CFH has not even pled allegations to support it has standing to bring such a claim as a developer applicant. Reply at 6. The court agrees with the City. CFH has not sued under the HAA. The Petition's two causes of action are to compel compliance with the Housing Element Law and to compel rezoning. The first two prayers for relief are for a writ of mandate compelling the City to adopt a revised housing element and complete the required rezoning. Pet. Prayer, ¶¶ 1-2. The Petition does refer to the consequences of a city's failure to timely adopt a compliant housing element and complete rezoning as described in section 65589.5(d)(1), (d)(5), and section 65583(g)(1). Pet. ¶¶ 23, 25. But it does not allege that those consequences should apply to the City. Nonetheless, the court would deem declaratory relief available under these statutes if the Petition alleged that CFH is a developer with a project [*88] subject to these remedial statutes. It does not. It may be economical to issue declaratory relief for a builder's remedy but it would not be lawful to expand the prayed for relief beyond the issues and facts alleged for the first and second cause of action. The builder's remedy under sections 65589.5(d)(1), (d)(5) and section 65583(g)(1) can be applied only in a subsequent lawsuit alleging appropriate facts. The City's motion to strike the Prayer paragraph 4c. and d. must be granted, E.Conclusion The City's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. The City's motion to strike the portions Prayer paragraph 4c. and d. is granted. CFH's motion for judgment is granted for the second cause of action. The City failed to pass a substantially compliant housing element certified by HCD by October 15, 2022, and therefore the statutory bar under section 65588(c)(4)(C)(iii) applies. When final judgment is entered, a writ of mandate and injunction will issue pursuant to sections 65587(d)(1) and 65755 compelling the City to perform the required rezoning. CFH's motion for the first cause of action is denied. There is no need for the issuance of the declarations sought in Prayer paragraph 4a. and b. The parties have paginated the RJNs such that CFH's numbering begins where the City's ended and [*89] these pages are included in the appendix lodged with the court. The court will refer to the RJN page numbering without reference to the exhibit. CFH is wrong that the mandatory versus directory rule only applies to enforcement actions. As discussed, it depends on the procedure's purpose. Nor is CFH seeking mandamus to compel the City to comply with Housing Element Law deadlines. End of Document 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 64016, *86 483 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Saturday, October 28, 2023 2:27:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Ben Connors Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing Element Plan Comments Dear Saratoga City Council, I urge you to take more seriously the submission of our Housing Element Plan. The fact that it has been rejected by the state shows that the city is not showing a comprehensive and fair approach, as the state requires. We must spread the housing sites across ALL of Saratoga, not primarily the areas north of Cox and outside of the Saratoga school district. The state has made this clear. If the city continues to ignore state guidelines and continues to try to pursue special interest needs, the "builder's remedy" alternative will damage ALL residents and the city as a whole. Please do not try to pass off your responsibility only to the planning committee. We elected you to take responsibility for the well-being of the city. Please create a more thoughtful Housing Element Plan and hold a series of public meetings to have a new plan in place by 12/31/2023 to avoid disastrous consequences. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 484 From:James Lindsay To:Richard S. Taylor;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Fwd: Saratoga Failed Housing Element - Input to City Council and copy to HCD Reviewers Date:Sunday, October 29, 2023 11:39:01 AM From: Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 11:08:55 AM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: paul.mcdougall@hcd.ca.gov <paul.mcdougall@hcd.ca.gov>; clare.blackwell@hcd.ca.gov <clare.blackwell@hcd.ca.gov>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Bryan Swanson <bswanson@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Saratoga Failed Housing Element - Input to City Council and copy to HCD Reviewers CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Saratoga submitted a Housing Element that failed 3 times by the state. Saratoga is subject to Builders Remedy.https://www.saratoga.ca.us/603/Builders-Remedy-Projects Builders Remedy means Builders and Realtors will determine our housing growth, not the residents who live here because the city submitted a Failed Housing Element. A team of Neighborhood Leads have participated in the Housing Element process the last 2 years. We asked for housing sites to be fairly distributed around the city. We submitted a petition to city and had over 500 attendees at Jan 10, 2022 city council meeting.Result, no change in housing sites. Here is the Saratoga resident petition submitted to the city, read the comments, same thing over and over – housing not distributed throughout the city.Petition · Unfair Saratoga Housing Element Update · Change.org Saratoga submitted a housing element that put 93% of housing growth in 20% of the city. See picture below. The State 3rd Rejection letter says: the City geographically isolates the lower-income RHNA. The housing element should identify additional sites to better promote inclusive neighborhoods throughout the City. Why did this happen?North Saratoga had no representation on City Council. North Saratoga is the most disadvantaged economic area and heavily minority. City council placed 93% of housing density in North Saratoga. 2 city council members tried hard to get a fair housing distribution but were out voted. Saratoga’s process felt like a game of hide and seek – what are sites, why taken off list, by who, when? The process was highly political, created fighting amongst neighborhoods instead of sharing 485 the blessings of Saratoga and creating a vision for sensible growth as required by the state. Saratoga residents have sent emails to the state. The state mentions these letters in the 3rd rejection letter. “The State received comments with many meaningful suggestions like potential for additional residential capacity at Saratoga Village. The State encourages the City to consider these comments in subsequent revisions.” There are sites around Saratoga that could have been proposed and avoided this failed housing element. Saratoga Village, Argonaut Shopping center including Blauer center and Compass Realtor center (13 acres) – this has an apartment complex behind it, North Campus on Prospect Road, Pierce Road area, Quito/Pollard, Quito/Vessing (already under development). Builders and Realtors know the sites and will be choosing where to build. Our resident team saw City of Palo Alto propose a RESERVE site list in their Housing Element draft. This approach was emailed to City of Saratoga 2 years ago. Saratoga did not submit a RESERVE site list. Reserve site list would of reduced the risk of a Fail. City Council is proposing 2 “policy” changes at Nov. 1 meeting. Increase single family home lot splitting and allow churches to build residential housing. If these 2 policy items do not result in ACTUAL LOW INCOME housing then Saratoga will FAIL again in 2 years and we will be back to By Right development – builders and realtors can build without city approval – this happened at old Genes Quito Market site with 93 townhomes built. All Saratoga residents are impacted by a failed housing element. Pierce Road area already has 2 Builders Remedy projects. Allendale/Chester has 1. The way forward is with housing growth sites spread around Saratoga. Its common sense these 2 minor policy changes are not going to result in Actual Low Income Housing Built fairly around Saratoga. City Council may say the state “moved the goal posts”. This is not true. The state has said to all cities, plan for new housing and spread fairly around the city, do not isolate to the most disadvantaged area of the city. City Council may say they can’t add new housing sites because these sites have to go through CEQA – CEQA process can get done. Saratoga should do all it can to get a Fair and Realistic Housing Element approved. Saratoga should of submitted a RESERVE site list. A team of Saratoga residents is working to never again have low economic areas without representation on city council. This approach is being used around the state, City of Campbell recently had this change. A team of Saratoga residents helped pass city council Term Limits a few years ago. Saratoga residents want representation for ALL SARATOGA and not just certain high income neighborhoods. The orange bar in chart below shows 1000 new apartments being built at El Paseo shopping center in San Jose. The blue bars are failed Saratoga Housing Element sites. 486 Corinne Vita 487 From:Tina Walia To:Karen Wu Cc:DL -CMO;Bryan Swanson Subject:Re: Against the builder plan on the Chester/Allendale corner Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 12:40:18 AM Dear Karen, Thank you for your comments. The City Council will discuss the Housing Element item in its next meeting on Wednesday, November 1st at 7 pm: https://www.saratoga.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_11012023-1161 I will request staff to include your comments in the packet for the Housing Element (with Builders Remedy) agenda item. Best wishes, Tina Walia Council Member Former Mayor, City of Saratoga From: Karen Wu Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2023 6:48 PM To: Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Against the builder plan on the Chester/Allendale corner CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Mz Walia, My name is Karen Wu, and my family is living on Chester Avenue in Saratoga. We have been enjoying so much living in Saratoga. We are very concerned about the builder plan on the Chester/Allendale corner. The builder is planning to build a multi-story complex as high as 3 stories/38 feet tall, 32 structures of 199 units with 450+ parking spaces on Allendale/Chester. The builder's plan has not considered the impact of a multi-story complex on the safety, traffic and environment of our community. We absolutely oppose the builder's plan, and sincerely hope you would oppose the builder's plan and fight for your city and fellow citizens. We are insisting you declare the city is complying with the state mandates and, as such, should reject all Builder’s Remedy applications. Thank you so much! Karen Wu 488 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 10:01:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Dory Albert Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Field not completed. Comments Dear City Council Members, As I have mentioned before, it would benefit the town of Saratoga if more new housing was located near our schools and near downtown. New housing could help both areas immensely. New Housing should be walkable to both schools and downtown, and this plan will draw younger families to Saratoga. I understand one of our elementary schools is suffering from low enrollment. We need to support our schools -public schools are a major reason why young families move to Saratoga, and these schools are cornerstones to our community, bringing families together. So Argonaut shopping center, designated as commercial property, should be converted to mixed use with commercial and residential. It fits within the state's mandates. Argonaut is walkable to three schools : Argonaut, Foothill and SHS, plus there is a grocery store there, and easy access (DeAnza) to 85. Move the Bagel store into Argonaut -- their business will thrive there. Why are realtor offices not downtown? Move those to downtown. Less turnover rate. Add housing there the Realtors are --on the corner of Cox and DeAnza. Also, downtown, where the gas station is -- could be large, beautiful housing complex with underground parking --(for residents and visitors) . This area abuts to a creek --(a mini restaurant could be in the lobby) . This location does not overshadow neighboring homes, is walkable to downtown, to SES and SHS, has easy access to Rt 9 and 85. What a lovely entry way vs a Gas Station. The laundry mat area (across from the book go round could easily be developed to mixed use. Prospect ave area should be back on the table -- mostly due to its easy access to 85 and space capability. Plus the Housing Element does not end up in just one area of Saratoga --which the state wants us to do. Saratoga Ave already is designated with hundreds of new builds, so that area has its 489 fair share. Also, Submit a "Reserve List" as a backup plan to the next Housing Element proposal --with optional sites-- that the city of Saratoga is ok with building on. We need , as a city, to work together, and not dodge this issue -- help our schools and downtown area, while also considering area with low impact to our town, like Prospect. A Responsible and visional Housing Element proposal can be done through our city council. Having the developers decide our future is not in our community's best interests and that is where this Housing Element is headed. Email Subscription Unsubscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 490 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 1:05:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Marcia Fariss Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing Element Comments I wholeheartedly agree with the letter than Chris Vasquez sent you! I couldn't have stated the situation any more clearly than he did so I won't even attempt. If you do not follow his suggestions regarding equal distribution of housing throughout Saratoga, your plan is doomed to fail again. The results of that will be more Builders' Remedy projects, which is definitely not desirable. Please, listen to your constituents, not your developer, construction and "upper class' donors! Do the right thing for all Saratogans and redistribute the housing fairly throughout the City. Thank you! M. Fariss Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 491 From:Vivek Tiwari To:Kookie Fitzsimmons;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Chuck Page;walia@saratoga.ca.us;City Council Cc:Britt Avrit Subject:Prescription for protecting Saratoga from the current and future Builder"s Remedy applications Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 1:39:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To The Saratoga City Council, Comments related to the Housing Element You are now in possession of the letters submitted on 10/26/2023 and 10/27/2023 by Shawna Ballard on behalf of 100s of citizens of Saratoga. I urge you to very carefully and diligently read the clear recommendations called out there. These citizens have thoroughly and systematically provided the City Council the required remedy that the City Council and Staff can take against the current and future Builder's Remedies. The actions to confirm adoption of the current substantially compliant Housing Element is in your hands, not in the hands of the builder's or the HCD. In has been in your hands all along. It is still not too late. You owe it to the City of Saratoga as your required responsibility to take these actions to keep the City in control of its General Plan and Zoning for the sake of the safety and well-being of the Citizens of Saratoga. Submitting yet another draft and waiting yet again for HCD comments to confirm adoption of the plan will keep all of Saratoga exposed to Builder's Remedies indefinitely. The time of timid deliberations is over. Yes, the greedy builders and the special-interests fueled state agencies may not back down easily. Your choices are clear - either you are going to continue a strategy that is dividing Saratoga's citizens and essentially leading to a path where the Council will be fighting its own citizens, or you can fight the builders on the citizens' behalf and unite the whole city behind you. Sincerely, Vivek Tiwari Saratoga CA 492 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 3:53:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Gail and Doug Falco Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing Element Comments We are appalled that the city council hasn't done it's job !!!! You have ignored the community and the State by refusing to submit a "serious" and equitable Housing Element proposal. Your third draft did NOT spread the Housing Element requirement throughout Saratoga. You again "dumped" most of the Element into 1 small area of north Saratoga, after the State had 3 times requested it. Shame on you ! Do your job and seriously consider Argonaut, the Village and the Prospect Aveneue sites!!! Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 493 From:Bernie Mills To:Kookie Fitzsimmons;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Chuck Page;Tina Walia ;;City Council Cc:City Council;Britt Avrit;James Lindsay;Janet Costa Subject:Builder"s Remedy Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 4:33:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. City Council Members, When I spoke to some of you individually and all of you collectively about taking other options on the Builder's Remedy projects already in motion in Saratoga, you seemed receptive to proposals from your community. As one of you indicated, "Saratoga has some very bright residents and we would welcome alternatives from the community." You have a very strong alternative that was submitted by Shawna Ballard and I am hoping you review it in detail. You also have several letters from your neighbors concerned about this situation for all of Saratoga and not only for the areas impacted by the current projects. We are looking for you to take decisive action at the November 1 meeting. Hopefully, you have continued the dialogue with Senator Cortese and his office. We have, and they have indicated that we have the option to self-certify and retroactively adopt our previously submitted Housing Element proposal with minimal litigation risk. Retroactive adoption will allow you to reject the current projects and continue down the path of updating the plan as needed in the future working jointly with California HCD. You asked for viable options and now you have additional information on an option you had from the start. We are trusting you to act on our behalf. Thank you for your service and consideration, Bernie Mills 494 From:City Council To:Yan Zhao;James Lindsay;Chuck Page;Crystal Bothelio;Tina Walia;Belal Aftab;Kookie Fitzsimmons;Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Let"s Adopt our HE plan and Prevent Builder"s Remedies Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 4:44:44 PM From: Somnath Nag Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 4:44:27 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Council <saratoga_cc@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Let's Adopt our HE plan and Prevent Builder's Remedies CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Distinguished City Councillors This is Som Nag. I think we have communicated for many months on this and you already know my position on this. I repeat myself below: 1) Saratoga’s Housing Element Plan has been basically Substantially Compliant for almost a year now but somehow you have been advised against adopting it 2) As you saw from Shawna Ballard's emails to you that many of our neighboring sister cities have already demonstrated proof, having successfully Adopted their plans early and then worked with HCD to make any adjustments - I'm not sure why our City Attorney did not give us this advice so that we could have avoided this Builder's Remedy mess we've got ourselves into 3) We need to justify to the HCD that our already Substantially Compliant plan will be Adopted Retroactively to a date before the first BR proposal came in 4) Builders Remedy proposals if executed would do irreparable damage to the character of our city. And again, the builders' financial greed will not stop at 3 sites - it will continue to eat into the fabric of our unique town until it looks like another San Jose Please read all the information and ammunition that Shawna and others have provided you, to make the voting decision that is correct for Saratoga, without exposing you to any feared risk. Thank you for hearing me out for the past many months. Sincerely, -som 495 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 4:41:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Joanne Cornbleet Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Saratoga’s 4th HE draft still does not address concerns from HCD and is destined to fail Comments To the Saratoga City Council, Saratoga’s HE has failed three times. I do not believe that the “new policies” adequately address the criticisms from HCD, and I predict that Saratoga’s 4th draft also will fail. 1. From HCD: “the City geographically isolates the lower-income RHNA. These conditions and circumstances warrant significant and robust actions (not limited to the RHNA) to promote housing mobility and increase housing choices and affordability throughout the City, including in lower-density neighborhoods.” The addition of affordable housing units in the lower-density neighborhoods of Saratoga through the Builder’s Remedy is a good start, but insufficient. The city still concentrates affordable units and high density housing in the northern areas of Saratoga. In particular, the large number of units at Prospect / Lawrence and the Pumpkin Patch combined with large numbers of new high density units in this same area in the San Jose HE creates a ghetto of affordable housing in one geographic area. It is important that the proposed housing density in this area be decreased. Saratoga’s HE states that “new policies” are submitted because opportunity sites are not available in lower-density neighborhoods. That is not true. For example, Argonaut (one owner) and Compass + retail stores (2 owners) could be combined into a retail/residential village, preserving the grocery store, CVS, and possibly other retail establishments as well. The adjacent retail areas (through Compass up to Cox Ave and Blauer) also could be combined with the Argonaut site. The 496 Village was improperly rejected by the Council as an Opportunity Site because of “fire hazard,” but the “Map of Very High Fire Hazard Zones as recommended by CAL FIRE” shows that much of The Village is not within a severe fire hazard zone. Novakovich orchard, a portion of the Heritage Orchard (many of the old growth trees actually have been replaced by non-native varieties), and increased housing density at Quito/Pollard all can be considered. The new policies attempt to increase housing in the lower-density neighborhoods by allowing lot splitting. But lot-splitting is projected to provide only 37 new units, all Above Moderate Income. Changing regulations to promote the construction of ADUs also is proposed. However, allowing slightly larger ADUs on smaller lots is likely to promote ADU construction in the portion of Saratoga with smaller lot size, not in the lower-density neighborhoods. Furthermore, it is unlikely that ADUs built in the lower-density neighborhoods of Saratoga will be deed-restricted to affordable housing. 2. HCD cites: “Small Sites: The element was not revised to address this finding. For more information, please see HCD’s March 17, 2023” From March 17, 2023: “Small Sites: The element was revised to include examples of development on small sites but should also describe affordability of the examples and demonstrate similarities to sites identified in the inventory. In addition, the element should describe potential for lot consolidation and provide examples of past lot consolidations within the City.” Saratoga is not able to provide such examples. Instead, the proposal is to modify regulations to make it easier to develop commercial sites. Consolidation of many small sites is crucial for high density housing at Prospect/ Lawrence and Gateway South. Together these two sites provide 163 Very Low Income and 91 Low Income units . The draft proposed policies address shortfall in the units requiring lot consolidation in Village East, but says nothing about addressing a potential shortfall at Prospect/Lawrence or Gateway: “If by mid-way through the RHNA cycle (2027), trends indicate a potential shortfall in meeting the estimated units in the Village East area, the City could consider additional efforts to incentivize lot consolidation and/or identify additional sites to expand site capacity to the extent necessary to accommodate the RHNA. If the policy is not modified, certain sites may need to be removed from the City’s current inventory of RHNA sites and additional sites would need to be identified.” 497 Palo Alto has addressed this issue by maintaining a list of reserve housing inventory sites. In the event the City falls short, it has committed to adding or rezoning additional properties within 180 days of noticed shortfall of units. Furthermore, a letter of rejection from HCD has asked Palo Alto to provide evidence for availability of commercial sites by assessing owner interest in development as well as long term leases that would impede development: ”The agency also found, however, that the city has not done enough to prove that the non- vacant sites on the city's adopted housing inventory are actually suitable for housing.” https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2023/08/11/state- again-rejects-palo-altos-housing-plan 3. Saratoga’s HE proposals are unrealistic in meeting the quota for Very Low Income housing. Even if HCD certifies Saratoga’s HE, Saratoga is unlikely to meet the required goal of 454 Very Low Income units and once again will be subject to ministerial housing approval. Prospect/Lawrence and Gateway South contribute a total of 163 Very Low Income units and require the consolidation of multiple commercial sites for development of high density housing, an unlikely event. Furthermore, Saratoga’s HE projects the building of 120 Very Low Income ADUs. I have downloaded from the HCD.ca.gov site: APR Table 2, Annual Building Activity Report Summary— new Construction, Entitled, Permitted, and Completed Units. This data shows that between 2018-2022 there were ZERO deed- restricted or non-deed-restricted Very Low Income ADU units developed in Saratoga! It is wishful thinking that encouraging Saratogans to build more ADUs will result in affordable ADUs for Very Low Income individuals or families. 4. Adding more sites in south Saratoga I believe that certification of Saratoga’s HE will require more sites for high density housing to be added and that those sites need to be in the lower-density neighborhoods of Saratoga to promote affordability throughout the city. I understand the reluctance to add more sites if the CEQA/EIR process will cause a delay. Can the city place additional sites in the HE as RESERVE sites, begin the CEQA process, and simultaneously submit the 4th draft HE to the state? I think having this reserve might do a lot to address many of HCD’s concerns. 498 In summary, I believe that Saratoga’s 4th HE draft still does not address concerns from HCD and is destined to fail. The new policies do little to spread affordable housing throughout the city. Lot consolidation from multiple commercial sites is required for much of the high density housing with Very Low Income Units, which is unlikely to happen. Projection of new ADUs that are Very Low Income units are unrealistic, given that NO Very Low Income ADUs have been built in Saratoga for the last 5 years. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 499 From:City Council To:Yan Zhao;James Lindsay;Chuck Page;Crystal Bothelio;Tina Walia;Belal Aftab;Kookie Fitzsimmons;Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:FW: Urgent Appeal for Housing Element Clarity and Community Well-being Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 6:04:27 PM From: Rick Louie Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 6:04:01 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; walia@saratoga.ca.us <walia@saratoga.ca.us>; City Council <saratoga_cc@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Urgent Appeal for Housing Element Clarity and Community Well-being CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Members of the Saratoga City Council, We are writing to express our deep concern as dedicated Saratoga citizens. We hold our city in high esteem and believe that our local leadership should be astute and resolute in safeguarding the interests of our residents. We strongly urge the Council to take decisive action to clarify our substantial compliance with state laws pertaining to the Housing Element. This matter is of utmost importance for the well- being of our community. This request is not for something extraordinary. On the contrary, several cities in the Bay area have adopted housing elements and issued findings of substantial compliance before the HCD has made such determinations. For instance, our neighboring town of Los Gatos adopted a revised housing element as substantially compliant before the January 31, 2023 deadline, even though the HCD had not found its draft housing element to be in substantial compliance. We firmly believe that it should be the City of Saratoga, not the HCD, that determines substantial compliance and adopts the Housing Element Plan once an initial draft Housing Element has been submitted. This approach aligns with the precedents set by neighboring cities and demonstrates our city's commitment to meeting the needs of its residents. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we trust that the Saratoga City Council will make decisions that uphold the best interests of our community. Sincerely, Rick Louie and Stephanie Chan, M.D. Arcadia Palms Drive, Saratoga 500 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 7:09:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Curt Bianchi Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Nov. 1, 2023 Agenda item 3.1. Housing Element Update & Policy Options Comments Dear Council Members, Like many residents of Saratoga, I think the Housing Element opportunity sites were not chosen in an equitable manner. The vast majority of dwelling units and high density zoning were placed in the northern part of the City, while other suitable sites elsewhere in the City were either not selected at all (e.g., Pierce and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, the Argonaut shopping center, the Village sites in the previous Housing Element) or were designated for extremely low density as compared to similar parcels that got high density (e.g., Allendale-Chester compared to Saratoga Avenue). Now we see that HCD has also recognized this problem, calling out the "geographic isolation" of lower income opportunity sites within the City and noting that this must be corrected either by identifying additional housing opportunity sites or by specifying meaningful actions to promote housing mobility throughout the City, including lower density single-family areas. (Should HCD have been this explicit in its first two comment letters? Yes. By not doing so, HCD delayed this process longer than necessary.) While I think the best solution would be for the Housing Element to include high density opportunity sites throughout the City, I am resigned to the fact that this is highly unlikely to happen. Rather, I see that City staff and the Planning Commission are recommending additional programs and policies to encourage lower income housing in low density neighborhoods. Maybe that will work, but if this approach is taken, I urge the Council to make a diligent effort to achieve high confidence that these programs and policies will be sufficient to get the City’s Housing Element 501 certified by the State. In addition, I urge the Council to ensure that this process is undertaken in an expeditious manner to eliminate the threat of SB 330 Builder’s Remedy projects as quickly as possible. Lastly, I urge the Council to reject calls from citizens for the City to fund legal action to fight specific Builder’s Remedy projects, or to litigate with the State regarding the viability of “self-certifying” its Housing Element. These seem to stand little chance of success and I think such efforts would be a poor use of taxpayer funds. Given the way the Housing Element opportunity sites were selected, it would be particularly galling if the City chose to fund legal efforts on behalf of specific neighborhoods that were not impacted, or were barely impacted, by the Housing Element opportunity sites. Best regards, Curt Bianchi Email Subscription Unsubscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 502 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 8:36:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Marc Barberis Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Housing Elements Comments Dear Council members, 18 months ago, we were told we had to rush to file a plan in order to make it in time. For that reason, there was no time to consider other sites. At the time we filed our plan, Los Altos Hills, which the planning commission now extols and takes as a model, HAD NOT STARTED looking into housing sites. We were wrong 18 months ago. I attended the planning meeting earlier this month. What did we hear there: "we have to rush to file a plan in order to make it in time and stop builder's remedy. For that reason, there is no time to consider other sites." Stop me if you heard that before, but it is time to take this matter seriously, review all possible sites, distribute the sites equitably throughout the city, and submit a real proposal. Best regards, Marc Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 503 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Monday, October 30, 2023 8:45:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Joanne Cornbleet Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Opposition to self-certification of HE or lawsuits Comments I am strongly opposed to self-certification of the HE or initiation of lawsuits by the City. These are unlikely to succeed, and all of the taxpayers of Saratoga will end up footing the bill for lawyers on both sides. The City has budgetary problems as it is, and can hardly afford to engage in costly lawsuits. If a specific neighborhood group feels strongly about legal action, it should be at their own expense. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 504 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 11:13:24 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name MELISSA MACREYNOLDS Phone Number Email Address Subject General Plan Housing Element / Builder's Remedy Project Allendale & Chester Ave Comments I wanted to express my concern about the proposed high density project proposed for the property at Allendale & Chester Ave. I live on the corner of Portos Dr and Myren Dr. My neighborhood has no sidewalks and no street lights. I emphasize that it is a neighborhood. I anticipate that the project proposed would add approximately 400 - 500 additional cars to Saratoga city streets. Portos Dr is a cut through route to Saratoga Ave and Highway 85. Already, traffic through the neighborhood is a problem; speeding & ignoring stop signs makes for an unsafe environment for residents. Local law enforcement doesn't have the resources to enforce safe streets now, much less when adding so many more cars to our streets. The problem is the Allendale / Chester site is car dependent. Yes, VTA has scheduled buses that have stops on Allendale, however, I challenge the council to take a bus from the proposed site at Allendale & Chester and go grocery shopping or go to a regional airport. You will find the existing public transportation will not reduce car traffic because it is difficult, time consuming and inconvenient. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 505 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 2:49:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Linda Pearse Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Saratoga housing element/ Builder's remedy projects Comments We are very upset and disappointed about the extremely large number of condos scheduled to be built on 20851 Wardell Rod and Allendale/Chester roads using the builder's remedy. We live near the Wardell project and I can not imagine how putting that large of a development with so many condo units in the middle of a small neighborhood with limited access can even work. The city council should immediately take action to get Saratoga's Housing Element approved NOW. This is unacceptable. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 506 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 1:56:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Louis Kovacs Phone Number Email Address Subject Vinyard 199 condos, builders remedy Comments Dear Council: The 199 condo proposal on Chester is so obviously un-doable that it should have been rejected out of hand. Even SB9 cannot force a 3foot square peg in a 3inch round hole. This site is not surrounded by commercial properties, or 4 lane roads. This is a R1-40 zoned community, with only about 83 homes total on Chester -and side-streets- all the way up to the Odd Fellows complex. Adding 299 residences would quadruple the traffic on a barely 26foot wide Chester Avenue, and also on Allendale. Delivery vehicles, maintenance crews wouldn’t be able to stop in front of existing homes. Property values will decline. This would be a major SAFETY ISSUE, as Ambulance, Fire and Police vehicles would not be able to get thru. You must protect Saratoga from this kind of monstrosity. You have received many comments from concerned citizens, with recommendations from legal counsel. Please declare the city compliant and adapt resolutions as necessary to stop “Builders Remedy” projects. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 507 From:Lou Kovacs To:Kookie Fitzsimmons;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Chuck Page;walia@saratoga.ca.us;Britt Avrit Subject:199 condos on Chester, Builders remedy Date:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 5:10:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. October 31, 2023 Dear City Council: The 199 condo proposal on Chester is so obviously un-doable that it should have been rejected out of hand. Even SB9 cannot force a 3foot square peg in a 3inch round hole. This site is not surrounded by commercial properties, or 4 lane roads. This is a R1-40 zoned community, with only about 83 homes total on Chester -and side-streets- all the way up to the Odd Fellows complex. Adding 299 residences would quadruple the traffic on a barely 26foot wide Chester Avenue, and also on Allendale. Delivery vehicles, maintenance crews wouldn’t be able to stop in front of existing homes. Property values will decline. This would be a major SAFETY ISSUE, as Ambulance, Fire and Police vehicles would not be able to get thru. You must protect Saratoga from this kind of Monstrosity. You have received many comments from concerned citizens, with recommendations from legal counsel. Please declare the city compliant and adapt resolutions as necessary to stop “Builders Remedy” projects. Anything less would be a dereliction of duty. Respectfully, Lou Kovacs Apricot Hill (36 years) 508 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:14:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Charlotte Murray Phone Number Email Address Subject Proposed Builders Remedy projects in Saratoga Comments Hello, Our family hasbeen tax paying citizens in Saratoga for over 30 years. We have been home owners on Chester Ave for almost 28. We live approximately in the middle between Allendale and Sobey. There is absolutely no way our street can accommodate the extra traffic of 199 new homes! I spent 15 minutes behind a garbage truck going two blocks on Chester. I was unable to pass because of the curves and narrowness. We are very close to the retirement development, there are now two gates that lead the elderly on to Chester to walk, many with walkers and canes that slowly walk on the street. We have had burglaries in our area that the sheriff department has been unable to curtail. Our home was broken into during the time of the retirement homes construction. I was often disturbed on my early morning walks when so many of the workers were parked on Chester as early as 6 am, many who were socializing ( smoking, eating and leaving their garbage) and some sleeping in their cars. The intrusion into a neighborhood with no sidewalks, narrow windy roads, no street lights, close proximity to fire zones, elderly population, and the lack of security in this neighborhood has led me to feel that the city of Saratoga does not have the best interest of their citizens at the top of their agenda. I fully support any legal action the citizens of Saratoga take against the city. Charlotte Murray and Randy Murray Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 509 From:Kookie Fitzsimmons To:Shawna Ballard Krainin;Yan Zhao;Chuck Page;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;James Lindsay;Leslie Arroyo;Britt Avrit Subject:Re: Recommended Actions For The Saratoga City Council To Take on November 1, 2023 Date:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 5:15:22 PM Dear Shawna, Thank you for the follow-up email! We look forward to seeing you tomorrow at the City Council meeting. I’m also copying our City Clerk so that she has these additional items for the agenda packet. Sincerely, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor City of Saratoga From: Shawna Ballard Krainin Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 7:07 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Recommended Actions For The Saratoga City Council To Take on November 1, 2023 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Council, As a follow up to the October 26 and October 27 letters that I emailed to the Council, for ease of reference, the attached includes a bullet-point summary of the recommended actions set forth in such letters as it relates to the November 1 Housing Element Agenda item. Best, Shawna Ballard 510 ZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚĐƟŽŶƐ&Žƌ^ĂƌĂƚŽŐĂŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůdŽdĂŬĞŽŶEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϭ͕ϮϬϮϯ/ŶZĞƐŽůƵƟŽŶŽƌ KƚŚĞƌĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞ&Žƌŵ x ŽŶĮƌŵƚŚĂƚŽŶDĂLJϭϳ͕ϮϬϮϯƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůĂĚŽƉƚĞĚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚĞŵďŽĚŝĞĚŝŶƚŚĞDĂLJ ϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚhƉĚĂƚĞǁŚĞŶŝƚĂĚŽƉƚĞĚƚŚĞ^ƚĂī-ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĚĞƐĐƌŝďŝŶŐƚŚĞ ƵƉĚĂƚĞƐƚŽƉƌŝŽƌĚƌĂŌƐ͘;Ăů͘'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϲϴϴϱϴϱ;ĨͿͿ x ŽŶĮƌŵƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ^ƚĂī-ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚĂŶĚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞDĂLJϭϳƌĞƐŽůƵƟŽŶ ĞŵďŽĚŝĞƐƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝů͛ƐǁƌŝƩĞŶĮŶĚŝŶŐƐĞdžƉůĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĂƚ͕ŝŶůŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͕ƚŚĞDĂLJϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚhƉĚĂƚĞƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůůLJĐŽŵƉůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚŽĚĞƌƟĐůĞϭϬ͘ϲ͘ŶŽƚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĮŶĚŝŶŐƐďLJƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ;͞,͟ͿŝŶŝƚƐDĂƌĐŚϭϳ͕ϮϬϮϯůĞƩĞƌ͘;Ăů͘'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑ ϲϱϱϴϱ;ĨͿͿ x /ŶĂŶĂďƵŶĚĂŶĐĞŽĨĐĂƵƟŽŶĂŶĚĨŽƌƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽĨĐůĂƌŝƚLJ͕ƌĞĂĚŽƉƚƚŚĞDĂLJϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ hƉĚĂƚĞ͘;Ăů͘'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϲϱϱϴϱ;ĨͿͿ x /ŶĂŶĂďƵŶĚĂŶĐĞŽĨĐĂƵƟŽŶĂŶĚĨŽƌƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽĨĐůĂƌŝƚLJ͕ƌĞĂĚŽƉƚƚŚĞDĂLJϭϳ͕ϮϬϮϯ^ƚĂīƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĂƚƚŚĞDĂLJϭϳ͕ϮϬϮϯŵĞĞƟŶŐĂƐƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝů͛ƐĮŶĚŝŶŐƐĞdžƉůĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĂƚ͕ŝŶůŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞ ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͕ƚŚĞDĂLJϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚhƉĚĂƚĞƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůůLJ ĐŽŵƉůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚŽĚĞƌƟĐůĞϭϬ͘ϲ͘ŶŽƚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ,ĮŶĚŝŶŐƐŝŶŝƚƐDĂƌĐŚϭϳ͕ϮϬϮϯůĞƩĞƌ͘;Ăů͘'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϲϱϱϴϱ;ĨͿͿ x /ŶĂŶĂďƵŶĚĂŶĐĞŽĨĐĂƵƟŽŶ͕ĚƌĂŌĂŶĚĂĚŽƉƚĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůǁƌŝƩĞŶĮŶĚŝŶŐƐĞdžƉůĂŝŶŝŶŐǁŚLJƚŚĞ ĂĚŽƉƚĞĚDĂLJϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚhƉĚĂƚĞŝƐŝŶƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚŽĚĞƌƟĐůĞϭϬ͘ϲ͘ŶŽƚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ,ĮŶĚŝŶŐƐƐĞƚĨŽƌƚŚŝŶ,͛Ɛ :ƵůLJϮϳ͕ϮϬϮϯůĞƩĞƌ͘;Ăů͘'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϲϱϱϴϱ;ĨͿͿ x ŐƌĞĞƚŚĂƚ͕ŶŽƚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝů͛ƐĮŶĚŝŶŐƐŽĨƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJǁŝůůĚŝůŝŐĞŶƚůLJǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ,ƚŽĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĂŵĞŶĚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝƚĞŵƐƌĞŇĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ,͛Ɛ:ƵůLJϮϳ͕ϮϬϮϯƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͘ x džĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞƵŝůĚĞƌƐZĞŵĞĚLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĨƌŽŵĂŶLJĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƟŽŶŽĨĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͕ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ ĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƵŶŝƚƐŝŶĂŶLJĂŵĞŶĚĞĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚŵŝŐŚƚďĞƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ ,͘ x /ŶƐƚƌƵĐƚ^ƚĂĨĨƚŽŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJƚoƚĂŬĞƚŚĞƐƚĞƉƐŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽŵĞĞƚĂŶLJ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϯϭ͕ϮϬϮϰŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ ƐƚĂƚƵƚŽƌLJƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĚĞĂĚůŝŶĞƐƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƐƚĂƚƵƚŽƌLJƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ,͛ƐDĂƌĐŚ ϭϳĂŶĚ:ƵůLJϮϳ͕ϮϬϮϯůĞƚƚĞƌƐƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJĂƐŝƚƌĞůĂƚĞƐƚŽƚŚĞĂĚŽƉƚĞĚDĂLJϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ hƉĚĂƚĞ͘ 511 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 10:31:14 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Elaheh Firoozi Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Builder remedy project on Allendale Comments We as concerned citizens of Saratoga, have approached the city council many times to find the best solution to avoid builder remedy project on Allendale Ave. You have heard the rational behind our different comments and solutions. I hope this meeting on Nov 1, is a productive one to reach a desired solution for SARATOGA RESIDENTS Not builders. If you follow the path in favor of the builders, I am afraid that I agree with other neighbors to initiate a litigation process. Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 512 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Britt Avrit Cc:Bryan Swanson Subject:FW: Resend- Comments on housing Element Update & Policy Options dated November 1, 2023 Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 10:31:27 AM Attachments:Saratoga City Council letter re BRPI final 10 31 23.docx fyi Leslie Arroyo Assistant City Manager City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1269| larroyo@saratoga.ca.us From: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 3:21 PM To: Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Fw: Resend- Comments on housing Element Update & Policy Options dated November 1, 2023 fyi... From: David Dornblaser <dd@dornblaser.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 2:34 PM To: Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Resend- Comments on housing Element Update & Policy Options dated November 1, 2023 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. All, The original email had problems sending. Attached is a resend of it. The attached letter comments on the Nov. 1 Housing Element & Policy Options. Regards, PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS David Dornblaser I Attorney I Law Offices of David Dornblaser (T) +1 408-209-5879 I (F) none I dd@dornblaser.net P.O. Box 3544, Saratoga, CA 95070 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or is otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and 513 disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. 514 Law Offices of David Dornblaser Attorney at Law P.O. box 3544 Saratoga, CA 95070(t) 408-209-5879 (f) none (email) dd@dornblaser.net Page 1 of 4 Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons Vice Mayor Yan Zhao Council Member Belal Aftab Council Member Chuck Page Council Member Tina Walia Saratoga City Council 29 September 2023 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Council Members, I have reviewed the November 1, 2023, Housing Element Update and Policy Options, prepared by Mr. Bryan Swanson. This letter discusses the errors in the section entitled, Builder’s Remedy Project Information (BRPI) and one other matter only. BRPI page 6, paragraph 5- Members of the public have suggested that the City “self- certify its housing element...” This is incorrect. There is no self-certificationinthe California Government Codes and “Members of the Public” did not make this suggestion. “Members of the Public” have, however, suggested that the City confirm the adoption of the Housing Element submission, received by HCD on May 30, 2023, and, “promptly following the adoption of its element or amendment, the planning agency [City] shall submit a copy to the department.” Cal Gov Code §65585(g). See also, letter from Shawana Ballard, Esq. to the Saratoga City Council dated, October 27, 2023, p.1, para. 5 et. seq. If the City failed to adopt its Housing Element, then the City Council has abused its authority and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner by not acting as required by law. After confirming adoption of its Housing Element, the City should confirm its substantial compliance by “Adopt[ing] the draft element or draft amendment without changes. The legislative body [City] shall include in its resolution or adoption written finding which explain the reasons the legislative body believes that the draft element or draft amendment substantially complies with this article despite the finding of the department.” Cal Gov Code §65585(f)(2)."Substantial compliance"refers to actual compliance with respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute and disregards simple technical imperfections of form. Buena Vista Gardens Apartments Assn. v. City of San Diego Planning Pent., (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 289, 297- 298. A city's adoption of a housing element is a legislative act entitled to some deference and there is a presumption it is valid. Fonseca,supra,148 Cal.App.4th at 1191. 515 November 1, 2023 2655 Campus Drive, Suite 100, San Mateo, CA 94403 (t) 408-209-5879 (f) none (email) dd@dornblaser.net Page 2 of 4 BRPI page 6, paragraph 6- “HCD stated that such self-certification does not make the housing element substantially compliant...” This is incorrect. The City, as shown above, may determine that it is substantially compliant with the relevant housing requirements. HCD does, however, have the statutory authority to review the City’s Housing Element submissions, respond to the City and demand that the City “respond to the [HCD’s] findings before taking any other action...” Also, “[HCD’s] informal interpretation of statutory requirements is not binding on the court and any deference due to the HCD's interpretation may be overcome by the plain meaning of the statute's text.Martinez v. City of Clovis, ("Martinez") (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 243 Our neighboring communities of Los Gatos, Los Altos, Mountain View and Morgan Hill adopted housing elements and found them to be substantially compliant before HCD approved their housing element. For example, as is reflected on the Los Gatos website, on January 30, 2023, Los Gatos adopted a Housing Element that it found to be substantially compliant before obtaining HCD certification: After adoption and declaring substantial compliance, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Morgan Hill and Mountain View continued to work with HCD. The state did not sue these cities or take any other punitive action. Eventually, HCD did agree that Mountain View and Los Altos housing elements were compliant. My understanding is that Los Gatos and Morgan Hill are continuing to work with the HCD with respect to obtain HCD certification of their Housing elements. BRPI page 6, last paragraph- This approach (adopt and declare substantial compliance) could invite at least two forms of litigation. This is speculative fear-mongering. The BRPI states that a Builder’s Remedy applicant or “ the state could sue the City claiming that the adopted housing element is invalid under state law.” As an initial matter,this risk assessment fails to speak to the core risk of not self-certifying, namely,that Saratoga will cede control to developers to build a Builder’s Remedy projects of any size of their choosing on any lot in Saratoga that someone might be willing to sell for development. Also, BRPI overstates the litigation risks. As discussed above, the state has not litigated against neighboring cities that self-certified. Moreover, should any of the builder’s sue the City with respect to a self-certified housing element, the City will not likely be alone in fighting the builders on these issues. Residents who will be impacted by the proposed 516 November 1, 2023 2655 Campus Drive, Suite 100, San Mateo, CA 94403 (t) 408-209-5879 (f) none (email) dd@dornblaser.net Page 3 of 4 development would also likely join in litigation with the builders or file separate litigation against builders. In fact, it took just a few days for the residents impactedbythe Chester/Allendale Builder’s Remedy proposal to obtain tens of thousands of dollars in commitments to fund litigation against the builders should it be necessary, and that fundraising campaign is just now getting ramped up. Also, the BRPI’s overstates the litigation risk when citing an inapplicable non-binding decision and when failing to cite binding statutes and cases. For example,as stated in the BRPI, the City of La Canada-Flintridge decision is not binding on other courts and the petitioner was not a builder or entitler but an organization that claimed La Canada’s housingelementwasinsufficientandnotsubstantiallycomplaint.Importantly,asdiscussed in prior correspondence, the statute applicable to the rejection of Builder’s Remedies expressly provides that it is the City (not HCD) that determines substantial compliance for purposes of rejecting a Builder’s Remedy, and the court in the La Canada matter did not hold to the contrary. Finally, Saratoga’s Housing Element is differentiated from La Canada’s in that Saratoga’s addresses all substantive portions of the required Housing Element, as reflected by HCD’s comments and staff’s comparison documents. The binding Fonseca case provides superior actual guidance to La Canada with, “The court's role in a challenge to a city's housing element is to determine whether it substantially complies with the requirements of the Housing Element Law.” Fonseca v. City of Gilroy, ("Fonseca") 48 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1191. The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate that the housing element is inadequate. Fonseca. 148 Cal.App.4th at 1191. BRPI in fact suggests that litigation is unlikely “Many of HCD’s comments on the third draft can be addressed by providing additional information and pointing tothe information already in the draft housing Element and by performing additional technical analysis....” BRPI p. 2, para. 1. As stated above, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Mountain View, and Morgan Hill took precisely the same approach we are advocating and weren’t sued by the state, and, to my knowledge, have not been sued by builders. BRPI p. 7, para. 3- “Several provisions in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)could affect the likelihood of litigation...HAA explicitly expresses the legislature’s intent that it be interpreted in favor of approval housing; courts may look to this intent language to guide their decisions.” In fact, the courts don’t look to this language. “In this regard, HCD's recommendations are advisory. §65585(a); Fonseca,supra,148 Cal.App.4th at 1193... [HCD’s] informal interpretation of statutory requirements is not binding on the court and any deference due to the HCD's interpretation may be overcome by the plain meaning of the statute's text.” Martinez v. City of Clovis, ("Martinez") (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 243. On another significant matter,- it appears that the BRPI may be sneaking the various Builder’s Remedy projects, including the vastly oversized Chester/Allendale Builder’s Remedy project, into the latest Housing Element Update by stating that the Builder’s Remedy projects “will be described in Section 6 of the Housing Element” and that it will 517 November 1, 2023 2655 Campus Drive, Suite 100, San Mateo, CA 94403 (t) 408-209-5879 (f) none (email) dd@dornblaser.net Page 4 of 4 include the Builder’s Remedy projects in the “City’s housing production numbers” in Attachment H to the BRPI. The Council should not acquiesce to the significantly outsized Allendale and Chester or other Builder’s Remedy projects by incorporating them into any revised Housing Element because (i) doing so would send a message to builder’s that Saratoga is open season for further Builder’s Remedy projects, (ii) the Builder’s Remedy projects are not suited for the neighborhoods in which they are proposed, and (iii) there is no environmental impact report for projects of that scale. In conclusion, I urge you to take the actions needed to protect Saratoga. Very truly yours, David Dornblaser 518 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 10:44:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Hassan Sedarat Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Housing Element Comments As an elected member of city council, you are expected to listen and follow the requests from concerned neighbors about rejecting builders remedy for Allendale lot as it will have significant adverse impact on a major part of Saratoga. Traffic, Noise and air pollution, compromised property values on adjacent blocks are a few to mention. Please do your duty and submit a plan without builder remedy project. Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 519 From:Birkey, Scott B. To:Britt Avrit Cc:James Lindsay;Bryan Swanson;Christopher Riordan Subject:Letter for Distribution to City Council in Advance of Nov. 1, 2023 City Council Meeting Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 10:59:35 AM Attachments:image001.png Letter to City Council.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Good morning, Britt Avrit, I am submitting the attached letter in connection with Agenda Item 3.1 to be considered at tonight’s City of Saratoga City Council meeting. Please distribute this letter to each of the City Councilmembers in advance of tonight’s meeting. Thank you, Scott Scott B. Birkey Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street | Suite 3200 | San Francisco, CA 94111 direct: 415.262.5162 main: 415.262.5100 sbirkey@coxcastle.com | vcard | bio | website This communication is intended only for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the addressee, or someone responsible for delivering this document to the addressee, you may not read, copy or distribute it. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please call us promptly and securely dispose of it. Thank you. 520 www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111-4710 P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199 Scott B. Birkey 415.262.5162 sbirkey@coxcastle.com November 1, 2023 City Council City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Response to October 26, 2023, and October 27, 2023 Letters Regarding Self- Certification of the City’s Housing Element Dear City Council: This law firm represents Vineyard One (“Vineyard”). We are in receipt of the Concerned Saratoga Citizens letter dated October 26, 2023 and the Shawna Ballard letter dated October 27, 2023 (collectively, the “Letters”) alleging the City of Saratoga (“City”) can legally “self-certify” the City’s housing element for the 6th Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) cycle (the “Housing Element”), thus negating the need for the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) to certify the Housing Element as substantially compliant with Housing Element Law (i.e., Government Code §§ 65580 et seq.). The purpose of this letter is twofold—one, to remind the City that the Letters’ contention is incorrect as a matter of law; and two, to remind the City that even if the Letters’ contention is correct (which it is not), the City is still required by law to process the Vineyard’s Project1 pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy. 1. HCD’s Certification of the Housing Element is Required HCD—the agency that has enforcement authority over Housing Element Law as well as the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) (amongst various other State housing laws)—has made it clear, for several months now, that “a jurisdiction does not have the authority to determine that its adopted element is in substantial compliance [i.e., “self-certify”] but [that a jurisdiction] may provide reasoning why HCD should make a finding of substantial compliance” and “a jurisdiction is ‘in compliance [with Housing Element Law] as of the date of HCD’s letter finding the adopted element in substantial compliance.” (Exhibit A [HCD Memorandum to Planning Directors and Interested Parties dated March 16, 2023 confirming that a jurisdiction’s housing element is not in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law until HCD determines such]; see also Hoffmaster v. City of San Diego (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1113, fn. 13 [“[w]e substantially rely on [HCD’s] interpretation and published guidelines to local 1 Vineyard has already submitted a Builder’s Remedy project (the “Project”) to the City through a Senate Bill (“SB”) 330 Preliminary Application on September 19, 2023 (the “SB 330 Application”). The Project includes 199 dwelling units, with 40 units to be deed restricted to lower income households, on an approximately 11.57-acre site that would bring much needed housing to the part of the City that includes the Project site. 521 City Council November 1, 2023 Page 2 governments regarding compliance with the housing element law [as] [c]onsistent administrative interpretation of a statute over a reasonable period of time, particularly by the agency charged with enforcing, implementing and interpreting the statutory scheme, is entitled to great weight”].) As such, HCD—and only HCD—has the statutory authority to certify a Housing Element under the law. a. Penalties the City Would Face for Self-Certification The City faces significant consequences if it seeks to “self-certify” its Housing Element. For example, eligibility for various State grant and loan programs expressly require an HCD- certified housing element. We understand that in other contexts, HCD has identified the following programs that are at risk when a local government chooses to ignore the fact that HCD—and only HCD—has the statutory authority to certify a Housing Element under the law. x Permanent Local Housing Allocation, x Local Housing Trust Fund Program, x Infill Infrastructure Grant Program, x SB 1 Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grants, and x Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Programs Accordingly, self-certification would put the City at risk of losing the ability to obtain these and other State grants and loans. That is not to mention the additional financial and legal ramifications that the City may face for its failure to have an HCD-certified housing element. For example, the Housing Element Law provides for court-imposed penalties for persistent noncompliance, including financial penalties. Government Code section 65585(l)(1) establishes a minimum fine of $10,000 per month and up to $100,000 per month. If a jurisdiction continues to remain noncompliant, a court can multiply the penalties up to a factor of six —which could total $600,000 per month or $7.2 million over a year. (Government Code § 65585(l)(3)(A).) Other potential ramifications could include the loss of local land use authority to a court- appointed agent. b. Fonseca v. City of Gilroy is No Longer Controlling Authority on these Issues. The Letters assert that Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1174 (“Fonseca”) authorizes the City to self-certify the Housing Element. Not so, in light of the present framework of the Housing Element Law (as substantially amended since Fonseca was decided in 2007). (See People v. Neer (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 991, 999 [stating the self-evident principle that “a decision correct when rendered loses its force as precedent when a later statute changes the rule].) This is precisely the point made by the trial court in Californians for Homeownership, Inc. v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Los Angeles Superior Court (“LASC”) Case No. 23STCP00699 (July 11, 2023) [included as an attachment to the Letters].) In that case, the trial 522 City Council November 1, 2023 Page 3 court explained in detail: “Fonseca's 2002 analysis of the Housing Element Law's requirements in 2002 is of limited value. The Fonseca court acknowledged that the substantive housing element requirements had already been amended by the time of its decision. Over the last decade, the Legislature repeatedly has amended the Housing Element Law, transforming the housing element system into a highly specified process involving meaningful HCD review and strict requirements. More recent bills have amended the Housing Element Law to significantly increase a city's analytical and evidentiary obligations for housing elements and the penalties associated with non-compliance. Thus, Fonseca's discussion of [Housing Element Law] as it existed in 2002 does not significantly bear on the statute as it exists now.” (Californians for Homeownership, Inc. v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Los Angeles Superior Court (“LASC”) Case No. 23STCP00699 (July 11, 2023), p. *80.) The abrogation of Fonseca’s holding, which generally favored local jurisdiction autonomy, becomes increasingly clear when recognizing the Legislature’s proactive role in extensively amending and creating new State housing laws to combat the ongoing Statewide housing crisis. Viewed through such a perspective, the necessity of mandatory HCD certification becomes evident. The housing element’s purpose is largely to ensure that a local jurisdiction does its part (e.g., meeting its RHNA) in solving for the broader Statewide housing crisis. HCD, as a critically important State agency in solving for our State’s housing supply crisis, holds each jurisdiction to a uniform standard, ensuring comprehensive and consistent Statewide compliance with the Housing Element Law. In this way, HCD’s certification acts as an essential and objective validation that a local jurisdiction is doing its fair share (along with all other local jurisdictions) in collectively solving the Statewide housing crisis. c. Other Jurisdictions’ Self-Certifications are Irrelevant The Letters also reference four other jurisdictions that have taken the dubious self- certification approach. Not only does this disregard the hundreds of other jurisdictions that have properly followed the law in receiving HCD certification for their housing element,2 but, as stated above, as State housing laws (inclusive of the Housing Element Law) are intended to combat the ongoing Statewide housing crisis and inherently limit local land use control, relying on the interpretations promulgated by local jurisdictions is like relying on a refinery to interpret the Clean Air Act. The interpretation and application of a handful of other local jurisdictions should be given no weight in evaluating whether a local jurisdiction’s housing element does not require HCD certification. (Cf. Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 301 (emphasis in original) [refusing to give the city’s interpretation deference because “the City was not given discretion to impose conditions and then determine whether they were satisfied: It was 2 HCD’s Housing Elements website, Summary and Clarifications of Requirements for Compliance states that “HCD is committed to diligently reviewing all 539 local jurisdictions’ housing elements for substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law.” (See https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing- elements#:~:text=%E2%80%8C%20Summary%20and%20Clarification%20of,with%20State%20Housing%20Elem ent%20Law [last accessed October 31, 2023].) 523 City Council November 1, 2023 Page 4 required to approve the development project if the conditions specified by the Legislature were met.”].) 2. The Housing Accountability Act’s “Builder’s Remedy” Applies to the Project, and the Project’s SB 330 Application Vests the City’s Housing Element Law Non-Compliance throughout the Entitlement Process The Letters also appear to assert that the City is not required to process the Project pursuant to the HAA’s Builder’s Remedy. This too is incorrect. To avoid the HAA’s Builders’ Remedy a jurisdiction must have at the very least “adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Section 65588 that is in substantial compliance with this article.” (Government Code § 65589.5(d)(5).) In other words, even at the most basic level the City must have adopted the Housing Element to argue that a Builder’s Remedy approach to entitlement is not viable.3 However, at the time Vineyard submitted the Project’s SB 330 Application on September 19, 2023 (and currently) the City did not have an adopted Housing Element, let alone a Housing Element certified by HCD to be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law. (See Exhibit B [snapshot of HCD’s Housing Element Compliance Report at time of the Project’s SB 330 Application submittal].) Furthermore, under SB 330, submittal of a complete “preliminary application” for a “housing development project” (such as the Project) vests the “ordinances policies and standards,” including a jurisdiction’s status of having a non-compliant Housing Element, in place at the time the preliminary application is submitted. (Government Code § 65589.5(o)(1); Exhibit C [HCD October 5, 2022 Letter of Technical Assistance].)4 By submitting the Project’s SB 330 Application on September 19, 2023 and its payment to the City of the SB 330 Application permit processing fee, Vineyard has satisfied all of the requirements of Government Code section 65941.1(a)—and accordingly, the Project cannot be made subject to subsequent changes to the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect as of this date, which includes the City’s non-compliant status under the Housing Element Law. (Government Code § 65589.5(o)(1); Exhibit C.) Because the City did not have an adopted Housing Element, let alone one certified by HCD to be in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law, when the Project’s SB 330 3 As discussed above adoption without HCD certification is not viable under Housing Element Law—and we note that the City’s own website states that “[u]nder California law, Saratoga is subject to the Builder's Remedy while awaiting State approval of the Housing Element…” (See https://www.saratoga.ca.us/603/Builders-Remedy- Projects#:~:text=Under%20California%20law%2C%20Saratoga%20is,(allowed%20uses%2C%20height%2C%20an d [last accessed October 31, 2023].) This argument is intended to show that even at the most threshold level the City need process the Project pursuant to the HAA’s Builder’s Remedy. 4 Under SB 330, unlike with a traditional development project application, a jurisdiction (such as the City) does not make any formal determination about whether the preliminary application is “complete”—rather the preliminary application is “deemed complete” by operation of law once submitted as long as it contains all of the information required by Government Code § 65941.1(a). (Government Code § 65941.1(d)(3).) 524 City Council November 1, 2023 Page 5 Application was submitted, the City’s non-compliant status under the Housing Element Law is now vested as to the Project, and the Builder’s Remedy applies to the Project throughout its entitlement process. a. The Letter’s Misguided Advice to Retroactively Treat the City Council’s May 17, 2023, Actions as Housing Element Adoption Is Contrary to Both the Facts and the Law The Letters appears to advise the City to somehow “retroactively” treat the City Council’s May 17, 2023 actions on the Housing Element as an adoption. The record is clear, however, that the City did not adopt the Housing Element on May 17, 2023. (See May 17, 2023 City Council Meeting Agenda5 [no mention of adoption of the Housing Element]; May 17, 2023 City Council Meeting Minutes6 [no mention of adoption of the Housing Element].) Nor could the City legally treat its action on May 17, 2023 as adoption of the Housing Element. The Housing Element is part of the City’s General Plan, which according to the Planning and Zoning Law mandates detailed procedural requirements for adoption be complied with. (See, e.g., Government Code § 65356 [requiring adoption or amendment of a general plan be achieved by resolution]; May 17, 2023 City Council Meeting Minutes [only referencing motion made by the City Council]; see also Government Code § 54954.2(a)(3) [Brown Act prohibition that precludes City Council from discussing or taking action on any item that does not appear on a posted agenda].) b. Consequences for Refusal to Process the Builder’s Remedy Project It is important that we briefly discuss the consequences the City may face for its refusal to process the Project pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy. At a minimum, the City’s refusal to process the Project pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy would constitute a violation of the HAA. This is the clear position of HCD (as discussed above, the agency that has enforcement authority over the HAA) as indicated in HCD’s June 8, 2023 Notice of Violation to the City of La Cañada Flintridge finding that city in violation of the HAA for refusing to process a Builder’s Remedy project application, in part, when that city alleged the Builder’s Remedy project did not “vest” under that city’s non-compliant status under the Housing Element Law at the time of that project’s SB 330 preliminary application submittal. (See Exhibit D [HCD June 8, 2023 Notice of Violation].) Among other things, Vineyard would be entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs of suit were it to prevail in litigation against the City brought under the HAA and the City could also be 5 Available at: https://www.saratoga.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05172023-1106 [Item 2.1—"Review of Draft Responses to HCD’s Second Comment Letter on the Saratoga Housing Element”]. 6 Available at: https://www.saratoga.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_05172023-1106 [Item 2.1—"Moved to move forward with responses proposed by Staff. Motion passed”].) 525 City Council November 1, 2023 Page 6 subject to a minimum fine in the amount of $1.99 million7, which amount can reach $9.95 million8 if a court finds the City has acted in bad faith. (Government Code §§ 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(ii)9, 65589.5(k)(1)(B). 65589.5(l).) Suffice it to say that the risk the City would take for failing to process the Project under the Builder’s Remedy is quite consequential. * * * * * Vineyard is committed to working productively with the City to develop the Project and provide the City with much needed housing in compliance with State housing laws. We expect that the City will comply with the current state of the law—and seek HCD’s certification of the Housing Element and continue to process Vineyard’s Project pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy. Sincerely, Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP S 7 Minimum fine amount of $10,000 per housing unit * 199 units in the Project = $1,990,000. (Government Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B).) 8 Government Code § 65589.5(l) provides “… in addition to any other remedies provided by this section, [the court] shall multiply the fine determined pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) by a factor of five.” $1,990,000 * 5 = $9,950,000. 9 Notably an eligible petitioner under the HAA would not be limited to Vineyard. Rather a person eligible to apply for residency in the Project or a “housing organization” could bring an action to enforce the HAA against the City. (Government Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i).) 526 EXHIBIT A 527 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM., Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: March 16, 2023 TO: Planning Directors and Interested Parties FROM: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director Division of Housing Policy Development SUBJECT: Summary and Clarification of Requirements for Housing Element Compliance HCD is committed to diligently reviewing all 539 local jurisdictions’ housing elements for substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. To comply with State Housing Element Law and avoid the consequences of noncompliance, a local jurisdiction must, among other things: 1. Submit a draft housing element to HCD at least 90 days before adoption 1 and receive findings from HCD determining whether the draft element is substantially compliant,2 and consider HCD’s findings before adopting the draft element.3 In other words, where a jurisdiction submits an “adopted” housing HOHPHQWௗEHIRUHVXEPLWWLQJDQLQLWLDOGUDIWRUEHIRUHFRQVLGHULQJ+&'¶VILQGLQJV RQDQLQLWLDOGUDIWௗ+&'ZLOOFRQVLGHUWKH³DGRSWHG´WREHDQinitial draft for SXUSRVHVRIERWK+&'¶VUHYLHZDQGWKHMXULVGLFWLRQ¶VVWDWXWRU\FRPSOLDQFH 2. If HCD finds the draft element is not substantially compliant, revise the draft to address any findings by HCD 4 or adopt without changes and include written findings explaining why the jurisdiction believes that the draft substantially complies.5 Promptly following adoption, submit the adopted housing element to HCD 6 and receive findings on the adopted element from HCD.7 1 *RY&RGHௗ, subd. (b)(1) 2 *RY&RGHௗ, subds. (b)(3), (d) 3 *RY&RGHௗ, subd. (e) 4 *RY&RGHௗ, subd. (f)(1) 5 Gov. &RGHௗ, subd. (f)(2) 6 *RY&RGHௗ, subd. (g) 7 *RY&RGHௗ, subd. (h) 528 Summary and Clarification of Requirements for Housing Element Compliance Page 2 In other words, a jurisdiction does noWKDYHWKHDXWKRULW\WRGHWHUPLQHWKDWLWV DGRSWHGHOHPHQWLVLQVXEVWDQWLDOFRPSOLDQFHEXWPD\SURYLGHUHDVRQLQJZK\ +&'VKRXOGPDNHDILQGLQJRIVXEVWDQWLDOFRPSOLDQFH ,QDGGLWLRQDMXULVGLFWLRQLV³LQFRPSOLDQFH´DVRIWKHGDWHRI+&'¶VOHWWHU findiQJWKHDGRSWHGHOHPHQWLQVXEVWDQWLDOFRPSOLDQFH$Q\RWKHUOHWWHUVDUH QRWDILQGLQJRIVXEVWDQWLDOFRPSOLDQFH +&'UHFRPPHQGVWKDWDMXULVGLFWLRQDGRSWRQO\DIWHUUHFHLYLQJDOHWWHUIURP +&'ILQGLQJWKHGUDIWPHHWVVWDWXWRU\UHTXLUHPHQWV For more detailed information about this process, please visit HCD’s Housing Elements webpage and Housing Elements Building Blocks. 529 EXHIBIT B 530 Exhibit A [Department of Housing and Community Development’s Housing Element Compliance Report] 531 EXHIBIT C 532 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov October 5, 2022 Dave Rand Rand Paster & Nelson LLP 633 W. Fifth Street, 64th floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Dear Dave Rand: RE: 3030 Nebraska Avenue, Santa Monica – Letter of Technical Assistance This letter is in response to your September 16, 2022, request for technical assistance regarding the implementation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), particularly those provisions that require housing element compliance, in the context of the proposed multi-family residential development in Santa Monica at the address noted above. The inquiry pertains to the relationship of preliminary applications to projects that invoke the provisions of subdivision (d)(5) of Government Code section 65589.5 once a housing element has been found in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. Background A housing development project with housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households 1 cannot be denied (or approved in a way such that conditions render the inclusion of affordable housing infeasible) unless one of five potential written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, can be made. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d).) Under subdivision (d)(5), a jurisdiction can only deny a qualifying project if both of the following criteria are satisfied: (1) The project is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation and (2) the jurisdiction has a housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. Therefore, the status of a jurisdiction’s housing element is of critical importance when determining the applicability of the provisions of subdivision (d)(5). 1 “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3).) 533 Dave Rand, Rand Paster & Nelson LLP Page 2 Analysis The question posed in your September 16, 2022; request is as follows: If a preliminary application is submitted to a jurisdiction without a compliant Housing Element, and the jurisdiction subsequently achieves Housing Element compliance during the project’s entitlement process, do the rights vested by the preliminary application continue to apply? The answer is “yes.” The submittal of a complete preliminary application pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 vests the right to develop a housing development project in accordance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect when a preliminary application is submitted. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (o)(1).) Therefore, if the submittal occurs at a time when the jurisdiction does not have a compliant housing element, any potential benefits afforded to the applicant as a result of the jurisdiction’s noncompliant status would remain throughout the entitlement process even if the jurisdiction subsequently achieves compliance during the entitlement process. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Brian Heaton at Brian.Heaton@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Melinda Coy Proactive Housing Accountability Unit Chief 534 EXHIBIT D 535 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov June 8, 2023 Mark R. Alexander, City Manager City of La Cañada Flintridge One Civic Center Drive La Cañada Flintridge, CA 91011 Dear Mark R. Alexander: RE: City of La Cañada Flintridge Denial of 600 Foothill Boulevard Housing Project – Notice of Violation The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) writes to notify the City of La Cañada Flintridge (City), and its City Council, that it is in violation of State Housing Element Law and the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Gov. Code, § 65589.5). This violation occurred when the City, despite technical assistance from HCD, denied an appeal related to the application of the housing project at 600 Foothill Boulevard (Project). The City did so by adopting Resolution 23-14, which purports to uphold the Planning Division’s incompleteness determination for the Project application, issued on March 1, 2023. The basis for the City’s denial includes, among other findings: 1. that Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5), colloquially referred to as the Builder’s Remedy, does not apply and is not available for the Project; and 2. that the Project did not “vest” as a Builder’s Remedy project as alleged in the Project’s preliminary application because the City’s housing element, adopted on October 4, 2022 (October 4, 2022, Adopted Housing Element), was in compliance with State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.). Based on HCD’s review of pertinent information in the City’s own staff report, these findings are flawed. The City cannot “backdate” its housing element compliance date to an earlier date so as to avoid approving a Builder’s Remedy application. In short, the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element did not substantially comply with State Housing Element Law, regardless of any declaration by the City. Therefore, the Builder’s Remedy applies, and the City’s denial of the Project application based on inconsistency with zoning and land use designation is a violation of the HAA. 536 Mark R. Alexander, City Manager Page 2 HCD further reminds the City that, as of the date of this letter, the City remains out of compliance with Housing Element Law unless and until it completes statutorily required rezoning. Background The Project is proposed as an 80-unit mixed-use project where 20 percent of the units (16 units) will be affordable to lower-income households. The residential portion equates to approximately 89 percent of the Project; therefore, the Project qualifies as a “housing development project” under the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(2)(B)). The base density proposed for this Project is approximately 40.5 units per acre before the application of density bonus under State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65915- 65918). HCD understands the timeline for the Project as follows: x On November 11, 2022, pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1, the Project applicant submitted a preliminary application that was vested on November 14, 2023, after payment of application fees. x A full application was submitted to the City for the Project on January 13, 2023, and fees were paid on the invoice on January 31, 2023. By submitting this full application within the 180-day period prescribed by Government Code section 65941.1, subdivision (d)(1), the applicant established November 14, 2023 (the date it submitted the preliminary application) as the vesting date of the application. x On February 10, 2023, the City’s planning division issued the first incompleteness letter on this application, which cited information required for the site plan, floor plan, elevation, landscape plans, grading plans, and the density bonus application, among other things. The letter did not comment on density or development standards relating to the Mixed-Use 2 designation. x On March 1, 2023, the City’s planning division issued a second incompleteness letter that further found that the Builder’s Remedy would not apply to the Project, that the Project was therefore inconsistent with the Mixed-Use 2 designation, and that the applicant must submit revised plans and materials based on a density of 12-15 units per acre. x On March 9, 2023, the applicant appealed this incompleteness letter to the City Council. x On March 22, 2023, HCD provided a Letter of Technical Assistance to the City to help with decision-making related to this appeal. x On May 1, 2023, the City Council heard and denied the appeal by adopting Resolution 23-14. The Resolution found the following: o the Builder’s Remedy under the HAA did not apply and is not available for the Project; and o the Project did not “vest” as a Builder’s Remedy project as alleged in the Project’s SB 330 Preliminary Application (submitted November 14, 2022) because the City’s October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element was in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law, regardless of HCD’s finding to the contrary. 537 Mark R. Alexander, City Manager Page 3 Housing Element Compliance The City’s determination that the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element was in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law is incorrect and unsupported by law. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, a local jurisdiction must first submit a draft housing element to HCD and receive HCD’s findings before formally adopting a revised housing element. If HCD finds the draft element is not substantially compliant, the local jurisdiction must revise the draft to address any findings by HCD (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (f)(1)) or adopt the housing element without changes and include written findings explaining why the local jurisdiction believes that the draft substantially complies (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (f)(2)). Promptly following adoption, the local jurisdiction must submit the adopted housing element to HCD (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (g)) and receive findings on the adopted element from HCD (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (h)). The following represents the record of housing element submittals to HCD and HCD’s formal responses. x October 6, 2021 – The City submitted the initial draft housing element to HCD. x October 15, 2021 – Due date of 6th cycle housing element per State Housing Element Law. x December 3, 2021 – Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), HCD found the draft housing element required significant revisions to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law. x October 4, 2022 – The City adopted a housing element that failed to address adequately the findings in HCD’s letter of December 3, 2021. The resolution adopting the housing element made none of the findings required by Government Code section 65585, subdivision (f)(2). x October 7, 2022 – The City submitted the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element for HCD’s review. x December 6, 2022 – HCD found the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element required critical revisions to comply with state law, including additional analysis to demonstrate the adequacy of the sites included in its site inventory and policy and programmatic changes pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h). x February 21, 2023 – The City adopted a housing element which addressed adequately the findings in HCD’s December 6, 2022 letter. As part of this adoption, the City further stated that the City’s housing element was in substantial compliance with State Housing Element law as of the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element. x February 23, 2023 – The City submitted the revised, adopted housing element for HCD’s review. x April 24, 2023 – HCD found the revised adopted housing element was not in substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b). HCD made this finding because the City adopted the element on February 21, 2023, more than one year past the statutory due date of October 15, 2021. As a result, and pursuant to Government Code section 538 Mark R. Alexander, City Manager Page 4 65588, subdivision (e)(4)(C)(iii), the City must complete required rezones in Program 1 (Adequate Residential Sites to Accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), Program 4 (Downtown Village Specific Plan), Program 5 (Religious Institution Housing Overlay), and Program 6 (By Right Approval for Projects with 20 percent Affordable Units) prior to being found in substantial compliance. A local jurisdiction has no authority to determine that its adopted element is in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law.1 It may, however, provide reasoning why HCD should make a finding of substantial compliance (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (f)(2)). As stated in HCD’s letter dated March 22, 2023, a local jurisdiction is “in compliance” as of the date of HCD’s letter finding the adopted element in substantial compliance. A local jurisdiction cannot “backdate” compliance to the date of its adoption of a housing element.2 Moreover, by revising its October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element (in response to HCD’s findings made on December 6, 2022), the City directly contradicted its declaration that that Adopted Housing Element substantially complied with State Housing Element Law. In short, the October 4, 2022 Adopted Housing Element did not substantially comply with State Housing Element Law, regardless of any declaration by the City. Housing Accountability Act (HAA) Resolution 23-14 improperly blocks the Project applicant from utilizing protections provided in the HAA. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d), a jurisdiction shall not disapprove a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households 3 or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of five findings in subdivision (d). If HCD does not find a local jurisdiction’s adopted housing element in substantial compliance by the statutory deadline, the jurisdiction cannot use subdivision (d)(5) of Government Code section 65589.5 (inconsistency with zoning and general plan standards) as a basis to deny a qualifying affordable housing project. 1 See “Housing Compliance Memo,” State Department of Housing and Community Development, March 16, 2023. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and- community/memos/HousingElementComplianceMemo03162023.pdf. 2 Ibid. 3 “Housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households” means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower-income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3)). 539 Mark R. Alexander, City Manager Page 5 Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5), allows a local agency to disapprove an affordable housing project that “is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan” if “the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element … that is in substantial compliance….” Here, because the City does not have a substantially compliant housing element, it may not disapprove an affordable housing project for inconsistency with the zoning and land use designation. Pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1, subdivision (a), the submittal of a complete preliminary application vests the right to develop a housing development project in accordance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect when a preliminary application is submitted (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (o)(1)). Therefore, if the preliminary application submittal occurs at a time when the jurisdiction does not have a compliant housing element, and the development submittal occurs within the 180-day required period thereafter (Gov. Code, § 65941.1, subd. (d)(1)), the jurisdiction cannot rely upon zoning and land use standards to deny an affordable housing project because the jurisdiction’s noncompliant status was vested, and shall remain, throughout the entitlement process. This rule applies even if the jurisdiction subsequently achieves compliance. As the adopted housing element was not in substantial compliance as of November 14, 2022 (the date of preliminary application submittal), the City cannot use Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5), to deny the project. Yet on March 1, 2023, the City issued an incompleteness letter that found that the Builder’s Remedy would not apply to the Project, that the Project was therefore inconsistent with the land use designation, and that as a result, the applicant must submit revised plans.4 On May 1, 2023, the City Council denied the applicant’s appeal by adopting Resolution 23-14, which found that the Builder’s Remedy did not apply. Although the City Council did not directly vote on or deny a proposed housing development on the site, Resolution 23-14 upheld the planning division’s March 1, 2023 letter, which denied the 80-unit Project as submitted and directed the applicant to submit new site plans and a new project consistent with the Mixed-Use 2 zone density of 12-15 units per acre. The City’s adoption of Resolution 23-14 therefore effectively denied the Project as proposed in violation of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d) and (h)(6)(A)). 4 The City’s March 1, 2023, letter appears to incorrectly determine the Project application was incomplete because the Project was inconsistent with zoning standards. Inconsistency with local zoning standards is a reason to deny an application in some circumstances, but it is not a basis for deeming an application incomplete. The City’s finding therefore conflicts with the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, § 65943, subd. (a)) and the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65941.1, subd. (d)(1)). 540 Mark R. Alexander, City Manager Page 6 Conclusion The City violated state law by claiming, without any factual or legal justification, that the Builder’s Remedy did not apply to the Project application (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(5)). In addition, pursuant to HCD’s housing element findings letter dated April 24, 2023, the City remains out of compliance with State Housing Element Law. Please note HCD’s review of the May 1, 2023, action to deny the appeal of the March 1, 2023 letter was made in furtherance of, and limited to, a determination of the City’s compliance with State Housing Element Law and the HAA. Accordingly, HCD expresses no opinion as to whether the City has complied with, or is excused from, any other provisions of the Government Code governing review and approval of development applications. Under Government Code section 65585, HCD must review any action or failure to act that it determines to be inconsistent with either an adopted housing element or Government Code section 65583. HCD must then issue written findings to the local government (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)). Additionally, HCD must notify a local government when that local government takes actions that violate Government Code sections 65589.5 and 65583 and may notify the California Office of the Attorney General (Gov. Code, § 65585, subds. (i)(1) and (j)). By this letter, HCD has done so. The City has until June 22, 2023, to provide a written response to this Notice. HCD will consider any written response before taking further action authorized by Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j), including, but not limited to, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact melinda.coy@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, David Zisser Assistant Deputy Director Local Government Relations and Accountability Melinda Coy Proactive Housing Accountability Chief cc: David Pai, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice (via email) Susan Koleda, AICP, Community Development Director (via email) 541 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Britt Avrit Cc:Bryan Swanson Subject:FW: Housing Element Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 11:01:41 AM Attachments:Proposed Action Items for City 2023 10 30.pdf Leslie Arroyo Assistant City Manager City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1269| larroyo@saratoga.ca.us From: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 7:02 AM To: Leslie Arroyo <larroyo@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Fw: Housing Element fyi... From: Kelly Kinder < Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 7:00 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Housing Element CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Kelly Kinder Saratoga CA 95070 October 31, 2023 Saratoga City Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City Council: 542 Please read the attached the “Recommended Actions For Saratoga City Council To Take on November 1, 2023 In Resolution or Other Acceptable Form submitted by Shawna Ballard on behalf of 100s of citizens of Saratoga. The City Council has an opportunity to protect all citizens of Saratoga from Builder's Remedies which will destroy Saratoga one house at a time. If you fail to adopt the substantially compliant Housing Element of May 17 you have failed all the citizens of Saratoga. I urge you to adopt the current substantially compliant Housing Element and continue to work with HCD to address minor adjustments for sensible growth as required by the state. It is your responsibility to control the General Plan and Zoning for the safety, happiness, privacy and well- being of all citizens of Saratoga. Remove all politics and unite neighborhoods to share the beauty and blessings of Saratoga. Thank you. Regards, Kelly Kinder Copy: paul.mcdougall@hcd.ca.gov clare.blackwell@hcd.ca.gov "Senator.Cortese@senate.ca.gov" senator.cortese@senate.ca.gov 543 ZĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚĐƟŽŶƐ&Žƌ^ĂƌĂƚŽŐĂŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůdŽdĂŬĞŽŶEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϭ͕ϮϬϮϯ/ŶZĞƐŽůƵƟŽŶŽƌ KƚŚĞƌĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞ&Žƌŵ x ŽŶĮƌŵƚŚĂƚŽŶDĂLJϭϳ͕ϮϬϮϯƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝůĂĚŽƉƚĞĚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚĞŵďŽĚŝĞĚŝŶƚŚĞDĂLJ ϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚhƉĚĂƚĞǁŚĞŶŝƚĂĚŽƉƚĞĚƚŚĞ^ƚĂī-ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞĚĞƐĐƌŝďŝŶŐƚŚĞ ƵƉĚĂƚĞƐƚŽƉƌŝŽƌĚƌĂŌƐ͘;Ăů͘'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϲϴϴϱϴϱ;ĨͿͿ x ŽŶĮƌŵƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ^ƚĂī-ƉƌĞƉĂƌĞĚƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚĂŶĚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞDĂLJϭϳƌĞƐŽůƵƟŽŶ ĞŵďŽĚŝĞƐƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝů͛ƐǁƌŝƩĞŶĮŶĚŝŶŐƐĞdžƉůĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĂƚ͕ŝŶůŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ ƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͕ƚŚĞDĂLJϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚhƉĚĂƚĞƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůůLJĐŽŵƉůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚŽĚĞƌƟĐůĞϭϬ͘ϲ͘ŶŽƚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞĮŶĚŝŶŐƐďLJƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĂŶĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ;͞,͟ͿŝŶŝƚƐDĂƌĐŚϭϳ͕ϮϬϮϯůĞƩĞƌ͘;Ăů͘'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑ ϲϱϱϴϱ;ĨͿͿ x /ŶĂŶĂďƵŶĚĂŶĐĞŽĨĐĂƵƟŽŶĂŶĚĨŽƌƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽĨĐůĂƌŝƚLJ͕ƌĞĂĚŽƉƚƚŚĞDĂLJϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ hƉĚĂƚĞ͘;Ăů͘'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϲϱϱϴϱ;ĨͿͿ x /ŶĂŶĂďƵŶĚĂŶĐĞŽĨĐĂƵƟŽŶĂŶĚĨŽƌƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐŽĨĐůĂƌŝƚLJ͕ƌĞĂĚŽƉƚƚŚĞDĂLJϭϳ͕ϮϬϮϯ^ƚĂīƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĂƚƚŚĞDĂLJϭϳ͕ϮϬϮϯŵĞĞƟŶŐĂƐƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝů͛ƐĮŶĚŝŶŐƐĞdžƉůĂŝŶŝŶŐƚŚĂƚ͕ŝŶůŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞ ĐŚĂŶŐĞƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͕ƚŚĞDĂLJϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚhƉĚĂƚĞƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůůLJ ĐŽŵƉůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚŽĚĞƌƟĐůĞϭϬ͘ϲ͘ŶŽƚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĞ,ĮŶĚŝŶŐƐŝŶŝƚƐDĂƌĐŚϭϳ͕ϮϬϮϯůĞƩĞƌ͘;Ăů͘'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϲϱϱϴϱ;ĨͿͿ x /ŶĂŶĂďƵŶĚĂŶĐĞŽĨĐĂƵƟŽŶ͕ĚƌĂŌĂŶĚĂĚŽƉƚĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůǁƌŝƩĞŶĮŶĚŝŶŐƐĞdžƉůĂŝŶŝŶŐǁŚLJƚŚĞ ĂĚŽƉƚĞĚDĂLJϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚhƉĚĂƚĞŝƐŝŶƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚŽĚĞƌƟĐůĞϭϬ͘ϲ͘ŶŽƚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞ,ĮŶĚŝŶŐƐƐĞƚĨŽƌƚŚŝŶ,͛Ɛ :ƵůLJϮϳ͕ϮϬϮϯůĞƩĞƌ͘;Ăů͘'Žǀ͘ŽĚĞΑϲϱϱϴϱ;ĨͿͿ x ŐƌĞĞƚŚĂƚ͕ŶŽƚǁŝƚŚƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŽƵŶĐŝů͛ƐĮŶĚŝŶŐƐŽĨƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂůĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ƚŚĞŝƚLJǁŝůůĚŝůŝŐĞŶƚůLJǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ,ƚŽĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĂŵĞŶĚƚŚĞ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚƚŽĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝƚĞŵƐƌĞŇĞĐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ,͛Ɛ:ƵůLJϮϳ͕ϮϬϮϯƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͘ x džĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞƵŝůĚĞƌƐZĞŵĞĚLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĨƌŽŵĂŶLJĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƟŽŶŽĨĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͕ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚ ĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐŽƌĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƵŶŝƚƐŝŶĂŶLJĂŵĞŶĚĞĚ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚŵŝŐŚƚďĞƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ ,͘ x /ŶƐƚƌƵĐƚ^ƚĂĨĨƚŽŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞůLJƚoƚĂŬĞƚŚĞƐƚĞƉƐŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽŵĞĞƚĂŶLJ:ĂŶƵĂƌLJϯϭ͕ϮϬϮϰŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ ƐƚĂƚƵƚŽƌLJƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĚĞĂĚůŝŶĞƐƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽƚŚĞƐƚĂƚƵƚŽƌLJƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ,͛ƐDĂƌĐŚ ϭϳĂŶĚ:ƵůLJϮϳ͕ϮϬϮϯůĞƚƚĞƌƐƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJĂƐŝƚƌĞůĂƚĞƐƚŽƚŚĞĂĚŽƉƚĞĚDĂLJϮϬϮϯ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ůĞŵĞŶƚ hƉĚĂƚĞ͘ 544 From:Leslie Arroyo To: Cc:Kookie Fitzsimmons;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Chuck Page;Tina Walia;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Bryan Swanson Subject:FW: Saratoga Housing Element Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 11:10:41 AM Attachments:Grabowy Housing Element Letter to Saratoga City Council 10 30 2023.pdf Dear Mr. Grabowy, Thank you for your comments regarding the Housing Update agenda item. This will be included as an attachment to the Staff Report. We hope you can join us for the City Council meeting this evening. Sincerely, Leslie Leslie Arroyo Assistant City Manager City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1269| larroyo@saratoga.ca.us From: Ed Grabowy Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 10:18 PM To: Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: Chris Vasquez (Dolce Musica) Subject: Saratoga Housing Element CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Ladies and Gentlemen, I have attached a comment letter regarding the Housing Element which is to be discussed at the November 1, 2023 meeting. Please contact me with any questions. Thank you. Ed Grabowy 545 Letter to the Saratoga City Council October 30, 2023 I have been a resident of Saratoga Woods for some 23 years and am writing to express my displeasure at the process and results of the Housing Element. I have written numerous letters to the City Council and spoke at numerous City Council meetings. The City Council ignored the comments and advice of hundreds of fellow citizens as well as mine. I have embedded a letter submitted to the City Council by Chris Vasquez which is an excellent summary and analysis of the situation. I concur with his comments. I am troubled by the failure of the City Staff, City Planning Commission, City Council and its’ hired consultants to fully understand the requirements of the Housing Element rules. It was pointed out in the early days that the initial Housing Element should have been modified to incorporate equitable distribution of the units throughout the city. Yet the City Council with the help of the City Staff and its expensive consultants have failed three times to submit a plan which is acceptable to the State. Time and scarce city funds have been wasted. In my opinion. the proposed 4th revised plan is a stop-gap measure which fails to address the feedback from the State on equitable distribution and will ultimately fail again. I attended the Planning Commission meeting in mid-October and was dismayed by the discussion which left me concluding that the City staff and the Planning Commission still do not understand the Housing Element rules or the implications of failure to meet them. Furthermore, they did not appear to communicate clearly with each other. It was torture watching their performance. The residents of Saratoga deserve better when dealing with an issue as important as the Housing Element. This is much more complicated than deciding if someone gets an 8’ or 10’ high fence. The future of our city is on the line. I urge the new council members, Messers Aftab and Page to lead the council. You heard loudly and clearly from the City’s residents about their dissatisfaction with the current Housing Element. You need to lead and ensure the resubmitted Housing Element document is compliant with the State’s requirements. That will mean going back and looking at alternate sites as well as incorporating other ideas as reserve site(s). Last year’s council failed. Given the Builders’ Remedy which is being used across the city, continued failure is not an option. Ed Grabowy 546 From:Shawna Ballard Krainin To:Kookie Fitzsimmons Cc:Yan Zhao;Chuck Page;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;James Lindsay;Leslie Arroyo;Britt Avrit Subject:Re: Recommended Actions For The Saratoga City Council To Take on November 1, 2023 Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 11:04:01 AM Attachments:REDLINE Updated Proposed Action Items for 2023 11 01 Meeting.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Council and Staff, I am attaching a redlined update to the proposed recommended actions that I initially circulated on Monday, October 30 with respect to the Housing Element agenda item for today's meeting. Specifically, the fifth bullet point in that October 30 list recommended that the Council draft and adopt written findings explaining why the May 2023 Housing Element Update is in substantial compliance with applicable requirements notwithstanding HCD's July 27, 2023 response letter. In the attached redlined updated list of recommended action items, I have incorporated into the fifth bullet point some recommended findings and corrected a typo in the last bullet point. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Shawna Ballard On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 5:15 PM Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us> wrote: Dear Shawna, Thank you for the follow-up email! We look forward to seeing you tomorrow at the City Council meeting. I’m also copying our City Clerk so that she has these additional items for the agenda packet. Sincerely, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor City of Saratoga From: Shawna Ballard Krainin Sent: Monday, October 30, 2023 7:07 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> 547 Subject: Recommended Actions For The Saratoga City Council To Take on November 1, 2023 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Council, As a follow up to the October 26 and October 27 letters that I emailed to the Council, for ease of reference, the attached includes a bullet-point summary of the recommended actions set forth in such letters as it relates to the November 1 Housing Element Agenda item. Best, Shawna Ballard 548 Recommended AcƟons For Saratoga City Council To Take on November 1, 2023 In ResoluƟon or Other Acceptable Form x Confirm that on May 17, 2023 the Council adopted the Housing Element embodied in the May 2023 Housing Element Update when it adopted the Staff-prepared response describing the updates to prior draŌs. (Cal. Gov. Code § 688585(f)) x Confirm that the Staff-prepared response referenced and incorporated in the May 17 resoluƟon embodies the Council’s wriƩen findings explaining that, in light of the changes described in the response, the May 2023 Housing Element Update substanƟally complies with the requirements of California Government Code ArƟcle 10.6. notwithstanding the findings by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) in its March 17, 2023 leƩer. (Cal. Gov. Code § 65585(f)) x In an abundance of cauƟon and for purposes of clarity, readopt the May 2023 Housing Element Update. (Cal. Gov. Code § 65585(f)) x In an abundance of cauƟon and for purposes of clarity, readopt the May 17, 2023 Staff response approved at the May 17, 2023 meeƟng as the Council’s findings explaining that, in light of the changes described in the response, the May 2023 Housing Element Update substanƟally complies with the requirements of California Government Code Ar Ɵcle 10.6. notwithstanding the HCD findings in its March 17, 2023 leƩer. (Cal. Gov. Code § 65585(f)) x In an abundance of cauƟon, draŌ and adopt the below addiƟonal wriƩen findings explaining why the adopted May 2023 Housing Element Update is in substanƟal compliance with the requirements of California Government Code ArƟcle 10.6. notwithstanding the HCD findings set forth in HCD’s July 27, 2023 leƩer. (Cal. Gov. Code § 65585(f)) The Council makes the following wriƩen findings with respect to the May 2023 Housing Element Update: 1. The Council and City Staff have worked diligently on Saratoga’s sixth cycle housing element and have dedicated significant Ɵme and effort into the development of the lengthy and thorough May 2023 Housing Element Update. 2. The Council and City Staff have diligently worked to ensure that the May 2023 Housing Element Update is in substanƟal compliance with applicable statutory and legal requirements, including those set forth in California Government Code ArƟcle 10.6. 549 3. The City received HCD comments to the May 2023 Housing Element Update on July 27, 2023. 4. Notwithstanding the HCD’s comments in the July 27, 2023 or prior response leƩers, the May 2023 Housing Element Update substanƟally complies with applicable statutory and legal requirements, including those set forth in California Government Code ArƟcle 10.6. 5. The various issues and items that HCD raises in the Appendix to the July 27, 2023 HCD response leƩer do not, when taken as a whole, defeat substanƟal compliance with applicable statutory requirements, including those set forth in California Government Code ArƟcle 10.6. 6. The May 2023 Housing Element Update sufficiently and adequately covers and addresses each of the issues and items listed in the Appendix to HCD’s July 27, 2023 response leƩer. x Agree that, notwithstanding the Council’s findings of substanƟal compliance with the Housing Element requirements, the City will diligently work with the HCD to further amend the Housing Element to address items reflected in the HCD’s July 27, 2023 response. x Exclude the Builders Remedy projects from any descripƟon of approved projects, approved densiƟes or approved units in any amended Housing Element that might be submiƩed to the HCD. x Instruct Staff to immediately to take the steps needed to meet any January 31, 2024 or other statutory rezoning deadlines pursuant to the statutory sections referenced in the HCD’s March 17 and July 27, 2023 letters to the City as it relates to the adopted May 2023 Housing Element Update. 550 From:Tina Walia To:James Lindsay;Leslie Arroyo Cc:Bryan Swanson;Britt Avrit Subject:Fw: Confirmation from Senator Cortese"s Office Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 10:17:14 AM Attachments:image.png HousingElementComplianceMemo03162023.pdf FYI From: Somnath Nag Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2023 9:04 PM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Confirmation from Senator Cortese's Office CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Distinguished Council Members, Please see below a response from Senator Cortese's Office confirming that it is within your legal right to Adopt our Housing Element and then continue to work with HCD onany corrections. I hope this gives you comfort that there is no legal risk from HCD. Please scroll down to the bottom for the email thread. Thank you -som 551 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From:Contini, Zachary <Zachary.Contini@sen.ca.gov> Date: Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 2:20 PM Subject: RE: Saratoga needs your URGENT help TODAY To: Somnath Nag >, Senator Cortese <Senator.Cortese@senate.ca.gov> Cc: David Dornblaser <dd@dornblaser.net>, Vivek Tiwari >, Fred Kinder >, Bernie Mills >, Jerry S >, Jody Tatro < Hello all, I was not aware of any deadline for today and want some clarification on what you mean by that. Do you have any emails from the City which highlights this? In regards to 3 and 4, you are correct that even by HCD’s own guidance, Cities are able to declare themselves substantially compliant and adopt a Housing Element even without the approval of HCD. However, my understanding is that it would still be subject to HCD’s approval who may after review 552 declare their Housing Element as out of compliance. I attached a brief public letter from HCD which detailed that understanding of the law from HCD. However, the decision to go down that route or not is ultimately up to your City Leaders. I confirmed with the City that the current Builder’s Remedy proposals are all SB 330 Preliminary Applications meaning they operate under the land use designations in place at the time of their preliminary application. If you are unfamiliar with the law, here is a brief quote which describes it from HCD’s website: SB 330 allows a housing developer to submit a “preliminary application” to a local agency for a housing development project. Submittal of a pre-application allows a developer to provide a specific subset of information on the proposed housing development ahead of providing the full amount of information required by the local government for a housing development application. Upon submittal of an application and a payment of the permit processing fee, a housing developer is allowed to “freeze” the applicable fees and development standards that apply to their project while they assemble the rest of the material necessary for a full application submittal. Developers have a certain amount of time to respond with a full proposal but if they meet that deadline by State Law the City would have to comply. Based on this, Saratoga would have to have been substantially compliant at the time of the preliminary application for them to be able to not consider the Builder’s Remedy project if the developer puts together their paperwork in time. At this point, that means you may need to be deemed retroactively compliant which I think some of you were talking about with me (I forget who now but I remember someone saying something about the importance of retroactivity). This is not legal advice but information based on my understanding of the law and Saratoga’s current situation. Best regards, Zach Contini District Representative Office of Senator Dave Cortese 2105 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 154 Campbell, CA 95008 Phone: 408-558-1295 Sign-Up for Dave's Newsletter Follow Dave on Facebook Visit Dave's Website From: Somnath Nag Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 6:57 AM To: Senator Cortese <Senator.Cortese@senate.ca.gov> Cc: Contini, Zachary <Zachary.Contini@sen.ca.gov>; David Dornblaser <dd@dornblaser.net>; Vivek 553 Tiwari >; Fred Kinder >; Bernie Mills >; Jerry S >; Jody Tatro < Subject: Saratoga needs your URGENT help TODAY Dear Senator Cortese, It was indeed a pleasure to hear your offer to help us with our Housing Element challenges. To give you a quick synopsis: 1) Saratoga meets and exceeds the RHNA mandate with adequate buffer (see table below) 2) Our HE proposal has basically been Substantially Compliant for almost a year now 3) HCD has been placing unwarranted hurdles with "suggestions" such as distribution which seem to be excuses to not allow us to be certified - HCD is not the legal authority to stop our HE 4) Saratoga is within CA Law to self-certify if HCD does not certify 5) TODAY is the 119th day since the last HCD feedback and hence the deadline to close with HCD Could you please prioritize our case and discuss this with HCD authorities TODAY to try and get them to certify our City. If not, our Council claims that we may be forced to entertain the current Builders Remedy proposals. This will destroy the very character of Saratoga. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your help. Dear Zach, Can you possibly help to move this item to the top of Senator Cortese's list of priorities for today? thank you -Som Nag RHNA mandate Saratoga Total 1712 1994 Low + V. Low Income 715 764 Buffer 12% 14% 554 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM., Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453 www.hcd.ca.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: March 16, 2023 TO: Planning Directors and Interested Parties FROM: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director Division of Housing Policy Development SUBJECT: Summary and Clarification of Requirements for Housing Element Compliance HCD is committed to diligently reviewing all 539 local jurisdictions’ housing elements for substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. To comply with State Housing Element Law and avoid the consequences of noncompliance, a local jurisdiction must, among other things: 1. Submit a draft housing element to HCD at least 90 days before adoption 1 and receive findings from HCD determining whether the draft element is substantially compliant,2 and consider HCD’s findings before adopting the draft element.3 In other words, where a jurisdiction submits an “adopted” housing HOHPHQWௗEHIRUHVXEPLWWLQJDQLQLWLDOGUDIWRUEHIRUHFRQVLGHULQJ+&'¶VILQGLQJV RQDQLQLWLDOGUDIWௗ+&'ZLOOFRQVLGHUWKH³DGRSWHG´WREHDQinitial draft for SXUSRVHVRIERWK+&'¶VUHYLHZDQGWKHMXULVGLFWLRQ¶VVWDWXWRU\FRPSOLDQFH 2. If HCD finds the draft element is not substantially compliant, revise the draft to address any findings by HCD 4 or adopt without changes and include written findings explaining why the jurisdiction believes that the draft substantially complies.5 Promptly following adoption, submit the adopted housing element to HCD 6 and receive findings on the adopted element from HCD.7 1 *RY&RGHௗ, subd. (b)(1) 2 *RY&RGHௗ, subds. (b)(3), (d) 3 *RY&RGHௗ, subd. (e) 4 *RY&RGHௗ, subd. (f)(1) 5 Gov. &RGHௗ, subd. (f)(2) 6 *RY&RGHௗ, subd. (g) 7 *RY&RGHௗ, subd. (h) 555 Summary and Clarification of Requirements for Housing Element Compliance Page 2 In other words, a jurisdiction does noWKDYHWKHDXWKRULW\WRGHWHUPLQHWKDWLWV DGRSWHGHOHPHQWLVLQVXEVWDQWLDOFRPSOLDQFHEXWPD\SURYLGHUHDVRQLQJZK\ +&'VKRXOGPDNHDILQGLQJRIVXEVWDQWLDOFRPSOLDQFH ,QDGGLWLRQDMXULVGLFWLRQLV³LQFRPSOLDQFH´DVRIWKHGDWHRI+&'¶VOHWWHU findiQJWKHDGRSWHGHOHPHQWLQVXEVWDQWLDOFRPSOLDQFH$Q\RWKHUOHWWHUVDUH QRWDILQGLQJRIVXEVWDQWLDOFRPSOLDQFH +&'UHFRPPHQGVWKDWDMXULVGLFWLRQDGRSWRQO\DIWHUUHFHLYLQJDOHWWHUIURP +&'ILQGLQJWKHGUDIWPHHWVVWDWXWRU\UHTXLUHPHQWV For more detailed information about this process, please visit HCD’s Housing Elements webpage and Housing Elements Building Blocks. 556 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 11:54:50 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Madhavi Prasad Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Housing element Comments City and its so called council has already done the damage. At El Quito its an eye sore to see those houses and the I can't even imagine traffic on COx and Saratoga ave now. Wake up before you destroy more. Or Quit and give the position to the person who actually deserves and cares about the city. You all should be ashamed of yourself to bring the city to such apoint now. Stop thinking about yourself and start thinking of the city. Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 557 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:03:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Vivek Tiwari Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Protect Saratoga from the current and future Builder's Remedy applications Comments To The Saratoga City Council, Comments related to the Housing Element You are now in possession of the letters submitted on 10/26/2023 and 10/27/2023 by Shawna Ballard on behalf of 100s of citizens of Saratoga. I urge you to very carefully and diligently read the clear recommendations called out there. These citizens have thoroughly and systematically provided the City Council the required remedy that the City Council and Staff can take against the current and future Builder's Remedies. The actions to confirm adoption of the current substantially compliant Housing Element is in your hands, not in the hands of the builder's or the HCD. In has been in your hands all along. It is still not too late. You owe it to the City of Saratoga as your required responsibility to take these actions to keep the City in control of its General Plan and Zoning for the sake of the safety and well- being of the Citizens of Saratoga. Submitting yet another draft and waiting yet again for HCD comments to confirm adoption of the plan will keep all of Saratoga exposed to Builder's Remedies indefinitely. The time of timid deliberations is over. Your choices are clear - either you are going to continue a strategy that is dividing Saratoga's citizens and essentially leading to a path where the Council will be fighting its own citizens, or you can fight the builders on the citizens' behalf and unite the whole city behind you. 558 Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 559 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:05:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Dhanaseker Kandhasamy Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing element Comments Dear city council, Given where the city council is with the mismanagement of last housing element where city council members 1) deprioritized the sites close to their or loved ones’s homes or catering to special interests 2) concentrated majority of the sites Near gateway and saratoga avenue My suggestion is that 1) let city council be transparent, take ownership and responsibility seriously and Judiciously and follow the guidelines established by the state and avoid builder’’s remedy projects, 2) manage fiscal budgets responsibly and avoid unnecessary hiring when we are budget constrained 3) be very clear in communication to the residents, state the facts and own upto the mistakes than sending ambiguously worded updates that are self-serving and doesn’t convey anything to the residents, Namely a) there is no clear communication on why we are in this mess wrt housing element- just for once follow the rules, guidelines established than playing politics and favoritism b) Budget situation: doesn’t convey anything about the budget deficit or plans to hire additional people. Thank you. Frustrated resident. Email Subscription Subscribe 560 Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 561 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:25:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Sue Johnson Phone Number Email Address Subject Designate special low to moderate income housing for Teachers, police and firefighters Comments Dear City Council, We live in Saratoga, N. of Cox in Cupertino School District. We did not complain to the state about Saratoga's housing plan, though we noticed it did seem to unfairly.disproportionately load the higher density housing into the Moreland School District with almost none added in the Saratoga Union/LG-Saratoga districts. You did add housing proportionately into the CUSD/FUHSD. I still think this is an opportunity to build some low to moderate income condos specifically for our teachers, firefighters, and police officers at the back of the Heritage Orchard with exits at Saratoga and Fruitvale Avenues. This would add some enrollment to the Saratoga Union School District and would provide some housing for servants of our community to live near where they work. Thanks you for considering this. Email Subscription Unsubscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 562 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page;Yan Zhao;Belal Aftab;Tina Walia;Kookie Fitzsimmons;James Lindsay;Britt Avrit;Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:28:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Carolyn Rhoads Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Our current Housing situation in Saratoga Comments Regarding our housing situation: Per Stan Bogosian, "the time for playing the shell game of moving projects around from one neighborhood to another is over: distribute the housing burden fairly throughout all of Saratoga. Furthermore, this is a priority for the Council: no more passing the issue over to the Planning Commission, no more pointless attempts to sway state legislators who imposed these measures in the first place." I voted for all of you as I had faith that you would do the right thing for all of Saratoga, not just certain areas of our city. I do live in the North side of the city, so I will be affected by all the traffic that will be created if all the buildings are located in my area. Don't allow Builders Remedy projects in our city. Do the right thing. My vote for you, if you choose to run again, will depend on it. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 563 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Mayor Fitzsimmons & Members of the Saratoga City Council From: Britt Avrit, City Clerk Meeting Date: November 1, 2023 Subject: Written Communications, Item 3.1 Following publication of the agenda packet for the November 1, 2023 City Council Meeting, and after updating the agenda on November 1, 2023, additional written communications were submitted for Item 3.1. The communications are attached to this memo. 564 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 12:48:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name David Guidry Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing Element Comments Dear Council Members, As a long time Saratoga resident, I would strongly urge the council to come to an agreement on a Housing Element plan that will meet the state's requirements as soon as possible. I agree that we need more housing across the city and want that housing to be something that fits within the cities plans and is not dictated by Builder's Remedy projects which will result in even more chaos and disruption. I haven't reviewed the last proposal in detail or paid close attention to the matter, but here are a couple of thoughts to consider when working on this plan: 1. The downtown area is in desparate need of renewal and growth. Mixed use buildings with commercial plus residential, even up to 5 stories, would be a great approach to Big Basin Way and even extending to neighborhood areas. 2. This story, https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/bay-area-train- tracks-new-purpose-vta-18457522.php, which provides some history about the railroad tracks through our town, presents some really interesting ideas for how to offset our growth in the area of transportation. Imagine using these tracks to provide transportation to the Mountain View Caltrain station, that then connects us all the way to San Francisco. Or headed the other way to Los Gatos which could perhaps connect to a transit solution for Santa Cruz. Regardless of the dreams, find a solution for today's plan that gets us in compliance with the state and then we can build from that into a long term solution for how to move our city forward! Best regards, 565 David Guidry , Saratoga Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 566 From:Leslie Arroyo To: Cc:Kookie Fitzsimmons; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Chuck Page; Tina Walia; James Lindsay; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit Subject:RE: Opposition to the Proposed Development at Chester and Allendale Streets Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:32:18 PM Dear Igor, Thank you for your comments regarding the Housing Update agenda item. This will be included as part of the record for this item. We hope you can join us for the City Council meeting this evening. Sincerely, Leslie Leslie Arroyo Assistant City Manager City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1269| larroyo@saratoga.ca.us From: Igor Tsives < Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 10:30 AM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: Simona Subject: Opposition to the Proposed Development at Chester and Allendale Streets CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Members of the Saratoga City Council, I am writing this letter to express my strong opposition to the proposed plan of building 199 condominium units, along with over 450 parking spots, at the intersection of Chester and Allendale Streets in our beloved Saratoga. This proposed development poses a grave threat to the character and integrity of our neighborhood, and I believe it is essential for our City Council to reconsider this plan. One of the primary concerns about this development is the radical change it would bring to Saratoga. Our community is known for its unique charm and welcoming atmosphere. The plan to construct 199 condo units would significantly alter the neighborhood's landscape, creating a high- density area that does not align with the essence of our community. 567 Another concerning aspect is the increase in traffic that this development would undoubtedly bring. Our neighborhood is known for its peaceful and traffic-free streets. The addition of a significant number of new residents and vehicles would not only disrupt the tranquility of our area but also pose safety hazards to pedestrians and children who currently enjoy our streets without any concern. Furthermore, the proposed development would likely have a negative impact on property values in the vicinity. The high-density condominiums would contrast starkly with the character of the neighborhood and potentially discourage prospective homebuyers from considering properties in the area. A decline in property values could have lasting consequences for homeowners in the neighborhood. We implore the Saratoga City Council to reconsider the proposed development and opt for a solution that harmonizes with our community's identity. In conclusion, the plan to construct 199 condominium units with 450+ parking spots at Chester and Allendale Streets threatens to alter the essence of Saratoga, diminish the quality of life for our residents, and negatively impact property values. We request that you prioritize the vision of our community, as well as the safety and well-being of its residents, and reconsider the plan. I sincerely hope that you will take these concerns into consideration and make a decision that serves the best interests of Saratoga and its residents. We appreciate your dedication to our city and look forward to a thoughtful and considerate resolution to this matter. Thank you for your attention to this pressing issue. Sincerely, Igor Tsives Saratoga 568 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:37:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Debbie & Steve Manser Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Housing Elements Plan Submission Comments We are VERY upset that the Council has failed 3 times to come up with a plan that the State will approve. You knew what they required with housing spread throughout the City. Now because of your negligence, we are faced with THIRTY TWO BUILDINGS with 199 CONDOS and 438 PARKING SPACES on 11 acres smack dab in the middle of residential neighborhoods where 1/2 acre and one acre lots are the norm. So much for maintaining that "rural Saratoga Feel." For the love of all that is good, please get your act together, swallow whatever has gotten in your way and submit a solid plan that meets all the State requirements before these Builders Remedy projects ruin our city. Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 569 From:Leslie Arroyo To:Fred Kinder Cc:Kookie Fitzsimmons; Tina Walia; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Chuck Page; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Bryan Swanson Subject:RE: Housing Element Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:39:09 PM Dear Mr. Kinder, Thank you for your comments regarding the Housing Update agenda item. This will be included as an attachment to the Staff Report. We hope you can join us for the City Council meeting this evening. Sincerely, Leslie Leslie Arroyo Assistant City Manager City of Saratoga | City Manager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1269| larroyo@saratoga.ca.us From: Fred Kinder Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2023 11:55 AM To: Kookie Fitzsimmons <kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>; Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us> Cc: dd@dornblaser.net <dd@dornblaser.net>; sballard@reichmanjorgensen.com <sballard@reichmanjorgensen.com>; Somnath Nag <>; Jerry S >; Jody Tatro <jtatro@proexhibits.com>; Bernie Mills >; Senator.Cortese@senate.ca.gov <Senator.Cortese@senate.ca.gov> Subject: Housing Element CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear City Council: The City Council has an opportunity to protect all citizens of Saratoga from Builder's Remedies which will destroy Saratoga. There are serious problems with implementation of the 2017 Housing Element law, HCD and Builder's Remedy. The Housing Element was enacted in 1969 and Builder's Remedy Housing Accountability Act (HAA) in 1990. Up until the most recent Housing Element cycle (6th cycle) local 570 jurisdictions have easily achieved compliance with a check-the-box exercise. In 2017, Compliance with the Housing Element Law was changed to a more complicated process including HCD certification. As of Aug. 23, 2023 only 198 of 539 jurisdictions have adopted substantial compliance or HCD certified status. The vultures are using Builder's Remedy to devour Saratoga. This illustrates how laws can change and have unintended consequences. It is time for Saratoga to adopt substantial compliance of the Housing Element. Please adopt the substantially compliant Housing Element of May 17 or you have failed all the citizens of Saratoga. Regards, Fred Kinder 571 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 1:59:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Pranav Kotamraju Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Housing Element Comments Dear City Council, Please submit a well-thought out plan for new housing to Sacramento. We absolutely do not want to leave it to Builders to submit a Builders' Remedy that will be approved and ruin our green and beautiful city! Please consider all sites and get a good Housing Element presented to HCD! This could be our last chance to get things right! Let's have all Saratoga residents vote on how to proceed if needed. Please do the job we elected you to do, which is to work for the best interests of the residents of Saratoga and put the well-being of the city above your own personal interests and petty politics! Don't let future generations blame you for ruining this amazing city! Regards, Pranav Kotamraju & Deepika Ummethala , Saratoga, CA 95070 Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 572 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 3:25:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Elizabeth Zimmermann Phone Number Email Address Subject Saratoga Housing Element Comments I am a 25-year Saratoga resident. We moved into the Quito/Allendale area and our children have attended local public schools (note: not Saratoga schools). Over the years, the traffic has grown while the access infrastructure has remained the same (actually, due to lack of maintenance, much of the roadway infrastructure is worse). The current Builders Remedy projects submitted for our broader neighborhood, on top of the impacts from projects already underway (Saratoga/Cox, Saratoga/Quito, Quito/Vessing), will severely impact the walkability, bike-ability and general drive-ability of this area. I have tracked with dismay the abysmal process that has got the City to this point. Our section of Saratoga is treated like secondhand citizens -- just put all the heavy use, high density projects in our neighborhoods -- out of sight and sound -- without thought to your constituents who live here and voted you into office to represent all Saratoga residents fairly. Please do your jobs -- this is our City's last chance to get this right. Distribute the housing burden equitably throughout the City; submit a plan that meets the requirements; stop this Builders Remedy nonsense before the charm of Saratoga is sold out to the highest bidder. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 573 From:Mona Kaur-Freedland To:Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; Chuck Page; Belal Aftab; Yan Zhao Cc:James Lindsay; Richard S. Taylor; Bryan Swanson; Britt Avrit Subject:Mosque in Saratoga? NO to more religious buildings Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 3:35:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Council members, I was very disappointed to see that at the last hour of the 6-hour Planning Commission meeting on Oct 11, Commissioner Razi Moiuddin tried to sneak in a change in zoning for allowing new religious organizations to be built in Saratoga. He himself mentioned that he has been trying to build a mosque in Saratoga for quite some time and it was the zoning requirements that did not allow him to do so. He tried (unsuccessfully) to add a recommendation to you (in the packet you received for today) that CUP requirements for certain zones be removed for building new religious facilities. He was supported in this endeavour by Anjali kausar. Vice Chair Chou was the only person who asked relevant questions, the most important being that how can we back into zoning changes while we are talking about the Housing Element? There is a reason that there is due process and rules to allow and expand religious organizations to be built in our city. To sneak in a zoning change for religious organizations under the guise of working on the Housing Element is very disturbing. It is very unfortunate that we witnessed this mode of action from a current Planning Commissioner. I urge you to emphatically reject any attempts to change zoning and CUP requirements for building new religious organizations in Saratoga. If any such move needs to be discussed, it warrants a separate public awareness meeting with its own merits and demerits, not slid in unbeknownst to the public in this insidious fashion. Sincerely, Mona Kaur Saratoga CA 574 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 4:35:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Keith Diggs Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing element; builder's remedy; self-certification Comments Dear Council: As you contemplate next steps on Saratoga's housing element tonight, I wanted to weigh in on the City's options under state law to adopt a housing element. I am aware that a group called "Saratoga Concerned Citizens" ("SCC") is urging you to adopt, and backdate, the housing element to minimize "risk from Builder's Remedy projects." SCC's backdating strategy is contrary to law. The City has not yet adopted a housing element, and I commend the City for awaiting HCD certification before adopting. I am frustrated with HCD's review process too, and I wish the Housing Element Law provided clearer standards. But the fact is that HCD has yet to approve a draft from the City, and Section 65585 of the Government Code does govern what must happen next. The best strategy is to get the next draft right--by communicating with HCD's reviewer--and await HCD certification before adopting. The law clearly allows that approach. Section 65585, subdivision (f)(2), *does* authorize "self-certification," but there's a catch: a self-certified housing element must be adopted "without changes" from the last draft reviewed by HCD. The purpose of the self-certification provision is to provide clarity for the public as to exactly how a self-certifying city disagrees with an HCD noncompliance finding. To adopt an unreviewed draft is to diminish that clarity. The law does not contemplate the adoption of unreviewed drafts, and neither we nor HCD believe that compliance can be achieved before an HCD certification finding. Regardless, any projects that have already filed SB 330 575 preliminary applications will remain eligible for the builder's remedy, since no housing element is yet in effect. A housing element is a legislative act, and cannot be backdated. I commend the City on its hard work on the housing element. Please reach out with questions. Keith Diggs Attorney, YIMBY Law Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 576 From:Karthick Iyer To:Kookie Fitzsimmons; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Chuck Page; Tina Walia Cc:Britt Avrit; James Lindsay; Crystal Bothelio Subject:Saratoga Housing Element - Draft 4 Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 4:48:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Saratoga City Council, I am writing this letter to express my disgust and disappointment that even after 3 rejections from HCD, the Saratoga city council is marching down the path of re-submitting the current highly discriminatory and marginalized plan that severely impacts North Saratoga as your 4th draft. In other words, putting lipstick on a pig! 1. When we brought up the issue of how lopsided the current allocation is (more than 18 months ago) - James and Debbie mentioned that adding new sites will delay the submission. The current mayor @Tina Walia chose to pit neighborhoods against each other rather than demonstrate leadership and come up with a more equitable plan. I hope Tina never holds public office again. 2. The previous city council went out of their way to protect south Saratoga but ignored the pleas of more than 700+ residents of North Saratoga when they packed town hall meetings asking for fairness. 3. The current HE draft still has over 90% of new housing in North Saratoga (around 20% of the city). This is unfair, discriminatory and the residents of North Saratoga will continue to write to the HCD to ensure that the 4th draft is also rejected. 4. While the Builders Remedy in Allendale/Chester is unfortunate, there is push for the city of Saratoga to self-certify the HE plan. This is a bad idea. You think the residents of North Saratoga will keep quiet. Yet another instance of the 3 members in the golden triangle pandering to the folks south of the city. 5. Look at the cities that got approval. One city had a reserve list of sites that convinced HCD that they are looking at all possible options. Saratoga refused to add any site south of Cox because of ridiculous reasons. If you had done the right thing 18+ months ago, you won't be in this mess. @Kookie Fitzsimmons - please don't go down the same rabbit hole that your predecessor did. Show some leadership and unite the citizens of Saratoga. Undo the partition of the city done by @Tina Walia @Belal Aftab @Chuck Page - you were elected to the council to represent North Saratoga. Show some backbone! @James Lindsay - your plan got rejected by the state 3 times. You resisted adding more sites to the list coming up with frivolous reasons and a false deadline. Accept responsibility and resign. 577 Rest assured that the citizens in North Saratoga will continue to flood the HCD with our letters until we have a plan that is fair to all. Thanks Karthick 578 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 5:24:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Dimitry Bobroff Phone Number Email Address Subject Tina, Kookie, and Yan, - Council Members - Be responsible, Builder's Remedy Comments "Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to 579 getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Dimitry and Ludmilla Bobroff Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 580 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 5:29:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Andrea Lawrence Phone Number Email Address Subject Builder's Remedy Comments "Tina, Kookie, and Yan, I am prefacing this by saying that I voted for each of you. I am so very disappointed in your performance and leadership. The following words aren't mine but they exactly express my sentiment. Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. 581 The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Andrea Lawrence Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 582 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 5:32:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Amita Shenoi Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing element Comments Council members Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. 583 Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 584 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 5:43:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Vandana Agrawal Phone Number Email Address Subject Lead for all Saratogans - or STEP ASIDE Comments Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I and rest of Saratogans demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to 585 getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. - Vandana Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 586 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 5:46:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Aashish Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Distribute housing evenly across Saratoga, not just north of 85 Comments Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. Please don’t put all the housing north of 85. It should be avenu evenly distributed across the whole of Saratoga. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. - Aashish Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 587 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 5:49:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Pranav Kotamraju Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Housing Element Comments Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to 588 getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Pranav Kotamraju Saratoga, CA 95070 Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 589 590 1 Concerned Saratoga Ci�zens October 26, 2023 Saratoga City Council Members 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons Kookie@saratoga.ca.us 408.867.4231 Vice Mayor Yan Zhao yzhao@saratoga.ca.us 408.206.9681 Council Member Belal A�ab ba�ab@saratoga.ca.us 408.394.8245 Council Member Chuck Page cpage@saratoga.ca.us 408.369.9242 Council Member Tina Walia twalia@saratoga.ca.us 408.549.5141 Dear City Council: As members of the Saratoga community, we urge and implore the Council to adopt the resolu�ons set forth in this leter to clarify and confirm the Housing Element’s compliance with applicable law. The alterna�ve, following the current approach to the Housing Element, will expose Saratoga to the whim of developers, making it open-season for developer projects of any scale without any regard for the revised Housing Element that the City Staff and Council have diligently developed. Though our investment in �me to research and act was ini�ally mo�vated by our proximity to currently proposed Builder’s Remedy projects, this is an issue that affects and puts at risk every Saratoga resident and every one of your cons�tuents. The currently proposed Builder’s Remedy projects are the so-called canary in the coal mine for the dangers facing our city. If the Council chooses not to adopt appropriate resolu�ons to confirm Saratoga’s substan�al compliance with state-mandated requirements for the Housing Element, the Council will expose all of Saratoga to a host of so-called Builder ’s Remedy projects. What will be next: A twenty-story building somewhere is Saratoga? A smatering of high-density lots dispersed throughout our town wherever a homeowner has decided to sell? All Saratoga residents, no mater their loca�on, face much greater risk from Builder’s Remedies projects than from a Housing Element plan under the control of the City Council. To bring this risk to life, the proposed Chester and Allendale Builder ’s Remedy project of 199 units, 32 three-story buildings, and approximately 498 parking spaces has a density of 17 units per acre, 2.7 three story buildings per acre, and 43 parking spaces per acre. Having such high-density developments scatered throughout our town would destroy its rural beauty and would expose our beau�ful town to haphazard development. Such developments would also create fire hazards and other safety and traffic issues as many of our town’s neighborhoods have narrow, unlit and some�mes windy roads that are simply not suited for high-density developments. The good news for the Council: these risks are wholly unnecessary. Our group of Concerned Saratoga Ci�zens has undertaken legal analysis, and we implore the Council to clarify the record as to its substan�al compliance with state laws for the Housing Element by passing the following resolu�ons in the November 1 mee�ng (beware, legal language follows, please read on and focus on the main points that follow that provide the ra�onale for these resolu�ons): 591 2 • Confirm that on May 17, 2023 the Council adopted the Housing Element embodied in the May 2023 Housing Element Update when it adopted the Staff-prepared response describing the updates to prior dra�s. (Cal. Gov. Code § 688585(f)) • Confirm that the Staff-prepared response referenced and incorporated in the May 17 resolu�on embodies the Council’s writen findings explaining that, in light of the changes described in the response, the May 2023 Housing Element Update substan�ally complies with the requirements of California Government Code Ar�cle 10.6. notwithstanding the findings by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) in its March 17, 2023 leter. (Cal. Gov. Code § 65585(f)) • In an abundance of cau�on and for purposes of clarity, readopt the May 2023 Housing Element Update. (Cal. Gov. Code § 65585(f)) • In an abundance of cau�on and for purposes of clarity, readopt the May 17, 2023 Staff response approved at the May 17, 2023 mee�ng as the Council’s findings explaining that, in light of the changes described in the response, the May 2023 Housing Element Update substan�ally complies with the requirements of California Government Code Ar�cle 10.6. notwithstanding the HCD findings in its March 17, 2023 leter. (Cal. Gov. Code § 65585(f)) • In an abundance of cau�on, dra� and adopt addi�onal writen findings explaining why the adopted May 2023 Housing Element Update is in substan�al compliance with the requirements of California Government Code Ar�cle 10.6. notwithstanding the HCD findings set forth in HCD’s July 27, 2023 leter. (Cal. Gov. Code § 65585(f)) • Agree that, notwithstanding the Council’s findings of substan�al compliance with the Housing Element requirements, the City will diligently work with the HCD to further amend the Housing Element to address items reflected in the HCD’s July 27, 2023 response. In summary, declare the May 2023 plan an approved Housing Element in substan�al compliance with the Housing Element Requirements, and work with HCD ongoing to refine and amend our plan, ensuring we address the needs of all Saratoga residents. Other Ci�es, star�ng with Los Gatos, have followed this approach. This is not a request for something extraordinary. To the contrary, it is our understanding that other ci�es in the Bay area have adopted housing elements and issued findings of substan�al compliance before the HCD has found those ci�es’ housing elements to be in substan�al compliance. One such example is our neighboring town of Los Gatos which we understand to have adopted a revised housing element as substan�ally compliant before the January 31, 2023 deadline, even though the HCD had not found its dra� housing element to be in substan�al compliance. The City of Saratoga, not the HCD, determines substan�al compliance and adopts the Housing Element Plan once an ini�al dra� Housing Element has been submited. 592 3 The Government Code contemplates the types of resolu�ons we request. In this regard, as you are aware, the California Government Code required the Council to adopt a substan�ally compliant Housing Element by January 31, 2023. This is an obliga�on that rests squarely with the City, not HCD. As a mater of process, the ini�al dra� of a revised Housing Element is required to be submited to HCD for comment. Cal. Gov Code § 65585(b). Once a city receives comments to the ini�al dra� from HCD, it can take one of two courses of ac�on: (1) change the dra� element to substan�ally comply with the code requirements or (2) adopt the dra� element without changes and explain the reasons the city believes that the dra� element or dra� amendment substan�ally complies with this ar�cle. Cal. Gov Code § 65585 (e)(f). Because Sec�on 65585(b) only requires the ini�al dra� of a revised Housing Element be submited to HCD before adop�on, a�er a city obtains HCD’s comments to an ini�al dra�, the statute contemplates that the city will consider the comments and either adopt a revised plan incorpora�ng HCD feedback or adopt the Housing Element notwithstanding HCD’s findings. Cal. Gov Code § 65585 (e)(f). Once the element (whether revised or not) is adopted, the city is required to promptly submit the adopted element to HCD, and then HCD has 90 days to provide further feedback. See Cal. Gov Code § 65585 (g)(h). On March 17 HCD requested that Saratoga revise and adopt the Housing Element; the City revised but should clarify that it adopted the revision on May 17. Consistent with the above-described process, in the HCD’s March 17, 2023 response leter, HCD reminds the City that it needs to adopt a revised plan incorpora�ng HCD’s feedback when sta�ng as follows: As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due January 31, 2023. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer sa�sfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance. (Emphasis added.) In other words, in its March 17 leter, HCD is telling the City that, in order to regain compliance, it should revise the Housing Element to conform to the HCD’s March 17 comments, adopt the revised 6th Cycle Housing Element, then submit the adopted plan to the HCD for further HCD findings. The May 17 minutes and record reflect that the City took heed of HCD’s warnings and thereby followed HCD’s request to “revise the element as described [in the HCD’s March 17, 2023 leter], adopt and submit” the revised Housing Element to the HCD. However, the minutes and record from the May 17 mee�ng could benefit from some clarifica�on, and we encourage the Council to pass the above resolu�ons to clarify the record. The determina�on of compliance is Saratoga’s responsibility, not HCD’s There seems to be some confusion among certain City representa�ves regarding who is responsible for finding that a revised Housing Element is in substan�al compliance. As reflected by Sec�on 65585 of the Government Code, the HCD’s findings are intended to provide input to ci�es and also guide HCD’s internal enforcement decisions. But, it is Saratoga, not HCD, that has the duty to adopt a Housing 593 4 Element that the Council finds to substan�ally comply with statutory requirements, and the Council can reject HCD findings in doing so. See, e.g., Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65588, 65585(f). Moreover, it is the Council, not HCD, that must make writen findings of substan�al compliance if it wants to enforce an adopted Housing Element, General Plan or zoning laws with respect to builders that wish to develop very-low, low or moderate income projects. See Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d) and (d)(5). In par�cular, if a “local agency” (i.e., the City) wishes to reject a proposed very-low, low or moderate income project based on its Housing Element, zoning laws or General Plan, the Council must make “writen findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record” that it has “adopted a revised housing element in accordance with Sec�on 65588 that is in substan�al compliance with [Ar�cle 10.6 of the Government Code].” Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5 (d), (d)(5)). Finally, we have some lawyers in the group of residents submi�ng this leter that can discuss the legal analysis with the City Atorney if that would be helpful. The Council has already done the hard work. Now is the �me to declare it, by confirming adop�on of the housing element and its substan�al compliance, and con�nuing to improve it in the city’s best interests. In close, we urge the Council to adopt the proposed resolu�ons at its November 1 mee�ng in order to protect our community. Sincerely, Concerned Saratoga Ci�zens • Fred and Kelly Kinder • Shawna Ballard and Andrew Krainin • Jody Tatro • Somnath Nag • Jerry and Charlene Schaaf • David Dornblaser • Vivek Tiwari • Bernie and Vivian Mills • Barry Bronson 594 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 6:37:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Sandra Dolmatch Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Builder's Remedy threatens our community Comments "Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. 595 Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Sandra Dolmatch Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 596 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 6:40:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Muralikrishna Gandluru Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Regarding housing crisis in Saratoga Comments Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. 597 Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Thank you Murali Gandluru Saratoga, CA 95070 Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 598 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 6:47:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Shannon Wang Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Field not completed. Comments Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. 599 - Shannon Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 600 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 6:52:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Daniel Onn Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing Element Comments Darn Tough Vermont 1 message No attachment 1:00 AM FREE Koozie with Orders $100+ Cheers to the remaining few. Rishi Kumar 1 message No attachment 12:58 AM [ The Saratoga Update 1021] Re: Today's city council meeting Dear neighbors, I've been asked by many of you to help compose an email that could be directed to the city council for tonight's meeting Send an email using this link here today. Below is the suggested text for you to copy and send. And visit my blog for the long version. - Rishi "Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We 601 face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. - Your name" On Wed, Nov 1, 2023 at 11:41 AM Rishi Kumar wrote: Dear neighbors, I completely agree with Stan's assessment of the situation in his email below. Please send an email to the city council or join the city council meeting via zoom or in-person at ci Redfin 1 message No attachment 12:55 AM A SUNNYVALE home for you at $1.2M, and 12 other updates Similar to other homes you have viewed. Homes Recommended for you $1,198,000 $998,000 2 Beds · 2.5 Baths · 1,300 Sq. Ft. 1271 Crescent Ter, SUNNYVALE, CA 94087 View Details Go Tour It Recommended Because you looked at similar townhomes in 94087. $1,648,000 4 Beds · 2 Baths · 1,794 Sq. Ft. 3903 Woodcreek Ln, SAN JOSE, CA 95117 View Details Go Tour It Recommended Because you looked at similar homes in 95117. $998,000 3 Beds · 3 Baths · 1,311 Sq. Ft. 1351 Mckinley Ct, SAN JOSE, CA 95126 View Details Go T allcasting 1 message No attachment 12:50 AM Reclaim Your Time and Shine in Your Modeling/Acting Career With allcasting, you can say goodbye to the stress and hassle of scouring the internet for casting calls. Daniel, are you tired of spending endless hours searching for casting calls, crafting emails, and feeling overwhelmed by the demands of your modeling or acting career? We get it, and we're here to help you focus on what truly matters. With allcasting, you can say goodbye to the stress and hassle of scouring the internet for casting calls. We deliver them directly to your inbox, so you can spend more tim OhmConnect 1 message No attachment 602 12:46 AM OhmHour Today, 5 - 6PM Save energy, get paid. Here's everything you need to know. Your next OhmHour isToday, 5 - 6PM Your next OhmHour is today, 5 - 6PM. Over the last 10 weekdays, you've used an average of 511 watt-hours between the hours of 5 - 6PM—this is your forecast. Use less energy than your forecast to start earning rewards—the more you reduce the more you earn. It's that simple! Event Details Learn more about how we calculate your forecast What to Expect: It looks like the power grid will be under stress today and yo Costco Wholesale 1 message No attachment 12:40 AM Take a Look at Today's New Deals! Spend $1,999 on qualifying Appliance items and get $300 OFF of your order in cart. View in browser. Online-Only | Valid 11/1/23 - 11/29/23 | *At Checkout on Select Appliances While Supplies Last | Shop Now Why Buy Appliances at Costco? Our Online Price Includes Delivery & Installation* INCLUDED Haul Away* INCLUDED 2 Year Warranty INCLUDED Basic Installation Parts* INCLUDED Costco Direct Savings** $100 OFF per additional item Costco Direct Delivery** *Online purchases only. In most areas. **On select applian House Beautiful 1 message No attachment 12:37 AM The Best Design Magazine Delivered Right to You. Subscribe to House Beautiful Magazine Today! Exclusive home tours, expert renovation guides, and advice from top designers From how to take on full-scale renovations to subtle decorating tips that will make your house pop, House Beautiful has been a go-to resource for homemakers since 1896. Filled with info- packed interviews with architects and designers, gorgeous holiday tablescapes, and DIY projects that cover everything from painting to building a pirate ship treehouse, House Beautiful will have you seei 96.5 KOIT 1 message No attachment 12:31 AM See Yourself Working with the Contra Costa Sheriffs! The Office of the Sheriff is NOW Hiring! Email not displaying 603 correctly? View Web Version The Office of the Sheriff is Hiring Deputy Sheriffs Do you have a passion for serving and protecting others? Are you looking for a job that directly impacts the community around you? Contra Costa County's Office of the Sheriff - is hiring Deputy Sheriffs. No experience is required. GET PAID WHILE TRAINING! Build a lasting career with this highly regarded department, where we provide the training and resources that you The Inside Hotels Team 1 message No attachment 12:26 AM Unlocking California's Best Kept Hotel Stays Elevate your Cali getaway in Napa, Carmel, Los Angeles, and beyond. Photo courtesy of Millennium Hotel Broadway Times Square. Boutique California Getaways Whether you're seeking a relaxing getaway or an adventurous trip, California has something for everyone. To help get the most of out of your next trip, we’ve curated a list of luxurious hotels and resorts that offer a range of vibrant experiences. If you've been considering a trip to California, now is the time to make your dream a reality. The Meritage RED Mountain Resort 1 message No attachment 12:20 AM Meet The CEO: Online Event Meet the CEO Can’t see this email? View in your browser. MEET THE MAN BEHIND THE MOUNTAIN Dear Daniel, We’re hosting a special “Meet the CEO” Zoom event and as a friend of RED, we’re holding a front row seat for you! Meet the CEO Online Event Tuesday, November 7th 5:30 p.m. PST / 8:30 p.m. EST with Howard Katkov CEO of RED Mountain Resort Not only is Howard going to share more about his future plans for the mountain, which has grown into the one of the largest award- winning ski destinations in Nor Frontier Airlines 1 message No attachment 12:17 AM LIMITED TIME OFFER: Earn 10x Bonus Miles TODAY! Introducing the most rewarding loyalty program in the air. Don't miss out on even more qualifying miles! Earn both 10x qualifying miles for every eligible $ spent with Frontier, AND a mile for every mile flown when you book now through the end of the 604 year!* *offer applies only to flight and ancillary items like bags and seats per a completed flight. BOOK NOW Is San Jose Not Your Preferred Airport? Manage Your Preferences to Update. Big Changes are coming to FRONTIER Miles™ in January 2024! 1. Faster to Ea Woman's Day 1 message No attachment 12:16 AM A Special Offer Just for You! Subscribe to Good Housekeeping Magazine Today! A world of possibility, tested for you For 138 years, Good Housekeeping has been the country's most authoritative voice in home and beauty. Backed by its famed research institute, where products are rigorously tested and evaluated by teams of trusted experts, the magazine includes everything from inspirational personal stories, recipes and cooking tips, to home improvement guidance. Read Good Housekeeping, and turn your house into a home. Get Good Housekeeping Small Business Nextdoor 1 message No attachment 12:15 AM Daniel, Share your expertise - 2 minute survey Tell us your thoughts with the chance to win $100 gift card Daniel, We're conducting a brief 2 minute survey and would greatly appreciate your participation. Complete the survey in just a few minutes to share insights that will help us understand the latest trends in the small business world. Your input is valuable and confidential. Plus, all participants will be entered into a drawing to win a $100 gift card. Take survey Thank you, The Nextdoor Small Business Team You received this email as a registered us Banana Republic Factory 1 message No attachment 12:12 AM 40-60% off + extra 25% off end in h-o-u-r-s Last chance to save on everything View in browser The Zoe Report 1 message No attachment 605 12:09 AM And The #1 Hair Color Trend For Fall 2023 Is... It's stunning. The Zoe Report11.1.2023 (Hair)And The #1 Hair Color Trend For Fall 2023 Is... It's stunning. Read More (Style)These Daytime Sequins Outfits Will Double Your Wardrobe's Potential Perfect looks for the holiday season ahead. Read More (Shopping)The Cool Lab-Grown Diamonds Brands Fashion Girls Are Obsessed With More affordable pieces you’ll want to wear everyday. Read More Add To Cart Nike x Tom Sachs General Purpose "Dark Sulfur" sneakers Shop Now adidas Gazelle "Court Green" sneakers Shop Now UnderPar 1 message No attachment 12:06 AM Rams Hill Golf Club opens in 2 days - Get Your Stay & Play Package Now! 2 DAYS UNTIL OPENING Book Stay & Play Packages Now Through April 2024! Rams Hill Golf Club OPENING DAY DISCOUNT BONUS! USE DISCOUNT CODE RAMSHILL5 FOR ADDITIONAL 5% OFF YOUR STAY AND PLAY PACKAGE Save Up to $368.75 FOUR and EIGHT GUEST OPTIONS CLICK HERE FOR STAY AND PLAY PACKAGES Two Nights Accommodation with 36 Holes of Golf Each CLICK HERE FOR STAY AND PLAY PACKAGES Available only while supplies last - Get Yours ASAP. Green Fee Tickets will be delivered after you complete your purchase. SEE ALL DEALS Pri AZFoothills 1 message No attachment 12:04 AM Vote Now! The Best of Our Valley 2024 Contest Begins Vote for your favorites daily now through Nov 30 No images? Click here Vote Now! Best of Our Valley 2024 AZ Foothills presents the return of the Best of Our Valley contest! We've recently been collecting nominations new and old, and we hope you will share your opinions on the people, places and things that are at the top of their game heading into 2024! Just register with your phone via text message and then you can vote in each category once a day, plus a bonus vote if you're subscribed to our newsletter l Floor & Decor 1 message No attachment 12:03 AM 606 Stop Putting off Your Home Renovation Get Inspired with Our Latest Catalog CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR LOCAL STORE SPECIAL FINANCING NOW HIRING CONTACT US PRIVACY RIGHTS This email may be considered an advertising or promotional message. Please note this message was sent to danielonn2002@yahoo.com. To unsubscribe from future emails, click here. To view this email in a web browser, click here. © 2023 Floor & Decor - "Floor & Decor" is a registered trademark of Floor & Decor Outlets of America, Inc. This email was sent by: Floor and Decor Outlets of Vrbo 1 message No attachment 12:03 AM Welcome to One Key Your new Blue benefits have landed Welcome to One Key™ Daniel, welcome aboard our revolutionary new travel rewards program. For the first time ever, you'll be able to earn rewards at Vrbo™, as well as across Expedia® and Hotels.com™. You can earn OneKeyCash™¹ (our new rewards currency) on eligible vacation homes, hotels, packages, cruises, activities, rental cars and more, and use it to save on future trips across all of our three brands. Find out more Blue tier members save even more Explore your Yesterday Cruise Critic 1 message No attachment Nov 1 Early Black Friday Deals You Don’t Want to Miss; Oceanview vs. Balcony Cabins & More + Cruise Lines Start to Cancel Middle East Itineraries Find a Cruise Reviews News theinsider Early Black Friday Deals You Don’t Want to MissBlack Friday and Cyber Monday cruise deals are your best bet to snag an irresistible bargain - and we already have some for you to check out. We will continuously update this information with the best deals throughout the month. See The Deals Book Cruise + Flights and save up to $3,000Book your all- inclusive, Uniworld luxury river cruise with flights and save up to $3 My Prepaid Center 1 message No attachment Nov 1 Your One-Time Password 607 Hello Daniel Onn, Your verification code is: 641995 This code expires in 15 minutes, so please complete this step as soon as possible. If you did not request this code, please Contact Us. This is an automated alert regarding your prepaid card. To manage your email preferences, please sign in to your account on myprepaidcenter.com and visit the alert settings page. Please note that we may still send you messages related to your transactions or inquiries. For more information, please see our Terms of Use and Miles Rewards 1 message No attachment Nov 1 30-Day Free Trial with Noggin Make screen time smarter with a kid-safe and ad-free app BJ's Restaurants Inc. 1 message No attachment Nov 1 Jumpstart November with $10 Off Your $40 Purchase! Use Promo Code DEAL40B HELLO DANIEL! MEMBER #: UNJQXAX CURRENT POINTS: 0 | REWARDS AVAILABLE: 2 PREFERRED LOCATION: 10690 North De Anza Boulevard, Cupertino, CA 95014 © 2023 BJ's Restaurants, Inc., 7755 Center Ave., Ste. 300, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, United States For Loyalty ID: UNJQXAX †Get $10 off your next order. Minimum food purchase of $40 required. Offer valid only for takeout orders placed through www.bjsrestaurants.com, the BJ’s mobile app or phone, between Wednesday, 11/1/2023, and Sunday, [ The Saratoga Update 1021] Re: Today's city council meeting Rishi Kumar To incrediblesaratoga@googlegroups.com Nov 2 at 12:58 AM Dear neighbors, I've been asked by many of you to help compose an email that could be directed to the city council for tonight's meeting Send an email using this link here today. Below is the suggested text for you to copy and send. And visit my blog for the long version. - Rishi "Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. 608 Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Daniel Charles Onn and Ann Malmuth-Onn Saratoga CA Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 609 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 6:54:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Krishna Saraswat Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing in Saratoga Comments "Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. 610 Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 611 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 6:56:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Don Thomas Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Builder's Remedy Comments I am very concerned about the failure of our housing element and the large number of impending Builder's Remedy housing projects over which our city has no control. Don Thomas 13282 Pierce Road, Saratoga Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 612 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 7:05:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Anne C Johnson Phone Number Email Address Subject Comments Regarding Saratoga’s Draft Response to HCD’s Input on Saratoga’s 2nd Housing Element Draft Comments Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, I have two items I would like to share in this email. Item 1. Assuming there will ultimately be a readjustment of the current Housing Element distribution among sites in Saratoga, whether from programs such as approval for a second ADU, lot splits, small lot consolidations, possible Builder’s Remedy Projects or other additional sites, please keep the Saratoga Avenue/Pumpkin Patch location in mind for a housing level reduction. With 344 units currently targeted for the 11.45 acres known as the Saratoga Avenue property which includes both the Pumpkin Patch and a few existing office buildings, those 344 units amount to 84% of both the total housing units at the 10-story Prospect Lawrence location (410), as well as 84% of housing for just the Very Low and Low Income levels at Prospect Lawrence. Calculations: Very Low and Low Income levels (111+61=172) at Prospect Lawrence, and (93+52=145) at Saratoga Avenue/Pumpkin Patch, with 145/172=84%. Item 2. Although I don’t think anyone actually intends to exclude the Saratoga Avenue/Pumpkin Patch location from discussions of high density sites in Northern Saratoga, use of the phrase about locations “North of Cox” which I have seen in writing on several occasions recently, actually excludes the Saratoga Avenue/Pumpkin Patch location since it is located on the corner of Cox and Saratoga Avenues, but borders the south side of Cox. I would request a phrase such as “sites along Cox Avenue and north of Cox” when describing the high density Housing Element 613 sites in the northern portion of Saratoga. Thank you for your consideration, Anne Johnson Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 614 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 7:06:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Sanjay Priyadarshi Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Field not completed. Comments "Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. 615 The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Thanks Sanjay Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 616 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 7:07:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Michael Reed Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing Remedy Comments Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. 617 Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 618 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 7:13:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Praveen Shama Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Field not completed. Comments "Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. 619 Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Praveen Sharma Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 620 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 7:25:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Gail Kepler Phone Number Email Address Subject Housing Comments It is apparent that Saratoga needs to come up with a plan that works for everyone for this housing situation. Letting this go to the Builders Remedy is just not acceptable. The fact that the state is putting this burden on the city is unfortunate, but we need to work with what we have. It just does not make sense to put this housing in just a few areas - as well as being unfair. We need to spread the plan around. I live in the area of Warden and adding 71 units is just crazy. We would lose the feel of the neighborhood just based on increased traffic alone! I am not NIMBY - I just don't want it ALL in my back yard. There are options so spread the burden intelligently please. Thank you for your time, Gail Email Subscription Unsubscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 621 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 7:37:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Fred Heydari Phone Number Email Address Subject Saratoga Housing Comments There are too many houses are being built on small lot. There is a real need to have some control over permits. thanks Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 622 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 7:38:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Payal Sharma Phone Number Email Address Subject Unsatisfactory Housing Element state of affair Comments Hello Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. You have failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. Please no more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Please keep quiet and sanity environment for Saratoga. Payal 623 Email Subscription Subscribe, Unsubscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 624 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 7:59:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name VAN DANG Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject HOUSING ELEMENTS Comments Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. Your failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. Please, no more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Your continued failure has severely and negatively impacted our city. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention, competence and courage to make difficult choices. Your ongoing missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Please get it together and lead responsibly. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. It's time for you to lead or let someone else more competent do it. Thank you 625 Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 626 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 8:39:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Deepak Gupta Phone Number Email Address Subject Field not completed. Comments Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions to help our city get certified. The damage to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. 627 Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Deepak Email Subscription Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 628 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 8:41:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Vinod Nagarajan Phone Number Email Address Subject Builders remedy misteps... Comments Tina, Kookie, and Yan, Your failure has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the three of you played politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! No more excuses - the time is overdue to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this groundhog day of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Our frustration boils over. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Enough dragging your feet - get it together and lead responsibly. No more half-measures. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to 629 getting this right, no matter what it takes. Lead for all Saratogans - or step aside. Vinod Nagarajan Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 630 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form Date:Wednesday, November 1, 2023 8:42:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Council Comments Form Your Name Anand Hirekatur Phone Number Field not completed. Email Address Subject Housing plan Comments Council members, Your failure to correctly address the housing plan multiple times has brought builder's remedy upon Saratoga. Despite warnings, the all of you are more interested in politics (along with former councilmember Mary-Lynne Bernald) and failed to deliver a compliant housing plan after years of effort. This failure meant that our city missed the state deadline of 1/31/2023 and now Builder's Remedy threatens our community. You are responsible! Let’s not make any more excuses - the time is now to distribute housing and equitable housing sites citywide. Anything less than a good-faith effort across ALL neighborhoods will likely prompt a 4th rejection from the state. You failed to incorporate what HCD asked in March and led to another Housing Element rejection in July. Today's inadequate plan, if submitted, will continue this endless loop of failure. We face a real crisis that demands your full attention and courage to make difficult choices. Your chronic missteps has exposed Saratoga to inappropriate development. Please lead responsibly and urgently. I demand urgency, accountability, and solutions that will help our city get certified. The damage done to our beautiful city is immense - but this crisis is still salvageable if you take bold action immediately. Our community deserves your full focus and commitment to getting this right, no matter what it takes. Anand Hirekatur 631 Email Subscription Subscribe Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons Cities Association of Santa Clara County-City Selection Committee Council Finance Committee Hakone Foundation Executive Board Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council Board of Directors West Valley Mayors & Managers Association Vice Mayor Yan Zhao Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee Saratoga Ministerial Association Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Alternate Council Member Belal Aftab Association of Bay Area Governments Hakone Foundation Board of Trustees Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Advisory Committee Saratoga Historical Foundation Board of Directors Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee Council Member Chuck Page Council Finance Committee Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Board West Valley Clean Water Program Authority Board of Directors West Valley Sanitation District Board of Directors West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Board of Directors Council Member Tina Walia Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors KSAR Community Access TV Board Santa Clara County Library District Board of Directors Saratoga Sister City Committee Liaison Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors 640