HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-2001 City Council Agenda Packet AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 3, 2001
OPEN SESSION-5:05 P.M.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM- 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
5:05 p.m.
5:15 p.m.
5:25 p.m.
5:35 p.m.
5:45 p.m.
5:55 p.m.
6:05 p.m.
6:15 p.m.
6:25 p.m.
Logan S. Deimler
Jim Hughes
Clare McBride
Felix Rosengarten
Patricia Wilcox
John Feemster
Miles Rankin
Brett A. Borah
Alex Tennant
Parks & Recreation Commission
Finance Commission
Saratoga Community Foundation
Saratoga Community Foundation
Saratoga Community Foundation
Saratoga Commumty Foundation
Saratoga Community Foundation
Saratoga Community Foundation
Finance Commission
CALL MEETING TO ORDER - 6:45 P.M.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION - 6:45 P.M.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b):
(1 potential cases)
REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA ·
(Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
September 28, 2001)
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
KEEP ONE YEAR
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff.
Communications from Boards and Commissions
None
Written Communications
None
Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
lA.
Appointment and Oath of Office of Citizen Oversight Committee Member,
Kathryn Alexander
Recommended action:
Approve Resolution of Appointment.
lB.
lC
Appointment and Oath of Office of Finance Commission Members, Richard R.
Allen and Emily Garbe
Recommended action:
Approve Resolution of Appointments.
Commendation for Richard Carlson, Ching-Li Cheng, Robert Gager, and Michael
Gordon, Finance Commissioners.
Recommended action:
Present commendations.
1D.
Proclamation - Declaring the Month of October 2001 "National Domestic
Violence Awareness Month"
Recommended action:
Read proclamation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be
acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of
the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the
Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes.
2A.
Approve Council Meeting Minutes
Regular Meeting - August 15,2001
Recommended action:
Approve minutes.
2
2B.
Review of Check Register
Recommended action:
Approve check register.
2C.
Review Planning Commission Action Minutes
Regular Meeting - September 26, 2001
Recommended action:
Note and file.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of
ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may comment on
any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a
total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 'Items requested for continuance
are subject to Council's approval at the Council meeting)
o
Draft Housing Element
Recommended action:
Conduct public heating.
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011 (397-17-
034) - CHEN, 19751 Versailles Way; Applicant: Chen / Appellant: Pillai
Recommended action:
Conduct public heating; Deny the appeal; Uphold Planning Commission's
decision with additional onditions of approval.
OLD BUSINESS
o
Presentation by Santa Clara Valley Water District - Removal of Comer Debris
Basin
Recommended action:
Informational only.
o
Village Decorative Lighting Guidelines and Funding
Recommended action:
Approve guidelines and authorize execution of contract.
o
Pony League Field Update
Recommended action:
Authorize amendments to contracts and adopt resolution.
NEW BUSINESS.
o
Affordable Housing Assistance for Key City Officials
Recommended action:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
Purchase of New City Vehicles
Recommended action:
Authorize purchase.
COMMISSION ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Planning Commission Baker
Parks and Recreation Commission Streit
Finance Commission Mehaffey
Library Commission Bogosian
Public Safety Commission Bogosian
Heritage Preservation Commission Waltonsmith
Youth Commission Waltonsmith
Gateway Task Force Mehaffey
Library Expansion Committee Bogosian
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
OTHER
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title
II)
4
October 9, 2001
October 17, 2001
November 7, 2001
November 21, 2001
December 5, 2001
December 11, 2001
December 19, 2001
SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Study Session - Civic Center Master Plan
Adult Day Care Center
Saratoga, California
Regular Meeting/Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Regular Meeting/Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
Regular Meeting/Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Califomia
Regular Meeting/Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Califomia
Adjourned Meeting - Council Reorganization
Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, Califomia
Regular Meeting/Council Chambers
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
5
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001
ORIGINATING ~)~E~pT.' C/lt~ '~'.~an ager
PREPARED BY.",, [ 'k.~?,,_.'-~? ....
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Commission Interviews for Parks and Recreation Commission,
Finance Commission, and Saratoga Community Foundation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council continue interviews for the Parks and Recreation Commission from September 20,
2001 and conduct interviews the Finance Commission and conduct interview for the Saratoga
Community Foundation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The following people have been scheduled for interviews:
5:05 p.m.
5:15 p.m.
5:25 p.m.
5:35 p.m.
5:45 p.m.
5:55 p.m.
6:05 p.m.
6:15 p.m.
6:25 p.m.
Logan S. Deimler
'Jim Hughes
Clare McBride
Felix Rosengarten
Patricia Wilcox
John Feemster'
Miles Rankin
Brett A. Borah
Alex Tennant
Parks & Recreation Commission
Finance Commission
Saratoga Community Foundation
Saratoga Community Foundation
Saratoga Community Foundation
Saratoga Community Foundation
Saratoga Community Foundation
Saratoga Community Foundation
Finance Commission
There are three (3) vacancies to be filled on the Parks and Recreation Commission to fill expired
terms of Judy Alberts, Sheila Ioannou, and Barbra Olsen.
On September 20, 2001 the City Council interviewed the following applicants for the vacancies
on the Parks and Recreation Commission: Angela Frazier, Gregory Gates, Kris Bakke,
John R. Kettmann. Logan Deimler was unable to attend the interviews on September 19, 2001.
The terms for these vacancies will expire on October 1, 2005.
There are three (3) vacancies to be filled on the Finance Commission to fill expired terms of
Robert Gager, and Michael Gordon and unexpired term of Ernest Brookfield.
On September 20, 2001 the City Council appointed Richard R. Allen and Emily Garbe to fill two
of the five vacancies on the Finance Commission. There are still three (3) vacancies to be filled.
The terms for the expired vacancies will expire on October 1, 2005 and the unexpired vacancy
will expire on October 1, 2003.
There are five (5) vacancies available on the newly established Saratoga.Community Foundation.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Appointments will not be made to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Finance Commission,
and Saratoga Community Foundation.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Adopt resolutions and administer Oaths of Office at scheduled Council Meeting.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Applications of the above named applicants.
2 of 3
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
PREPARE~?
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Appointment of Citizen Oversight Committee Member and Oath of Office.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council approve the attached resolution appointing Kathryn Alexander to thc Citizen
Oversight Committee. The terms for this commission will expire when the Library Renovation
and Expansion Project is completed.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the resolution appointing Kathryn Alexander to the Citizen Oversight Committee.
The Oath of Office will be administered and signed by the Commissioner.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Appointments will not be made to the Citizen Oversight Committee.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Update City's Official Roster.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the Council Agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Resolution of Appointment
Attachment B - Oath of Office
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA APPOINTING ONE MEMBER TO THE
CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, A vacancy was created on the Citizen Oversight Committee resulting from the
resignation of Eva Giordano; and
WHEREAS, a notice of vacancy was posted, applications were received, interviews have been
conducted, and it is now appropriate to fill the vacancy.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves that the following
appointment were made:
Kathryn Alexander
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the
Saratoga City Council held on the 3rd day of October 2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
John Mehaffey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I, Kathryn Alexander do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the united States and the
Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon
which I am about to enter.
Kathryn Alexander, Member
Citizen Oversight Committee
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
this 3rd day of October 2001.
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
MEETING DATE:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
October 3, 2001 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING ~ Manager
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Appointment of Finance Commission Member and Oath of Office.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That Council approve the attached resolution appointing Richard R. Allen and Emily Garbe to
the Finance Commission. The terms for this commission will expire on 10/01/05.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the resolution appointing Richard R. Allen and Emily Garbe to the Finance
Commission. The Oath of Office will be administered and signed by the Commissioners.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Appointments will not be made to the Finance Commission.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Update City's Official Roster.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the Council Agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Resolution of Appointments
Attachment B - Oath of Office
RESOLUTION NO. 0l-
A RESOLUTION OF TItE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA APPOINTING TWO MEMBERS TO THE
FINANCE COMMISSION
WHEREAS, vacancies were created on the Finance Commission resulting from expired terms of
Richard Carlson, Ching-Li Cheng, Robert Gager, and Michael Gordon; and
WHEREAS, a notice of vacancies was posted, applications were received, interviews have been
conducted, and it is now appropriate to fill the vacancies.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves that the following
appointments were made for term expiring October 1, 2001,
Richard R. Allen
Emily Garbe
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the
Saratoga City Council held on the 3rd day of October 2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
John Mehaffey, Mayor
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I, Richard R. Allen, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I'will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon
which I am about to enter.
Richard R. Allen, Member
Finance Commission
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
this 3rd day of October 2001.
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I, Emily Garbe, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of
the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I
take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon
which I am about to enter.
Emily Garbe, Member
Finance Commission
Subscribed and sworn to before me
on this 3rd day of October 2001.
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATIN~Manager
PREPARE~Sz
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Commendation for Richard Carlson, Ching-Li Cheng, Robert Gager, and
Michael Gordon
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present Commendations.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are the commendations for Richard Carlson, Ching-Li Cheng, Robert Gager,
and Michael Gordon, o,utgoing Finance Commissioners.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:'
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Copy of commendations.
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMENDING
RICHARD CARLSON FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE
FINANCE COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Richard Carlson has served on the Finance Commission since
March 2001; and
WHEREAS, Richard participated in a number of matters concerning the FY
2001-2002 budget, reserve funds, revenues and expenditures; and
WHEREAS, Richard has been a dedicated and hard working Finance
Commissioner, his contributions are greatly appreciated by the City Council and the
staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is proud of the citizens
who contribute time and talent to our community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Richard Carlson is hereby
commended and thanked for his hard work and dedication on the Finance
Commission; and
WITNESS MY HAND 'AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
3rd day of October 2001.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMENDING
CHING-LI CHENG
FOR HER SERVICE ON THE FINANCE COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Ching-Li Cheng has served on the Finance Commission since
July 2000; and
WHEREAS, Ching-Li has participated in a number of matters concerning the
budget, reserve funds, revenues and expenditures; and
WHEREAS, Ching-Li was instrumental in updating the City's Finance Policy and
Procedure Manual and the full cost recovery system; and
WHEREAS, Ching-Li has been a dedicated and hard working Finance
Commissioner, her contributions are greatly appreciated by the City Council and the
staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is proud of the citizens
who contribute time and talent to our commUnity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Ching-Li Cheng is hereby
commended' and thanked for her hard work and dedication on the Finance
Commission; and
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
3rd day of October 2001.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMENDING
ROBERT GAGER
FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE FINANCE COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Robert Gager has served on the Finance Commission since July
2000; and
WHEREAS, Robert has participated in a number of matters concerning the FY
2001-2002 budget, reserve funds, revenues and expenditures; and
WHEREAS, Robert has been a dedicated and hard working Finance
Commissioner, his contributions are greatly appreciated by the City Council and the
staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is proud of the citizens
who contribute time and talent to our community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Robert Gager is hereby
commended and thanked for his hard work and dedication on the Finance
Commission; and
WITNESS My HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
3rd day of October 2001.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMENDING
MICHAEL GORDON
FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE FINANCE COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Michael Gordon has served on the Finance Commission since
April 1999; and
WHEREAS, Michael participated in a number of matters
annual budget, reserve funds, revenues and expenditures; and
concerning the
WHEREAS, Michael played an active role in selection of the City Auditor;
and
WHEREAS,, Michael has been a dedicated and hard working Finance
Commissioner, his contributions are greatly appreciated by the City Council and the
staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga is proud of the citizens
who contribute time and talent to our community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Michael Gordon is hereby
commended and thanked for his hard work and dedication' on the Finance
Commission; and
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
3rd day of October 2001.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
City of Saratoga
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Proclamation - Declaring the Month of October 2001 "Domestic Violence
Prevention Month"
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Read proclamation.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On October 19, 2001 the City of San Jose is sponsoring the Fourth Annual "Elected and Public
official Walk to End Domestic Violence".
Under the leadership of former Councilmember Alice E. Woody, the San Jose's
Family/Domestic Violence Task Force was established to raise awareness and recommend
programs to address domestic violence in our community.
This year Pat Dando, Councilmember-District 10, is the Chair of the San Jose Violence
Prevention Taskforce and has invited everyone to participate in this year's "Walk to End
Domestic Violence".
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES 'OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Proclamation
CITY OF SARATOGA
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2001
NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS, domestic violence is a concern of every community in the United
States, and is a major social problem that occurs among all ages, races, cultures,
occupations, and economic backgrounds; and
WHEREAS, domestic violence is one of the sources of violent behavior in our
society. A child who grows up in a violent household learns that violence is an acceptable
way of dealing with personal problems. To break this cycle of violence, services and
programs that promote a functional home environment must be available; and
WHEREAS, services and programs for battered women and their families, child
protective services, and counseling centers for dysfunctional families have been
established throughout the community; and
WHEREAS, services and programs for the victims of domestic violence must be
effectively communicated throughout the community; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2001, at 8:30 a.m., the Fourth Annual "Elected and
Public Officials Walk to End Domestic Violence" will take place at the San Jose Civic
Center to further raise public awareness about the need for solutions and to a call for the
active participation of all public officials, social service agencies, and the community to
end domestic violence.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Saratoga does hereby proclaim and recognize the month of October 2001,
NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
in the City of Saratoga. We join in the fight to end domestic violence and encourage all
citizens to help raise community awareness and support that will lead to the reduction
of domestic violence and help ensure a safe quality of life for women and families in
Saratoga.
Witnessed our hand and seal of the City of Saratoga on this 3rd day of October 2001.
John Mehaffey, Mayor
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING~ger
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: City Council Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting:
Regular Meeting - August 15, 2001
REPORT SUMMARY:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Retain minutes for legislative history.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Minutes/August 15, 2001
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 15, 2001
The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in open session in the Administrative
Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. to interview one applicant for the Heritage Preservation
Commission.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative
Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m.
Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957)
Title: City Manager
MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m.
Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was
taken.
Mayor Mehaffey called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
requested Councilmember Ann Waltonsmith to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLLCALL
PRESENT:
Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian,
Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit,
Mayor John Mehaffey
ABSENT:
None
ALSO PRESENT:
Dave Anderson, City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Ray Galindo, Accounting Supervisor
John Cherbone, Director of Public Works
Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst
Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR AUGUST 15, 2001.
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2,
the agenda for the meeting of August 15, 2001 was properly posted on
August 10, 2001.
City Council Minutes 1 August 15,2001
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
None
COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
ORAL 'COMMUNICATIONS
The following people spoke at tonight's meeting:
John Keenan, 22215 Mt. Eden Road, asked if item #3 proposes to postpone the
September 5,2001 appeal heating approval of the Saratoga Fire District Project.
Mayor Mehaffey responded that Item #3 is requesting funding to study the feasibility of a
Public Safety Center not to delay the public hearing on September 5, 2001.
Jane Fanari, Chamber of Commerce, stated that she is the new president of the Chamber.
Ms. Fanari noted that the Chamber's top priority is promoting the business community.
Ms. Fanari reported that interviews would soon be conducted to hire a new executive
director. Ms. Fanari reassured the Council that the Chamber is still functioning despite
the recent staffing changes.
COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF
None
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
lA.
APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF:
ADJOURNED MEETING - MARCH 27, 2001
REGULAR MEETING - JUNE 20, 2001
SPECIAL MEETING - JUNE 26, 2001
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve submitted minutes.
Councilmember Baker pulled the minutes of March 27, 2001 and requested the
following be corrected. On page 6, 1st paragraph, the sentence should read as
follows: "Councilmember Baker noted that the offer from Azule Project was
City Council Minutes 2 August 15,2001
lB.
lC.
ID.
that they would build 28 homes, 2 of which would be low income housing 2
requiring a contribution of $500, 000 per home."
Councilmember Waltonsmith pulled the minutes of June 20, 2001 and
requested the following change. On page 17, 2nd paragraph, the following
should be added to the sentence: "Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she
does not support this project but cannot vote against it because offederal law
prohibiting denying these issues on safe_tv issues."
BAKER/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF
MARCH 27, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED.
MOTION PASSED 5-0.
WALTONSMITH/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE
20, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION
PASSED WITH BAKER AND BOGOSIAN ABSTAINING.
STREIT/'BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 26,
2001. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve check register.
STREIT/~AKER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CHECK REGISTER.
MOTION PASSED 5-0.
TREASURER'S REPORT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Note and file.
STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE TREASURER'S
REPORT. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES
JULY 25, 2001
AUGUST 8, 2001
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Note and file.
STREIT/BAKER NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES.
MOTION PASSED 5-0.
City Council Minutes 3 August 15,2001
1E.
IF.
RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DR-00-054 & V-01-002 (517-14-087)- MARTIN/ROSE, KITTRIDGE
ROAD
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA DENYING APPEAL OF DESIGN
REVIEW APPLICATION (DR-00-054)
STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING AN
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE
OF
PROPERTY LOCATED ON KITTRIDGE ROAD. MOTION PASSED
5-0.
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DR-01-005 (386-06-017) - PALUMBO,
19208 BROOKVIEW DRIVE; APPLICANT: PALUMBO/APPELLANT:
ESCOLA, KARREN, GROSS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-054
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA GRANTING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION; APPELLANTS: ESCOLA, KARREN
& GROSS; APPLICANT PALUMBO; 19208 BROOKVIEW DRIVE;
DR-01-005
STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING AN
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE
PROPERTY LOCATED ON BROOKVIEW DRIVE ROAD. MOTION
PASSED
5-0.
City Council Minutes 4 August 15,2001
1G.
1H.
RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT:
HUSAIN/KHAN AND GRANTING AN APPEAL.FROM THE DECISION
OF THE PLANNING- COMMISSION ON THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION; APPELLANT: GIBERSON LL-00-005 (517-23-021 AND
517-22-111)-15480 PEACH HILL ROAD
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-055
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE' CITY OF
SARATOGA REGARDING APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELATED TO 15480 PEACH HILL
ROAD (APNS 517-23-021 AND 517-22-111);APPLICANT/APPELLANT-
HUSAIN/KHAN AS TO TIE VOTE ON LOT LINE APPLICATION
AND APPELLANT MARGARET S. GIBERSON AS TO APPROVAL
OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION (LL-00-005)
STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING AN
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15480 PEACH HILL ROAD. MOTION
PASSED 5-0.
AUTHORIZATION TO THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 1996 MEASURE B PAVEMENT
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize execution of agreement.
STREIT/BAKER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF
AGREEMENT WITH VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.
1I.
MOTION PASSED 5-0
AUTHORIZATION TO THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AGREEMENT WITH CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING
LABORATORIES IN CONJUNCTION TO THE SARATOGA
LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT PHASE I
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize execution of agreement.
City Council Minutes 5 August 15,2001
STREIT/BAKER
AGREEMENT
MOVED TO AUTHORIZE EXECUTION OF
WITH CONSOLIDATED ENGINEERING NOT TO
EXCEED $10,000.00.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
MOTION PASSED 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS
2. CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly.
John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report.
Director Cherbone explained that tonight was the second meeting in developing
the Five Year Capital Improvement Program. Director Cherbone noted that an
updated spreadsheet was provided to Council listing each project, associated
estimated cost, project funding source, and proposed five year expenditure plan.
Director Cherbone reminded Council that at the CIP study session in June, there
were 39 proposed new CIP projects that total $13,205,000. The Council
prioritized each project during the CIP study session as being essential, desirable,
or deferrable. The Council voted 13 projects as being essential and 10 projects as
being deferrable. Projects that were categorized as essential or deferrable received
a Council vote of three or more, while desirable projects failed to receive a
majority vote.
Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if a project in the deferrable list could be
moved to the desirable list even if it does not receive funding in the first few years.
Mayor Mehaffey explained that all of the projects are worthwhile, but
unfortunately funds are limited. Mayor Mehaffey noted projects could be moved
to the desirable list, funding only when money becomes available.
Elaine Clabeaux, Chair/Parks and Recreation Commission, reminded the City
Council the Parks and Recreation Commission top four CIP projects:
1) Playground Safety, 2) Park and Trail Repairs, 3) E1 Quito Park Improvements
4) Azule Park Improvements.
Elaine Clabeaux, 12357 Saraglen Drive, requested that the City Council consider
funding the improvements for the median on Prospect Road.
City Council Minutes 6 August 15, 2001
Keith Simon/President, Pony League, 20450 Montalvo Lane, expressed his
concern that a site has not been identified for Pony League use. Mr. Simon noted
that Pony and Little League are willing to contribute a large amount of funds to
make improvements at a site, once designated
Vice Mayor Streit requested that the Council go back thrbugh the CIP list.
Councilmember Baker suggested that the essential list be left out of tonight's
discussion and suggested that the Mayor read the desirable list for the audience.
Mayor Mehaffey read the essential list for the members of the audience.
Mayor Mehaffey explained that he would read the projects that were not funded at
the June 26th City Council Study Session; any item may be pulled for discussion.
As a result of Council discussions the following list of projects either received
funding or remained in the deferrable list:
Project
Herriman Avenue Traffic Signal
Sidewalk/Pathway Infill/Rehab
Verde Vista Lane Traffic Signal
Parker Ranch Trail Improvements
Kirkmont Drive Traffic Signal
Bus Stop Shelters
E1 Quito Area Curb & Gutter
Village Streetscape Improvements
Village Streetscape Improvements
Storm Drain Upgrades
Median Repairs
Prospect Avenue Medians
Fruitvale Avenue Median Landscaping
Quito Road Railroad Crossing Upgrade
Glen Brae Railroad Crossing Upgrade
WHH Improvements
Theater ImProvements
Corporation Yard Improvements
Chamber Building
Civic Center Master Plan
E1 Quito Park Improvements
Estimated Cost
Amount Funded
$150,000 $5,000
$500,000 0
$150,000 $5,000
$150,000 Item# 8 on Agenda
$150,000 $5,000
$100,000 0
$550,000 $550,000
$850,000 $850,000
$275,000 $275,000
$250,000 $250,000
$100,000 $100,000
$500,000 0
$150,000 0
$200,000 0
$150,000 0
$250,000 $145,000
$265,000 0
$150,000 0
$50,000 0
$250,000 0
$400,000 0
City Council Minutes 7 August 15, 2001
E1 Quito Park Improvements
Hakone Garden Drive Way
Pony League Baseball Field
UPR Trail
Kevin Moran Park Improvements
Skateboard Park
$400,000 0
$500,000 $500,000
$250,000 0
$785,000 0
$400,000 0
$250,000 0
Elaine Clabeaux, Chair/Parks and Recreation Commission, reminded the City
Council that the PRC was directed by the Council to find a home for the Pony
League. Chair Clabeaux noted that the PRC is requesting they be kept in the loop
on any decisions regarding the Heritage Orchard.
Director Cherbone noted that the CIP is scheduled for a public heating on the
September 19, 2001 City Council agenda.
Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, noted that the total allocated is $8,815,000
and explained the sources funding these projects are as follows: · General Fund - $4,385,000
· Park Development - $2,125,000
· Grants - $1,700,000
· Other Sources- $625,000
Mayor Mehaffey requested that the CIP chart be updated and forwarded to
Council.
Mayor Mehaffey thanked Director Cherbone for his report.
Mayor Mehaffey declared a ten-minute break at 9:30 p.m.
Mayor Mehaffey reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
NEw BUSINESS
o
STATUS REPORT FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER AD HOC
COMMITTEE
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution.
TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-056
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF $25,000 FOR A PUBLIC
SAFETY CENTER FEASIBILITY AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STUDY
AND EXTENDING THE TIME LINE BY NO MORE THAN SIX MONTHS
City Council Minutes
8 August 15, 2001
Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report.
City Manager Anderson explained that the Ad Hoc Committee was formed in
response to the letter submitted to Council by Don Whetstone. Mr. Whetstone
urged the City to revisit the idea of a combined Public Safety Center on the site of
the Fire Station/Post Office/Contempo Building.
The Ad Hoc Committee members are Nick Streit, Dave Anderson, ChiefKraule,
Curtis Jewel, David Dolloff, Dave Clifford, and Don Whetstone.
City Manager Anderson presented a status report on the findings made by the
group:
1) The Post Office is amenable to selling the post office property as long as
they can maintain a presence on the site for a retail store.
2) The Sheriff's Office "term of lease" with the Post Office runs out July
2002. The Sheriff's Office has notified the Post Office that they will be
looking for other quarters in Saratoga at that time. They also expressed a
strong desire to stay in Saratoga if at all possible.
3) The Federated Church expressed the desire to join the group as employee
parking from the Sheriff's Department and Fire Department impacts the
church. Jerry Bruce, the church Administrator, was invited to attend
subsequent meetings.
City Manager Anderson noted that resources were brought to the group by the
agencies represented. The City brought in the resources of Sutro and Company to
provide expertise on financing. Fehr & Peers Associates provided its traffic
expertise. The Fire Department volunteered their architect on the Fire Station
project, C3 Design Alliance for conceptual site design.
City Manager Anderson noted that subsequent to the meeting on August 6, 2001
some committee members were concerned that an unbiased report could not be
produced using the Fire Department's architect as a design site and that a
feasibility/conceptual study should be constrained by lack of funds or unrealistic
time constraints.
City Manager Anderson stated that staff is requesting, on behalf of the AdHoc
Committee that Council appropriate $25,000 to be used for conceptual design
services and traffic analysis as needed.
Vice Mayor Streit asked if the Ad Hoc Committee would be soliciting a consultant~
through the RFP process.
City Manager Anderson responded yes.
City Council Minutes 9 August 15, 2001
Robert Egan, Chair/Saratoga Fire Commission, 14890 Montalvo Road, noted that
the Fire Commission is willing to work with the AdHoc Committee as long as it
does not interfere with the construction of the new Fire Station. Mr. Egan noted
that in 1995 the Commission explored the concept of a Public Safety Facility, the
group met for two years with the Sheriff's Office, Federated Church, Post Office,
and Chamber of Commerce. At that time the consensus of the group was that a
facility of that nature, on the comer of Saratoga Avenue and Big Basin Way, was
not feasible. In April 2000 the Fire Commission went to the voters for a bond issue
to build a new fire station. Mr. Eagan stated that 89% of the residents that are
served by the SFD voted for the bond measure.' Mr. Egan noted that recently he
met with Mr. Whetstone to discuss his concerns and his ideas regarding a Public
Safety Center. Mr. Eagan stated that Mr. Whetstone took him to his back deck,
referring to Blaney Plaza, commented that he would like to see a similar park on
the Fire Station comer. Mr. Egan stated that Mr. Whetstone's opinions are self
serving and a park and additional parking would greatly benefit his tenants. Mr.
Egan noted that he feels that Don Whetstone's participation in the AdHoc
Committee is a conflict of interest. Mr. Egan noted that the Council should not
delay their project. Mr. Egan urged the Council to uphold the Planning
Commission's decision on September 5, 2001.
Councilmember Bogosian asked if it was tree that in 1995 the Post Office refused
to sell the property no matter what the price was.
Mr. Egan responded yes, the District offered the Post Office two different offers
and both were rejected.
Councilmember Baker asked if having the Sheriff's Department helps or hinders
the District's project.
Mr. Egan responded that the Sheriff's Department doesn't interfere with their
project. Mr. Egan noted that the District would like to keep the Sheriff's
Department at the current facility.
Councilmember Baker asked Mr. Egan if the SFD would be willing to sell their
property to the City.
Mr. Egan responded not at this time.
Mayor Mehaffey stated that he does not want to see the Sheriff's Office gone from
the Village.
Councilmember Baker stated that he strongly supports the concept of a Public
Safety Center. Councilmember Baker noted that the City should be prepared to
City Council Minutes 10 August 15, 2001
consider alternate sites for the Sheriff's Department.
BOGOSIAN/BAKER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION
APPROPRIATING $25, 000 FOR CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SERVICES
AND TRAFFIC ANALYSISi MOTION PASSED 5-0.
Don Whetstone, 14769 Vickery Avenue, stated that Mr. Egan's statements were
false. Mr. Whetstone said he did meet with Mr. Egan but no conversation of that
content took place.
PRESENTATION BY STEVE BLAYLOCK - ALTRANS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Informational only.
Stave Blaylock, President/ALTRANS, thanked the City Council for the continued
support. Mr. Blaylock explained what ALTRANS accomplished in the FY 2000-
01 as follows:
CommuniW Colleges 1. Staffed Transportation Service Centers for a total of 4,556 hours at WVC,
Mission, and De Anza Colleges.
2. Provided 15 Alternate Transportation Fairs.
3. Provided 30 Transportation Tabling Events around high-pedestrian areas
on campus.
4. Provided 12 Classroom Presentations.
5. Presented information to over 3,000 students participating in New Student
Orientations.
6. Distributed 23,370 pieces of Collateral Material promoting alternative
transportation modes.
7. Provided 2,093 Personal Trip Plans from the Transportation Services
Centers.
8. Distributed 18,836 Pro-Active Transit Trip Plans including 5,082 at West
Valley College
9. Worked on implementing the Valley'Transportation Authorities ECO Pass
Programs.
10. Secured $15,000 in grant funding from the City of Cupertino for the
construction of one Bicycle Corral at De Anza College.
11. Presented proposal to West Valley College and Mission College to operate
an Intra-Campus Shuttle with 2 CNG vans.
12. Assisted the City of Cupertino with the development and approval stages
for the Union Pacific Bicycle Trail and the Mary Bridge/Interstate 280
Pedestrian Bridge.
City Council Minutes 11 August 15, 2001
K-12 Schools 1. Distributed 4,673 Pro-Active Transit Trip Plans to SUSD and CUSD
2. Provided 9,509 carpool Matchlists for the K-12 Program.
3. Provided numerous GIS maps for planning assistance.
4. Provided Bike-to-School Safety & Encouragement Event at McAuliffe
School in SUSD.
5. Secured $35,000 for a subsidy towards the Saratoga Bussing Pilot
Program.
6. Participated in numerous meetings for the Saratoga School Traffic
Committee.
7. Provided Good Neighbor marketing piece to the attendees of the Saratoga
School Traffic Committee
8. Developed and wrote three newsletter articles for Sedgwick, Stevens
Creek, Kennedy schools in CUSD.
9. Worked on Saratoga K-12 School Bussing Program.
Mayor Mehaffey thanked Mr. Blaylock for the presentation.
PARKER RANCH TRAIL REPAIR
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve construction proposal and authorize execution of agreement.
John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report.
Director Cherbone noted that this project also appears on the current CIP list.
Director Cherbone reported that the attached proposal is in connection with the
repair of Trail Segment #3, better known as the "Tank Trail", located in the Parker
Ranch Subdivision. Approximately two years ago the City closed the trail because
of a landslide along a small segment of the trail. Estimates obtained at that time
reached $100,000 and more for conventional landslide repair methods.
Director Cherbone noted that Trail Subcommittee member, Teri Baron, located
trail contractor Donald Hayes, whose specialty is construction and repair of trails
in difficult locatiOns.
Director Cherbone explained that Mr. Hayes proposes to construct an inset gravity
wall, which will act as the foundation from the trail surface.
Director Cherbone noted that Mr. Hayes' specialty is construction and repair of
trails in difficult locations.
Director Cherbone stated that staff is recommending that Council approve a
construction proposal from Donald Hayes, Trail Contractor Inc., in the amount of
City Council Minutes 12 August 15, 2001
$16,800.
BOGOSIAN/BAKER MOVED TO APPROVE CONSTRUCTION
PROPOSAL AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,800. MOTION PASSED 5-0.
INTEREST INCOME ON LIBRARY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
INVESTMENTS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt resolution.
Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report.
Assistant Manager Tinfow explained that staff has estimated that between
$500,000 and $700,000 in interest income will be earned on the bond proceeds
during the eighteen-month construction period, assuming a 5% rate of return and a
drawdown schedule developed by the City's construction management firm. Bond
counsel for the City confirmed that the interest earnings can only be spent for the
same items for which the principle could be spent, and it cannot be used for such
things as furniture, computer equipment, or books.
Assistant Manager Tinfow reported that staff and the Library Expansion
Committee recommend that the interest income of $500,000 be spent on the
Library project for a number of reasons. First, the funds would provide an
additional buffer against unexpected or unbudgeted expenses. Second, costs for
establishing the temporary library are not final.
Assistant Manager Tinfow noted that under a best case scenario, some or all of the
funds could become available for project components that were removed during
value engineering, such as energy-conserving digitally controlled HVAC system,
or additional enhancements such as an art mural in the children's wing.
Vice Mayor Streit stated he does not have a problem spending the interest on the
library, but before the Library Expansion Committee starts spending the money on
the valued engineering items, it is imPortant to get the Library built first and then
add extra items.
Councilmember Baker noted that this should not be acted on until after the City
has firm bids on Phase II.
Mayor Mehaffey noted that the interest income should be kept as a buffer. Mayor
Mehaffey stated that when the project is completely finished he would support
giving money back to the citizens.
City Council Minutes 13 August 15, 2001
o
Assistant Manager Tinfow noted that she would relay the Council's comments to
the Library Expansion Committee.
Councilmember Baker requested that this item be deferred to a future agenda.
Consensus of the City Council to bring this item back after the bid opening for
Phase II.
CITY SPONSORED ARTS PROGRAM
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly
Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, presented staff report.
Director Pisani explained that the City Council directed staffto investigate ways to
support, promote, and participate in a wide variety of art programs in the City of
Saratoga. The concept of a city sponsored art program is being broUght to the City
Council for input and guidance.
Director Pisani reported that a survey of surrounding cities and current local
programs was completed showing that most cities do have type of arts commission
or arts council. Director Pisani explained the City's options as follows: · Option 1 - Establish an Arts Council/Commission.
· Option 2 - Establish a rotating Art Committee and recruit and appoint
members to a board to oversee the program.
Option 3 - A local community art group could be recruited to institute and
oversee a rotating art program.
Councilmember Bogosian noted that the City does need an art donation policy and
prefers that the County Library not be involved in selecting art for the City's
library. In regards to establishing a commission, any of the options are fine.
Vice Mayor Streit concurred with Councilmember Bogosian regarding County
Library's participation in art selections. Vice Mayor Streit requested that any
program the City establishes must incorporate children. Vice Mayor Streit noted
he supports Option #1.
Consensus of the City Council to direct staffto establish guidelines and a
resolution establishing an arts commission.
CITY ENERGY CONSERVATION EFFORTS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Accept report and direct staff accordingly
City Council Minutes 14 August 15, 2001
Joan Pisani, Recreation Director, presented staff report.
Director Pisani re-pisrted that at various times since December of last year,
California has been under Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3 energy alerts. On January
12, 2001 the League of California Cities issued a memorandum asking all cities to
certify that they would reduce energy usage by a minimum of 5% by January 16,
2001. In response the City Council adopted a resolutiOn in support of a 5%
reduction level.
Director Pisani noted that the past few months threats of rolling blackouts have
lessoned because of combined conservation efforts of private and public energy
consumers.
Director Pisani explained that the League is currently asking that each member
agency pledge to implement energy savings programs, which will achieve a
conservation rate of 15% over the last year.
Director Pisani briefly explained the actions the City would have to take if the
Council signed the pledge.
Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if there was a penalty if the City did not sign
the pledge.
Director Pisani responded no.
Councilmember Baker noted that he does not support signing the pledge.
Consensus of the City Council to oppose signing the League's Energy
Conservation Pledge.
AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT
WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize execution of agreement.
Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report.
Assistant Manager Tinfow explained that the renovation and expansion of the
existing Saratoga Library is expected to take approximately eighteen months. In
March 2001 staff was directed to establish a temporary library that could serve the
community while expansion is underway. The temporary library will be sited on
property owned by Sacred Heart Church and a lease has been secured with
modular fabricator Williams Scotsman.
City Council Minutes 15 August 15, 2001
Assistant City Manager Tinfow noted that staff is requesting the Council approve
the attached sublease with the County Library and explained that without an
executed sublease between the City and the County Library, Library staff cannot
move in to the temporary facilities and no interim services can be providedto the
public.
BAKER/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY
FOR SUBLEASE AGREEMENT. MOTION PASSED 5-0:
AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Mehaffey announced that he had no reportable information at this time.
Vice Mayor Nick Streit announced that he had no reportable information at this time.
Councilmember Baker reported that the new station manager is working very hard to
establish a budget. KSAR is also in the process of replacing their assets, actively seeking
grants and donations, and expanding their operation.
Councilmember Baker noted that he attended the Califomia Cities Association meeting
and reported the following information:
Executive Director and Recording Secretary resigned.
· Approved budget.
· October 19, 2001 - coordinated by the City of San Jose "Walk for Domestic
Violence".
Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information in regards to the Library
JPA:
· Library JPA - approved changes in the JPA agreement.
· Discussed staffing issues.
· Next meeting in October.
Councilmember Bogosian reported the following information in regards to the Silicon
Valley Animal Control:
· Up and running successfully for over a month.
· Almost fully staffed
· Drafting a Mission Statement.
Councilmember Waltonsmith reported that SASCC would be holding their annual
fundraiser on August 25, 2001.
Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that last Friday the City hosted a reception for the
exchange students who are a part of the Sister City student exchange program.
City Council Minutes 16 August 15, 2001
Councilmember Waltonsmith reported that at the last Valley Transportation PAC meeting
they discussed the annual budget projections.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS - ~.
Councilmember Bogosian requested that the Santa Clara Valley Water District be invited
to attend the next Council meeting to explain the removal of the Comer debris basin.
Councilmember Waltonsmith supported Councilmember Bogosian's request.
Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if the City's commission have mission statements. If
yes, she would like a brief staff report explaining them.
Mayor Mehaffey supported Councilmember Waltonsmith's request.
Councilmember Baker announced that he would not be able to attend the September 5,
2001, City Council meeting.
OTHER
None
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Anderson reported that Saratoga Fire District and County Fire met
yesterday and executed the Boundary Drop Proposal.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
City Council Minutes 17 August 15,2001
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT: Check Register:
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Approve the Check Register.
.REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached is the Check Register.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
None
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
None
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Register Certification.
IFund# Fund Name
AP CHECKS A86413-86502
Date Manual Void Total
9114/01 Checks Checks
1 GENERAL 197,431.08
100 COPS-SLESF
110 Traffic Safety
150 Streets & Roads 13,686.66
160 Transit Dev
170 Hillside Repair
180 LLA Districts 9,108.12
250 Dev Services 13,262.44
260 Environmental 84,394.37
270 Housing & Comm
290 Recreation 9,816.19
291 Teen Services 1,099.77
292 Facility Ops
293 Theatre Surcharge
300 State Park
310 Park Develpmt 254,602.95
320 Library Expansion 155,706.25
400 Library Debt
410 Civic Cntr COP
420 Leonard Creek
700 Quarry Creek
710 Heritage Prsvn
720 Cable TV
730 PD #2
740 PD #3
800 Deposit Agency 6,228.00
810 Deferred Comp
830 Payroll Agency
990 SPFA
' Isubtotal 745,335.83
PAYROLL CHECKS: B27122-27166
TOTAL
(124.05)
(5,585.00)
(240.00)
(1,550.00)
Prepared by:
Date:
JApproved by:
PREPARED 09/14/2001, 10:57:02 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 1
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/14/200]
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000003
2260
0000010
100015668
0001963 ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS
001088
0001964 ALLIED ADMINISTRATORS
001087
0001528
20174
A & M MOTOR SUPPLY
001055 20025 09/12/2001
ABAG POWER PURCHASING POOL
001057 20035 09/12/2001
09/13/2001
09/13/2001
AMERIC~N TRAFFIC SUPPLY
001051 09/12/2001
0000005 BAY AREA COMMISSIONERS & BOARD
8/24/01 001052 09/12/2001
0002095 BITTICK'S CAMPET
30125 001081 19984 09/13/2001
0002048 BOREL, KRISTIN
001214 09/13/2001
0000005 BREUCK~, SHANNON
698 001208 09/13/2001
0000593
1751494
0002129
33703
CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE PROGRAM
001086 09/13/2001
CALIFORNIA STREET MAINTENANCE, INC.
001050 09/12/2001
0000072 CELSOC
001053 09/12/2001
0000005
CHATEAU JULIEN WINE ESTATE
001078 09/13/2001
001-1035-512.30-01 MISC. SUPPLIES 46.85
VENDOR TOTAL * 46.85
001-1060-513.40-23 NATURAL GAS/POWER POOL 1,610.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,610.00
001-0000-210.2~-01 DELTA DENTAL #30710 PDO 4,091.27
VESrDOR TOTAL * 4,091.27
001-0000-210.20-01 DELTA DENTAL #5A94A PMI 247.74
VENDOR TOTAL * 247.74
150-3015-532.30-01 TRAFFIC PAINT 461.70
VENDOR TOTAL * 461.70
001-1015-511.30-30 WORKSHOP REG.-DODGE 40.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 40.00
001-1060-513.40-10 INSTALL FLOOR COVERING-WH 2,707.03
VENDOR TOTAL * 2,707.03
001-1050-513.30-01 COFFEE/SUPPLIES REIMB. 66.45
VENDOR TOTAL * 66.45
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 19.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 19.00
001-0000-210.20-01 LONG TERM CARE #19-01 70.16
VENDOR TOTAL * 70.16
260-5015-552.40-10 MONTHLY STREET SWEEPING 8,556.37
VENDOR TOTAL * 8,556.37
001-3035-532.30-~1 CA STATUTE BOOKS 183.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 183.00
290-6005-564.40-51 WINERY TOUR 9/20/01 124.12
pREPARED 09/14/2001, 10:57:02 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 2
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/14/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000005
CHATEAU JULIEN WINE ESTATE
0060434 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES XNC ·
85790 001027 20068 09/10/2001 250-4020-542.40-10
85791 001028 20068 09/10/2001 250-4020-542.40-10
85792 001029 20068 09/10/2001 250-4020-542.40-10
85793 001030 20068 09/10/2001 250-4020-542.40'-10
0000751
CPRS DIST. IV
001211 09/13/2001
001212 09/13/2001
290-6005-564.40-01
291-6010-564.40-01
0002197 DATA QUICK INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC
01713857 001206 20015 09/13/2001 250-4010-542.40-10
01713857 001207 20015 09/13/2001 250-4020-542.40-10
0000108 DATA TICKET, INC.
4835 001020 09/10/2001 00i-2010-522.40-10
4774 001090 09/13/2001 001-2010-522.40-10
0000119 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-CASHIER
357809 001198 09/13/2001
LS07010731 001082 09/13/2001
001-1040-413.05-00
290-6005-564.40-10
0000125 DINI, G.
8/01 001045 09/10/2001 250-4020-542.40-16
0000138 ECONOMY LUMBER
57917 001181 19912 09/13/2001
0000144 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS
S1083208001 001083 19945 09/13/2001
0000146 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICE
I010801 001205 09/13/2001
0000150 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY
35322 001084 09/13/2001
0002291 FALCON ASSOCIATES, INC.
150-3015-532.30-01
001-1060-513.30-02
250-4010-542.40-40
001-1060-513.40-15
VENDOR TOTAL * 124.12
GEOTECH. SERVICES 59.13
GEOTECH. SERVICES 1,346.25
GEOTECH. SERVICES 652.50
GEOTECH. SERVICES 1,099.13
VENDOR TOTAL * 3,157.01
CPRS INST. 10-19-01 50.00
CPRS INST. 10-19-01 25.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 75.00
MONTHLY GIS UPDATE 25.00
MONTHLY GIS UPDATE 25.58
VENDOR TOTAL * 50.58
PARKING CIT. HEARING 7/01 140.00
PARKING CIT. PROC. 7/01 149.65
VENDOR TOTAL * 289.65
FINGERPRINT PROC.-1 APP. 32.00
FINGERPRINTS-CORSIGLIA 32.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 64.00
INSPECTION SERVICES 3,515.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 3,515.00
STREETS/TRAFFIC MATERIALS 50.54
VENDOR TOTAL * 50.54
LIGHT BULBS 924.96
VENDOR TOTAL * 924.96
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES 1,168.51
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,168.51
SPRAY-OAK ST. LIBRARY 90.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 90.00
PREPARED 09/14/2001, 10:57:02 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 3
PROGRAM: GM339L AS'OF: 09/14/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0002291 FALCON ASSOCIATES, INC.
5793 001201 09/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-40 RECRUITMENT AD- ASST. PLN 45.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 45.00
0002418 FEET FIRST EVENTERTAINMENT
9142001 001046 09/12/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 DANCE DJ 9/14/01 450.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 450.00
0001767 FEHR & PBERS ASSOCIATES INC.
21360-2 001199 09/13/2001 001~3035-532.40o13 TP, AFFIC ENG.-QUITO, SARA. 2,921.51
VENDOR TOTAL * 2,921.51
0002380 FIORD' ITALIA
001228 19988 09/13/2001 290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP 12/13/01-DINNER 815.71
VENDOR TOTAL * 815.71
0000162 G. N. RENN, INC.
426808 001040 20030 09/10/2001 001-1035-512.30-20 GAS, DIESEL & PETROLEUM 1,069.96
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,069.96
0001794 GACHINA LANDSCAPE M~AGEMENT
31476 001070 09/12/2001 001-3030-532.40-15 CIVIC CENTER 1,035.00
31476 001071 09/12/2001 150-3025-532.40'15 MEDIANS/PARKWAYS 3,477.00
31476 001058 20040 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 MANOR DRIVE 155.00
31476 001059 20040 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 FREDERICKSBURG 258.00
31476 001060 20040 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 MCCARTYSVILLE 204.00
31476 001061 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 ARROYO DE SARATOGA 83.00
31476 001062 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 LEUTAR CT. 83.00
31476 001063 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 BONNET WAY 243.00
31476 001064 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 BEAUCHAMPS 78.00
31476 001065 20040 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 SUNLAND PARK 322.00
31476 001066 20040 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 BELLGROVE 1,892.00
31476 001067 20040 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 TRICIA WOODS 210.00
31476 001068 20040 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 KERWIN R~CH 326.00
31476 001069 20040 09/12/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 TOLLGATE 88.00
31476 001072 09/12/2001 .180-3040-532.40-15 PRIDES CROSSING 432.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 8,886.00
0001084 GAMETIME
659895 001075 09/12/2001 001-9010-522.40-14 BENCHES, TRASH RECEPTACLE 4,556.00
659894 001076 09/12/2001 001-9010-522.40-14 BENCHES, TRASH RECEPTACLE 9,649.84
VENDOR TOTAL * 14,205.84
0000164 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMENT
365046 001158 19913 09/13/2001 001-3030-532.30-01 GARDENING SUPPLIES 55.72
364138 001186 19913 09/13/2001 001-3030-532.30-01 GARDENING SUPPLIES 26.86
VENDOR TOTAL * 82.58
0002419 GEN-CON, INC.
001230 20168 09/14/2001 320-9010-522.40-10 LIB. EXPANSION/RENOVATION 128,331.00
PREPARED 09/14/2001, 10:57:02 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 4
PROGR~: GM339L AS,OF: 09/14/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0002419 GEN-CON, INC.
0002323 GENOFF, RICHARD C.
004 001179 09/13/2001
0002221 GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY, INC.
REQ. 9 001192 20007 09/13/2001
0000771
9/lO/Ol
GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL, INC
001170 09/13/2001
0000005 GUERIN, NARCERA
750 001193 09/13/2001
0002358 E.V. CARTER CO. INC.
229809 001182 09/13/2001
0000183
8/ol
HAKONE GARDEN FOUNDATION
001022 09/10/2001
0001862 NARVANCIK, IVETA
8/30/01 001077 09/12/2001
0000198 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SVCS
19344 001236 20090 09/14/2001
19344 001237 20090 09/14/2001
0001813 I.M.P.A.C. CARD SERVICES
C. BOYER 001122 09/13/2001
C. BOYER 001123 09/13/2001
C. BOYER 001124 09/13/2001
A. SULLIVAN 001126 09/13/2001
A. SULLIVAN 001135 09/13/2001
D. SURDIN 001137 09/13/2001
A. SULLIVAN 001125 09/13'/2001
A. SULLIVAN 001127 09/13/2001
A. SULLIVAN 001128 09/13/2001
A. SULLIVAN 001129 09/13/2001
A. SULLIVAN 001130 09/13/2001
A. SULLIVAN 001131 09/13/2001
A. SULLIVAN 001132 09/13/2001
VENDOR TOTAL * 128,331.00
310-9010-622.40-10 SOD INSTALLATION-CS PARK 5,510.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 5,510.00
320-9010-522.40-10 PROF. SVCS. LIB. 7/01 13,636.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 13,636.00
260-5005-552.40-10 2001 SPRING CLEAN-UP 75,838.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 75,838.00
290-6005-445.04-00 CLASS REFUND 70.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 70.00
001-1035-612.60-04 SWEEPER, MOWER, AERATOR 72,831.96
VENDOR TOTAL * 72,831.96
001-3030-532.40-71 HAKONE RENT 8/01 821.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 821.00
001-1020-511.40-04 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 10.35
VENDOR TOTAL * 10.35
001-3030-532.40-14 REPAIR/TEST BACKFLOW DEV. 348.94
150-3025-532.40-14 REPAIR/TEST BACKFLOW DEV. 348.93
VENDOR TOTAL ~ 697.87
001-1005-511.40-04 COUNCIL MTG. DINNER 103.25
001-1005-511.40-04 COUNCIL MTG. EXPENSE 13.93
001-1005-511.40-04 COUNCIL MTG. EXPENSE 3.65
001-1005-511.40-04 COUNCIL MTG. EXPENSE 50.98
001-1005-511.40-04 COUNCIL EXPENSE 7.99
001-1005-511.30-01 FLOWERS-COUNCIL 61.02
001-1020-511.40-04 AD HOC FIRE MTG. EXP. 11.00
001-1020-511.40-21 EXP. MAIL EXPENSE 16.25
001-1020-511.40-04 FIRE STATION BOARD MTG. 13.15
001-1020-511.40-21 EXP. MAIL EXPENSE 12.45
001-1020-511.40-04 SISTER CITY EVENT 71.05
001-1020-511.40-04 SISTER CITY EVENT 31.49
001-1020-511.40-04 BEVERAGES/SUPPLIES 48.68
PREPARED 09/14/2001, 10:57:02 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 5
PROGR~: GM339L AS OF: 09/14/2001
CITY.OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0001813 I.M.P.A.C. CARD SERVICES
A. SULLIVAN 001133 09/13/2001 001-1020-511.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 23.29
TINFOW 001216 09/13/2001 001-1020-511.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 57.19
D. ANDERSON 001240 09/14/2001 001-1020-511.40-04 LUNCH MTG.-MAYOR/COUNCIL 15.29
D. ANDERSON 001241 09/14/2001 001-1020-511.40-04 LUNCH MTG.-MAYOR 34.05
M. WALKER 001101 09/13/2001 001-1040-513.30-01 UPS-SONICAIR 60.50
L. BURNS 001102 09/13/2001 001-1045-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 31.30
L. MIYAKAWA 001103 09/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-40 RECRUITMENT AD-AS DIR. 150.00
L. MIYAKAWA 001104 09/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 ORAL BOARD FOOD 10.07
L. MIYAKAWA 001105 09/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 ORAL BOARD FOOD-CSO 46.01
L. MIYAKAWA 001106 09/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 ORAL BOARD FOOD-CSO 8.93
L. MIYAKAWA 001107 09/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 ORAL BOARD FOOD-PRK MAINT 10.07
L. MIYAKAWA 001108 09/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-02 ORAL BOARD FOOD-PRK MAINT 47.68
L. MIYAKAWA 001109 09/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 25.00
L. MIYAKAWA 001110 09/13/2001 001-1045-513.40-01 SUPPLIES-HEALTH FAIR 28.67
L. MIYAKAWA 001111 ' 09/13/2001 001-1045-513.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 11.34
R. KIRK 001118 09/13/2001 001-1060-513.40-30 PAGERS 258.69
R. KIRK 001119 09/13/2001 001-1060-513.40-14 BLOWER REPAIR KIT 14.85
R. KIRK 001120 09/13/2001 001-1060-513.40-14 PAINT-CITY HALL BLDG. 82.90
R. KIRK 001121 09/13/2001 001-1060-513.40-14 OFFICE SUPPLIES 26.34
B. TUCKER 001220 09/13/2001 001-1065-513.30-01 SOFTWARE 18.95
B. TUCKER 001221 09/13/2001 001-1065-513.30-01 VIDEO CABLE 29.15
A. SULLIVAN 001134 09/13/2001 001-2005-521.30-01 TRAFFIC CALMING GUIDE 12.25
D. MOONEY 001136 09/13/2001 001-3030-532.30-01 PLANTS-BLANEY PLAZA 158.57
SMITH 001217 09/13/2001 001-3035-532.40-01 EROSION CONTROL WRKSHP 85.00
SMITH 001218 09/13/2001 001-3035-532.30-31 CALTRANS PUBLICATION 10.00
D. SURDIN 001138 09/13/2001 001-7020-572.30-01 OFFICE REFERENCE 7.51
D. SURDIN 001139 09/13/2001 001-7020-572.40-04 SEMINAR TRAVEL EXP. 24.34
D. SURDIN 001140 09/13/2001 001-7020-572.30-01 OFFICE REFERENCE 3.95
L. CONN 001094 09/13/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 89.94
L. CONN 001095 09/13/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.78
L. CONN 001096 09/13/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 27.62
.L. CONN 001097 09/13/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7.00
L. CONN 001098 09/13/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 15.50
L. CONN 001099 09/13/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 DEPT. MTG.-LUNCH 6.90
L. CONN 001100 09/13/2001 250-4010-542.30-01 DEPT. MTG.-LUNCH 79.44
K. EOREL 001093 09/13/2001 250-4015-542.30-01 OFFICE SUPPLIES 59.25
K. HEINRICHS 001091 09/13/2001 290-6005-564.30-01 PHOTO PROCESSING 17.13
K. HEINRICHS 001092 09/13/2001 290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP SNACKS 18.26
B. TUCKER 001223 09/13/2001 290-6005-564.30-01 SUMMER CAMP SUPPLIES 580.25
B. TUCKER 001224 09/13/2001 290-6005-564.30-01 SKIT BOOK 17.38
B. TUCKER 001225 09/13/2001 290-6005-564.30-01 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.31
B. TUCKER 001226 09/13/2001 290-6005-564.30-01 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 7.55
L. MERRIMAN 001112 09/13/2001 291-6010-564.40-51 EX. ADV. TICKET 24.95
L. MERRIMAN 001113 09/13/2001 291-6010-564.30-01 SUPPLIES-WH HOUSE 84.38
L. MERRIMAN 001114 09/13/2001 291-6010-564.30-01 SUPPLIES-WH HOUSE 84.65
L. MERRIMAN 001115 09/13/2001 291-6010-564.40-51 EX. ADV.-MOVIES 170.00
L. MERRIMAN 001116 09/13/2001 291-6010-564.40-51 EX. ADV.-GIANTS 48.00
L. MERRIMAN 001117 09/13/2001 291-6010-564.40-51 EX. ADV.-SIX FLAGS 17.99
B. TUCKER 001222 09/13/2001 291-6010-564.40-10 WEBSITE HOSTING FEE 59.80
PREPARED 09/14/2001, 10:57:02 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 6
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/14/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME i
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HA,ND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUN~
0001813 I.M.P.A.C. CARD SERVICES
0002417 IL PESCATORE RISTOR~E
001235 20122 09/14/2001
0000204 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM
30054877 001177 20028 09/13/2001
30055104 001178 20028 09/13/2001
0001657 JAMES C. JEFFERY
68 001231 20070 09/14/2001
290-6005-564.40-51
001-1035-512.30-01
001-1035-512.30-01
001-3035-532.40-13
0000005 JAMIL, OWAIS
49766 001202 09/13/2001 250-4010-444.02-00
0001264 JEFFERS, JAMES A.
8/01 001048 20041 09/12/2001
8/01 001047 20041 09/12/2001
8/01 001049 09/12/2001
0000224
213180
001-3035-532.40-.16
250-4010-542.40-16
310-9010-613.40-16
KELEX SECURITY
001141 19947 09/13/2001 001-1060-513.40-15
0000005 KLEIJ, PIEER
817 001189
0002249 KNAPP, ALLISON
14 001197
09/13/2001 290-6005-445.04-00
09/13/2001 250-4010-542.40-10
0000611 KOMPAN INC
S04279 001232 20134 09/14/2001 001-9010-522.40-10
0000245 LEWIS, HOWARD
8/01 001041 20042 09/10/2001 001-3035-532.40-16
8/01 001042 20042 09/10/2001 150-3005-532.40-16
8/01 001043 20042 09/10/2001 250-4020-542.40-16
8/01 001044. 09/10/2001 310-9010-613.40-16
0002373
LITTLE TIKES COMMERCIAL PLAY EQUIP.
VENDOR TOTAL * 3,188.86
SR. TRIP 10/4/01-LUNCH 1,048.05
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,048.05
VEHICLE BATTERIES 33.43
VEHICLE BATTERIES 57.19
VENDOR TOTAL * 90.62
TRAFFIC ENG. SERVICES 2,700.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 2,700.00
ARBORIST FEE REFUND 481.60
VENDOR TOTAL * 481.60
PW INSPECTION 2,664.00
PW-TREE INPSECTION 740.00
CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK 222.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 3,626.00
ANNJJAL FIRE ALARM INSP. 1,165.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,165.00
CLASS REFUND 74.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 74.00
CONTRACT PLANNER SERVICES 1,218.75
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,218.75
PLAYGRND EQUIP.-PRESCHOOL 13,742.85
VENDOR TOTAL * 13,742.85
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION 37.00
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION 1,646.50
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION 518.00
PUBLIC WORKS iNSPECTION 841.75
VENDOR TOTAL * 3,043.25
PREPARED 09/14/2001, 10:57:02 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 7
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/14/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0002373 LITTLE TIKES COMMERCIAL PLAY EQUIP.
91764 001183 20032 09/13/2001 001-3030-532.30-01 PLAY EQUIPMENT 628.20
VENDOR TOTAL · 628.20
0000277 MIKE'S GARDENING
9/1/01 001171 19916 09/13/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 GREENBRIAR 185.00
9/1/01 001172 19916 09/13/2001 180-3040-532.40-15 GREENBRIAR 65.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00
0000280 MOORE BUICK
31032 001180 09/13/2001 001-1035-512.40-14 LIC. PLATE HOLDER-VEH. 84 10.57
VENDOR TOTAL * 10.57
0000005 NICKEL, JAY
52395 001204 09/13/2001 250-4010-444.01-00 PLANNING FEE PARTIAL RFND 700.00
0000307 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC
VENDOR TOTAL · 700.00
001156 09/13/2001 001-1060-513.40-23 BUILDINGS 5,097.90
001143 09/13/2001 001-3030-532.40-23 PARKS 270.22
001157 09/13/2001 150-3005-532.40-23 CITY STREET LIGHTS 56.08
001035 09/10/2001 150-3015-532.40-23 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 71.06
001145 09/13/2001 150-3015-532.40-23 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 384.38
001144 09/13/2001 150-3025-532.40-23 MEDIAN IRRIGATION 7.29
001036 09/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 BELLGROVE-Z26 369.66
001037 09/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 KERWIN RANCH-Z28 7.70
001038 09/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 KERWIN~3~NCH-Z29 30.29
001039 09/10/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z22 40.18
001146 09/13/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 QUITO LIGHTING DISTRICT 1,103.83
001147 09/13/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z5 198.79
001148 09/13/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z6 201.91
001149 09/13/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z7 609.30
001150 09/13/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z9 7.29
0011Sl 09/13/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z16 31.94
001152 09/13/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z10 4.86
001153 09/13/2001 180-3040-512.40-23 LLA-Z18 4.86
001154 09/13/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z24 PKG. DIST. 458.86
001155 09/13/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z22 7.04
001238 09/14/2001 180-3040-532.40-23 LLA-Z14 4.86
PERMA-GREEN HYDROSEEDING, INC.
001026 20064 09/10/2001 310-9010-622.40-10
VENDOR TOTAL * 8,968.30
0002395
2
0000005
52360
0000700
CS PARK IMPROV. 7/26-8/24
248,029.20
POTOMAC ASSOCIATION
PETERSCHMIDT, DAVID
001203 09/13/2001 250-4010-444.01-00 PLANNING FEE PARTIAL RFND 1,500.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,500.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 248,029.20
PREPARED 09/14/2001, 10:57:02 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 8
PROGRAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/14/2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
VEND NO VENDOR NAME
INVOICE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
NO NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
0000700 POTOMAC ASSOCIATION
001233 20000 09/14/2001
0000333 R.V. CLOUD COMPANY
5594 001056 09/12/2001
5432 001184 19917 09/13/2001
5458 001185 19917 09/13/2001
0002359 REED EQUIPMENT CO.
S04684 001159 09/13/2001
DO4709 001160 09/13/2001
0002329 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC, INC.
20411 001033 20066 09/10/2001
20410 001034 20066 09/10/2001
0001490 RFI
429220 001085 09/13/2001
00003]8 ROYAL COACH TOURS
001234 19993 09/14/2001
0002393 SACRED HEART CHURCH
1003 001191 20083 09/13/2001
0000344 SAN JOSE BLUE PRINT
7169959 001032 09/10/2001
7167831 001031 09/10/2001
7164501 001190 09/13/2001
0000346
0000097
SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
001163 09/13/2001
001162 09/13/2001
001161 09/13/2001
001164 09/13/2001
001165 09/13/2001
001166 09/13/2001
001167 09/13/2001
001168 09/13/2001
001169 09/13/2001
sANTA CLARA COUNTY
290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP 10/4/01-CRUISE 1,080.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,080.00
001-3030-532.30-01 MISC. SUPPLIES 44.16
001-3030-532.30-01 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES-PARKS 838.21
001-3030-532.30.-01 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES-PARKS 78.92
VENDOR TOTAL * 961.29
001-1035-612.60-04 TOP DRESSER, FIELD COND. 21,054.60
001-1035-612.60-05 PROGATOR UTILITY VEH. 15,552.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 36,606.60
150-3015-532.40-14 SIG. MAINT./NON-CONTRACT 326.32
150-3015-532.40-15 SIGNAL MAINT/REPAIRS 1,050.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,376.32
001-1060-513.40-14 REPAIR THEATRE SYSTEM 595.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 595.00
290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP 10/4/01-BUS 606.12
VENDOR TOTAL * 606.12
320-9010-522.40-10 RBNT 8/01, 9/01 13,000.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 13,000.00
001-3035-532.40-41 SCHEMATIC CIVIL IMPROV. 25.65
150-3005-532.40-10 PLAMS-SARATOGA/SUNNYVALE 84.87
320-9010-522.40-10 BLUEPRINTS-LIB. PHASE i 739.25
VENDOR TOTAL * 849.77
001-1060-513.40-22 BUILDINGS 1,053.26
001-3030-532.40-22 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 12,407.16
150-3025-532.40-22 MEDIAMS/PARKWAYS 4,401.74
180-3040-532.40-22 MANOR DRIVE 188.34
180-3040-532.40-22 CUNNINGHAM PLACE 35.78
180-3040-532.40-22 SUNLAND PARK 288.69
180-3040-532.40-22 VILLAGE COMMERCIAL 710.59
180-3040-532.40-22 TOLLGATE 17.90
180-3040-532.40-22 HORSESHOE DRIVE 161.45
VENDOR TOTAL * 19,264.91
PREPARED 09/14/2001, 10:57:02 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE 9
PRO,RAM: GM339L AS OF: 09/14/2001
CIT'J OF SARATOGA
VEN3 ~O VENDOR NAME
IN~¢)fCE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE HAND-ISSUED
Jo NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
000.,U~'7 SANTA CLAP. A COUNTY
001019 09/10/2001
000 .'2~ 2
5 ~If{4
SARATOGA COMMUNITY ACCESS TV
001021 09/10/2001
00033!%9 SAXTON MEINRICHS, KlM
9/6/01 001213 09/13/2001
000%3~0 SCA HYGIENE PAPER INC
7!~]45 001074 09/12/2001
0001~]!~5 SPRAGUE, MIKE
5'~%i8 001196 09/13/2001
00~458 SPRINT
001023 09/10/2001
001024 09/10/2001
00036~0 STEVE SILVER PRODUCTIONS, INC
001227 19843 09/13/2001
000:4L4
SUZANNAH CAMPBELL
001080 19999 09/13/2001
001079 19999 09/13/2001
0003995 TIGER TRENCHLESS
5U]i. 8 001200 09/13/2001.
000.7:15 TLC ADMINISTRATORS INC.
]~,]~1 001025 09/10/2001
00012J9 TMT ENTERPRISES, INC.
001229 20089 09/14/2001
000<'3~6 TRAN, HENRY
001210 09/13/2001
4-'7:45 001209 09/13/2001
001-1040-452.01-00 PARKING CIT. REVENUE 7/01 200.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 200.00
001-7010-571.40-70 FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT 6,519.44
VENDOR TOTAL * 6,519.44
290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP LUNCH BAL. REIMB 355.21
VENDOR TOTAL * 355.21
001-3030-532.30-01 PAPER PRODUCTS-CITY PARKS 234.58
VENDOR TOTAL * 234.58
250-4010-444.01-00 APPLICATION REFUND 500.00
VENDOR TOTAL * ~00.00
001-1050-513.40-20 LONG DISTANCE PHONE CHGS. 244.31
001-1050-513.40-20 CMO FAX CHARGES 14.29
VENDOR TOTAL * 258.60
290-6005-564.40-51 SR. TRIP 12/13/01-TICKETS 1,970.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,970.00
290-6005-564.40-01 CRRS CONF. 10/14-10/16/01 135.00
291-6010-564.40-01 CRRS CONF. 10/14-10/16/01 135.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 270.00
001-3035-422.03-00 ENCROACHMENT FEE REFUND 250.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 250.00
001-0000-210.20-01 FLEX EENEFITS PLAN ADMIN. 175.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 175.00
001-3030-532.30-01 LANDSCAPE SOIL MIX 715.50
VENDOR TOTAL * 715.50
250-4010-444.02-00 ARBORIST FEES OWED 736.44-
800-0000-260.10-00 TREE BOND DEP. REFUND 6,228.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 5,491.56
U.S. POSTMASTERS
PRE=AKED 09/14/2001, 10:57:02 EXPENDITURE APPROVAL LIST PAGE
PROGR~J~: GM339L AS OF: 09/14/2001
CIT~ .:IF SARATOGA
VEN9 NO VENDOR NAME
IN ~O [CE VOUCHER P.O. CHECK/DUE ACCOUNT ITEM EXPENDITURE }{AND- ISSUED
40 NO NO DATE NO DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
009'3.'3 'U.S. POSTMASTERS
001219 09/13/2001 001-1050-513.~0-21 BULK MAIL-SARATOGAN 1,300.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,300.00
000,6~3 UNISOURCE MAINT. SUPPLY SYSTEMS
{~193370 001142 19978 09/13/2001 001-1060-513.30-02 SERVICE CHARGE 5.36
VENDOR TOTAL * 5.36
000,5~4 UNIVERSAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT
0 i!,94 001239 20095 09/14/2001 001-1035-512.40-14 EMERGENCY REPAIRS VEH. 90 677.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 677.00
000J~4 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA
9r!{?01 001089 09/13/2001 001--0000--210.20--01 LTD INS. 10/01 1,675.19
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,675.19
000)I'.5 URI/HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES SW
1~8939 001054 20027 09/12/2001 150--3015--532.30--01 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPLIES 25.38
1~4i06 001173 20027 09/13/2001 150--3015--532.30--01 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPLIES 590.97
1 ~0~12 001174 20027 09/13/2001 150--3015--532.30--01 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPLIES 373.69
]~0613 001175 20027 09/13/2001 150--3015--532.30--01 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPPLIES 65.61
i~9~39 001176 20027 09/13/2001 150--3015--532.30--01 TRAFFIC CONTROL sUPPLIES 264.60
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,320.25
000:4~0 WESTERN TRACTION COMPA/gY
W~987 001073 20087 09/12/2001 001--1035--512.40--14 JCB EMERGENCY REPAIRS 659.48
VENDOR TOTAL * 659.48
00020~'1 WILCO SUPPLY
0~I~710601 001187 19997 09/13/2001 001--1060--513.40--14 LEVER/DEADBOLT LOCKS 1,220.18
0~!:~710601 001188 19997 09/13/2001 001--1060--513.40--14 LESS DISCOUNT 22.60--
VENDOR TOTAL * 1,197.58
0003,ti3 WILKINS, LARRY
7387-31 001194 09/13/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 1,249.50
7)I{!;-31 001195 09/13/2001 290-6005-564.40-10 INSTRUCTOR FEE 1,524.60
VENDOR TOTAL * 2,774.10
000101~5 YEH, JAMES
5~4%:8 001215 09/13/2001 250-4015-422.01-00 ADRESS CHANGE REFUND 150.00
VENDOR TOTAL * 150.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES **** 745,335.83
GRAND TOTAL
745,335.83
PREPARED09 18 001 11 12 07 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTER PAGE 1
/18~2 , : : ACCOUNTING PERIOD' 2002/03
PROGP,3%M: G~6L REPORT NUMBER 8
POOLED~H GENERAL CHECKING ACCOUNT .............
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR VOUCHER P.O. DATE REMITTANCE AMOUNT CHECK
NO NO NAME NO NO ACCOUNT (NET OF DISC/RETAIN) TOTAL
150-5010-552.40-71 5,585.00-
85352* 1114 SANTA CLARA VALLEY TP~S 005416
85974* 5 THE MYSTERY SPOT 000092
86171* 5 PARAMOUNT THEATRE 000766
86218* 204 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM 000736
000747
05/25/2001 5,585.00- * VOIDED
07/20/2001 290-6010-564.40-51 140.00-
140.00- * VOIDED
08/15/2001 290~6005-564.40-51 100.00-
100.00- * VOIDED
08/17/2001 001-1035-512.30-01 33.43-
08/17/2001 001-1035-512.30-01 90.62-
124.05- * VOIDED
.09/05/2001 320-9010-522.40-10 1,550.00-
1,550.00- * VOIDED
86288* 1821 SAN JOSE WATER CO. 000991
BANK/CHECK TOTAL 7,499.05- .00
ALL BANKS/CHECKS TOTAL
7,499.05-
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001
DEPT: Community DeveloPment
PREPARED BY: Kristin Borel
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Actions, September 26, 2001
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Note and file.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are the Planning Commission action minutes of September 26, 2001
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Action Minutes - Saratoga Planning Commission
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
DATE:
PLACE:
TYPE:
Wednesday, September 26, 2001 - 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale AvenUe, Saratoga, CA
Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL:
ABSENT:
STAFF:
Commissioners Garakani, Kurasch, Roupe, Zutshi and Chair Barry
Commissioners Hunter andJackman
Planners Livingstone, Knapp, and Oosterhous, Director Sullivan, and Minutes Clerk Shinn
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES - Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 12, 2001
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on
such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning
Commission direction to Staff.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 20,
2001.
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this
agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior
to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets,
written communication should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting.
DR-01-013, V-01-013 8~ AS-01-001 (397-43-001 8z -003) -JAIN, 18630 Allendale; -
Request for Design Review approval to construct a new single-story 6,850 square foot
residence and sport court. The Variance is to construct the sport court within the side
yard setback. Maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The 93,175 (net)
square foot lot is located in the R-I-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP) (CONTINUED
FROM.9/12/O1) (APPROVED 4-0-1, KURASCH ABSTAINED)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 26, 2001
PAGE2
SD-99-003(A) 8z GPA-O0-0Oi(A) (APN'S 517-13-018, 517-13-019, 5i7-12-001)
SOBRATO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 14800 Bohlman Road (site of the former
Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur); - Request to amend Condition No. 24 (fence
enclosure and grading issues) of Resolution SD-99-003, to adopt Resolution GPA-00-
001(A) formalizing the previous recommendation that the City Council amend the
General Plan Land Use Map designation from Quasi-Public Facilities to Very 'Lo~v
Density Residential, and to replace the Conditions of Approval (No. 39 a - j, 40 and 41)
in the City Geologist Section of Resolution No. SD-99-003 with updated language from
the City Geologist. (SULLIVAN) (APPROVED 5-0)
DR-01-026 (397-24-17) - SPARACINO, 14320 Lutheria Way; - Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new single-story 3,442 square foot residence, 936 square
foot attached four-car garage, and 1,568 square foot basement. The maximum height of
the residence would be 20 feet. The 20,690 square foot lot is located in the R-i-20,000
zone district. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 5-0)
UP-01-011 (389-12-019) PROLIFIC OVEN BAKERY 6z COFEE HOUSE, 18832 Cox
Avenue; - Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to allow interior and exterior
seating to allow the onsite consumption of food at the existing establishment. The site is
located in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. (LIVINGSTONE)
(APPROVED 5-0)
DR-01-029 (503-26-040) - COUCH, 14440 Esterlee Avenue; - Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new two-story 2,691 square foot residence, 600 square
foot attached two-car garage, and a 1,377 square foot basement. The maximum height of
the residence would be 24 feet. The 12,448 square foot lot is located in the R-l-10,000
zone district. (OOSTERHOUS) (APPROVED 5-0)
DII~ECTOR ITEMS
COMMISSION ITEMS
Appoint Commissioner to serve on Public Safety Committee
COMMUNICATIONS
WRITTEN
- City Council Minutes from Regular Meeting of July 18, 2001
ADJOURNMENT AT 9:55 PM TO NEXT MEETING
- Wednesday, October 10, 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater
13777 Fruitwale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development
PREPARED BY: Thomas Sullivan, AICP
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Draft Housing Element Public Hearing
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Staff recommends the City Council conduct a Public Hearing on the draft Housing Element.
There is no action requested of the City Council at this time. Following the receipt of the
comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Staff
will schedule additional Public Hearings.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The draft Housing Element is the result of direction given at the City Council's Retreat on May
5, 2001, the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council conducted on July 18,
2001, and the Planning Commission's Public Hearing held on August 22, 2001, as well as the
individual briefings provided to all Council Members. This draft was submitted to HCD on
September 20, 2001, requesting preliminary review.
Consistent with City Council direction, the draft Housing Element has been crafted so as to not
delineate particular parcels as locations for higher density below market rate housing projects. A
multi-prong approach was developed using projects already in the pipeline, an amnesty program
for existing second dwellings, new second dwelling, a mixed use zoning overlay for all
Commercial, Quasi-Public and Public land use designations. There are other Housing Programs
that are mandated by state statute to be part of the Housing Element. These have been addressed
and the mandate so stated.
The City's Consultant, Jeff Goldman, has identified about 45-acres that could be developed in
mixed use projects over the next five years. The map included in the draft Housing Element
does not individually depict the areas expected to be redeveloped in a mixed use project. Mr.
Goldman continues to suggest that the City needs to identify the areas that make up the 45-acres.
One of the sites identified is a single piece of property, as such, showing it would be inconsistent
with the direction provided to Staff regarding not identifying individual parcels. The draft
Housing Element submitted to HCD does not delineate individual sites.
During the Planning Commission's Public Hearing, the Planning Commission discussed other
possible housing programs. Specifically, programs that would provide protection for sound
housing and an inclusionary housing program that would generate both housing units and fees to
leverage other funds to create new housing opportunities. The Planning Commission decided
that they would hold off recommending such programs until greater study could be made.
-:,
Staff wOUld reiterate that it is the City's responsibility to provide a setting in which housing may
be constructed in compliance with the income distribution .provided by the Association of Bay
Area Governments. It is not the City's responsibility to construct any housing. It is further the
City's responsibility to submit an annual report to,HCD which measures the success or progress
of each of the Programs found within the Housing Element.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): 1. The City Council could move for~.ard with formal public hearings and adoption of
the Housing Element without having received preliminary comments.
2. The City Council could ignore the mandate to prepare a revised Housing Element.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Once comments have been received from HCD, schedule additional
continue the City Council's consideration of the draf~ Housing Element.
Public Hearing(s) to
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
The Public Hearing was posted on September 19, 2001 and noticed in the September 19, 2001
edition of the Saratoga News. Those individuals previously expressing interest have also been
notified.
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
5.
A copy of the drat~ Housing Element with the Housing Needs Assessment attached
A copy of the drat~ Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
Minutes of the July 18, 2001 Joint Workshop
Minutes of the August 22, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
Correspondence
2
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
Attachment ]
Incot~rated OcSot~r 22, 1956
draft
Housing Element
20:01
Prepared by
i:)/URSONS
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................ .'---' ............................. 1
EVALUATION OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT ...... ~ ....................... 2
GOALS, POLICIES; AND OBdECT!VES ........................................... 4
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF GENERAL PLAN .......................... 12
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................... 16
INTRODUCTION TO THE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT .......... 17
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT ................................................. 19
INTRODUCTION
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The Housing Element of the General Plan is a comprehensive statement by the City of Saratoga
of its current and future housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing
to meet those needs at all income levels. The policies contained in this Element are an expression
of the statewide housing goal of "attaining decent housing and a suitable living environment for
every California family," as well as a reflection of the unique concerns of the community. The
purpose of the Housing Element is to establish specific goals, policies and objectives relative to
the provision of housing, and to adopt an action plan toward this end. In addition, the Element
identifies and analyzes housing needs, and resources and constraints to meeting these needs.
The Saratoga Housing Element is based on five strategic goals: 1) accommodating the City's fair
share of the region's housing needs, 2) promoting the construction of housing affordable to low-
and moderate-income households, 3) assisting low-income property owners in improving
substandard dwelling units, 4) preserving the current stock of affordable housing in the City, and
5) assuring non-discrimination in housing.
In accordance with State law, the Housing Element is to be consistent and compatible with other
General Plan Elements. Additionally, Housing Elements are to provide clear policy and direction
for making decisions pertaining to zoning, subdivision approval, housing allocations, and capital
improvements. State law (Government Code Sections 65580 through 65589) mandates the
contents of the housing element. By law, the Housing Element must contain:
· An assessment c~f housing needs and an inventOry of resources and constraints relevant to
meeting those needs;
· A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relevant to the
maintenance, improvement and development of housing; and
· A program that sets forth a five-year schedule of actions that the local government is
undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and
objectives of the Housing Element.
The housing program must also identify adequate residential sites available for a variety of
housing types for all income 'levels; assist in developing adequate housing to meet the needs of
low- and moderate-income households; address governmental constraints to housing
maintenance, improvement, and development; conserve and improve the condition of the existing
affordable housing stock; and promote housing opportunities for all persons.
EVALUATION
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
EVALUATION OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT
OF PRIOR HOUSING ELEMENT
The City's previous Housing Element contained two quantified objectives and five programs.
The fu'st quantified objectives was to approve 150 dwelling units over five years (through 1989),
or 30 dwelling units per year, of which 50 would be low- to moderate-income units produced
through second unit and other policies. The second quantified objective was to rehabilitate 60
dwelling units over five years, or 12 dwelling units per year, and preserve 263 existing rental
dwelling units through the City's condominium conversion ordinance.
The five programs adopted by the City to achieve these objectives were:
1. Designation of sufficient sites to accommodate the City's regional share under the
Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Housing Needs Determination.
2. Encourage rental property owners in Saratoga to participate in the Section 8 program by
not interfering with free market rental practices.
Mitigate government constraints by monitoring building code requirements and allowing
focused EIRs and Mitigated Negative Declarations to reduce environmental assessment
COSTS.
4. Continue the Saratoga Housing Assistance Rehabilitation Program (SHARP).
Encouraging fair housing practices by cooperating with nonprofit organizations and
citizen organizations that promote fair housing, encouraging citizen participation by all
segments of the community is discussions of housing issues, and, if necessary and
appropriate, use HCDA funds to preserve existing assisted rental housing developments.
Because Saratoga is not a general services City, does not have a redevelopment agency, and has
limited general funding to maintain staff, the City has never been able to actively pursue
programs that require significant staffing or local resources. Record keeping has also been a
chronic problem due to staffing levels and turnover during the past decade. The following
summarizes what is known about City achievements with respect to the quantified objectives and
five programs.
Accommodation of Regional Share
Although the City has provide sufficient land to accommodate its regional housing allocation
since, the 1980s, only 15 multifamily housing units have been constructed in Saratoga since 1989.
The City has not maintained records to determine the number of these dwelling units that were
affordable to low- or moderate-income households.
Affordable Housing
However, the Odd Fellows organization has opened two facilities to address senior needs: the
Odd Fellow's Health Center with a capacity of 68 skilled nursing beds and Odd Fellows Home
(Saratoga Retirement Community), with 93 assisted living units. In addition, The Fellowship
Plaza (also an Odd Fellow's property) remains under contract with HUD and offers Section 8
low-income senior housing. This facility had 150, mostly one-bedroom apartment.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Maintaining Rental Housing Stock
Through the City's condominium conversion restrictions, the City has managed to maintain, and
slightly expand, its rental housing stock, since the 1980s, when the prior Housing Element was
prepared.
Mitigating Governmental Constraints
Because of the low level of development in the City and the small size of most development
projects, most developments have been approved through Mitigated Negative Declarations. The
City has also worked closely with the Odd Fellows, the primary non-profit provider of senior and
affordable housing in the City, to ensure that building and zoning requirements due not create
unreasonable barriers to meeting senior and affordable housing needs in the City. As described in
the Housing Element, the City is working with Odd Fellows to substantially increase the number
of affordable dwelling units and senior housing and care facilities available in Saratoga.
Housing Rehabilitation
Saratoga has used part of its annual CDBG /fflocation from Santa Clara County to assist in
housing rehabilitation, primarily for low-income senior homeowners. The City has not
maintained records, however, on the number of dwelling units assisted and the income levels of
the homeowners assisted. The number of dwelling units is likely to be low due to the small
number of dwelling units in need of rehabilitation in the City.
Fair Housing
Saratoga maintains information on equal housing opportunities and refers individuals with
discrimination complaints to the Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair or the County of Santa Clara
Office of Consumer Affairs. In past years, the City has provided CDBG funding in support of
fair housing activities. Given limited funding and staffing at the City, however, Saratoga's role in
sponsoring fair housing events and handling discrimination complaints will be very limited.
GOALS, POLICIES,
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
AND OBJECTIVES
GOAL 1: To ACCOMMODATE THE CITY'S FAIR SHARE OF THE BAY AREA REGIONAL
HOUSING NEED FOR ALL INCOME GROUPS
Objective: To designate sufficient vacant land and/or sites with re-use potential to
accommodate the City's allocation under the Regional Housing Needs
Determination (RHND) adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The
RHND allocation for Saratoga between January 1, 1999 and June 30, 2006 is as
follows:
Income Level Dwelling Units % of Total
Very Low Income 75 14%
Low Income 36 7%
Moderate Income 108 20%
Above Moderate Income 320 59%
Total 539 100%
Source: ABAG 1999-2006 Rej~ional Housing Needs Determination.
Program 1,1: Zoning Code Changes
The City can accommodate the total number of dwelling units allocated by ABAG under the
RI-IN through a combination of vacant residential land, residential or mixed-use projects on
vacant commercial land, addition of dwelling units over or behind existing commercial uses
throughout commercial, quasi-public facilities and public facilities districts in Saratoga, approval
of second dwelling units, and dwelling units constructed or approved by permit since January 1,
1999. To.meet the needs of very low-, low~, and moderate-income households, however, several
zoning changes will be needed to encourage the production of affordable housing. These include
eliminating age-related occuPancy restrictions for residential properties with .second dwelling
units, the 1.6-acre minimum site area requirement for detached second units, and the annual limit
of 20 permits on the approval of second units.
Timeframe:
Adopt Zoning Code amendments by July 1, 2002.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division (draft Zoning
Code amendments); Planning Commission (review and recommend
amendments to City Council); City Council (adopt Zoning Code
amendments).
Funding: General Fund.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
Program 1.2: Amend Zoning Code to Implement a Mixed-Use Overlay Zone
The City will adopt a Zoning Code amendment to implement a residential mixed-use overlay
zone that can be applied to any commercial zone within the City of Saratoga. The new mixed-use
overlay Zone will contain appropriate development standards, including residential density and
parking standards, suitable for the development of low- and moderate-income housing. Projects
that include residential-commercial mixed-uses will be subjected to the City's density bonusr
affordability requirement (see program 2.1).
Timeframe:
Adopt Zoning Code amendment by July 1, 2002.
Responsible Agency:
Community Development Department, Planning Division (conduct site
analysis and draft Zoning Code amendments); Planning Commission
(review and recommend amendments to City Council); City Council
(accept recommendations and adopt Zoning Code amendments).
Funding:
General Fund.
GOAL 2:
ENCOURAGE THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO LOWER- AND
MODERATE-JNCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND JNCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPTIONS
Objective: To increase the supply of affordable housing and housing oPtions in
Saratoga to house additional households and families earning less than 120% of
the Santa Clara County median income.
Program 2.1' Densify Bonuses and Affordable Housing Requirement
The City will amend the Zoning Code to implement state law (Section 65915 of the California
Government Code) requiring at least a 25 percent density bonus for any residential project in
which at least 10 percent of the units are affordable to very low-income households or 20 percent
of the units 'are affordable to low-income households or 50 percent of the units are designed for
.Seniors. In addition to the density bonus, the City will offer one or more of the following
incentives to increase the financial feasibility of constructing the affordable housing:
· Fee waivers, reductions, and/or deferrals.
· Modified standards for mixed-use projects (such as a higher floor area ratio) that decrease
development costs.
· Modified design review process to avoid unnecessary or excessive costs or delays for
achieving City development standards.
· Other incentives identified by the project sponsor or the City that will reduce
development costs while achieving the overall intent of the City's zoning standards.
The City will require that properties rezoned for higher, residential densities or rezoned for
multifamily use under Programs 1.1 and 1.2 (mixed-use) include the minimum percentages of
affordable or senior housing listed above as a condition of permit approval and the granting of
density bonuses and/or other incentives.
Timeframe:
Responsible Agency:
Funding:
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
Adopt Zoning Code amendment by July 1, 2002. Recommend site(s) to
City Council and re-zone property (les) by December 31, 2002. --'
Community Development Department, Planning Division (draft Zoning
Code amendments); Planning Commission (review and recommend
amendments to City Council); City Council (adopt Zoning Code
amendments).
General Fund, permit fees.
Program 2.2: Saratoga Retirement Community
The City will work with the Saratoga Retirement Community to set aside as many dwellings of
the Phase I expansion (110-units) as possible. The fu'st phase of this project developed by SRC
for low-income households (currently under construction) has reserved 49-units for individuals
whose annual income is less than $15,000.
Timeframe:
The project is under construction
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division (review
development plans and recommend permit conditions to Planning
Commission); Planning Commission (review staff report and
recommendations and recommend action to the City Council); City
Council (approve permit conditions).
Funding:
General Fund, permit fees.
Program 2.3: Assist in Obtaining Subsidies for Affordable Housing Development
'The City of Saratoga will assist housing providers in accessing state and federal funding sources,
as appropriate, to subsidize the construction of housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income
households. Assistance may take one of several forms:
1. Applying for state or federal funding on behalf of a project sponsor.
Assisting a project sponsor in assembling documentation and endorsements to support an
application for state or federal funds.
3. Providing a local cash match, to be determined on a request basis (if City funds are
available).
4. Designating a portion of the City's annual Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) allocation.
Timeframe:
Dependentonsubmitmlofpr~ectproposalsandapplicatio~nding
timeffames.
Responsible Agency:
Funding:
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
Community Development Department, Planning Division to provide
staff assistance, City Council to authorize allocation of funds or
submittal of a City application.
Potential funding sources include: CDBG, California HOME Program,
California Multifamily Housing Program, California Downtown
Rebound Program, California Urban Pre-Development Loan Program.
Federal Home Loan Bank Board Affordable Housing Program. federal
Section 8 and 202 Programs, Santa Clara County Housing Trust. General
Fund.
Program 2,4: First-Time Homebuyer Assistance
The City will make an annual contribution_to a regional housing fund dedicated to providing first-
time homebuyer assistance and that serves residents of Saratoga. The amount of the contribution
will be determined each year based on the availability of funding. The public and/or non-profit
organizations that will receive the funds each year will be based on funding requests from those
organizations, the nature of purpose of their programs, and how well their programs address the
housing needs of Saratoga.
Timeframe:
Annual contribution.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division to recommend
annual Contribution amount, City Council to approve annual
contribution.
Funding:
CDBG, General Fund.
GOAL 3: ASSIST LOWER-INCOME HOMEOWNERS IN MAINTAINING THEIR HOMES
'Objective: To eliminate substandard housing conditions in Saratoga through
'financial. assistance 'to -Iow-income 'homeowners who are unable- to properly
maintain or repair their homes.
Program 3.1' Saratoga Housing Rehabilitation and Assistance Program
The City will continue to provide housing rehabilitation assistance to homeowners earning 80
percent or less of the Santa Clara County median income through the Saratoga Housing
Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP). The Program provides grants of up to $10,000
per applicant.
Timeframe: Ongoing program.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning DivisiOn
Funding: CDBG.
SARATOGA HOLISING ELEMENT
· GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
GOAL zJ,: PRESERVE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SARATOGA
Program 4,1: Preserve Existing Affordable Rental Housing
The City will seek to preserve existing affordable rental housing (177 units in three
developments) through the following actions:
Monitor compliance with state and federal tenant and public notice requirements prior to any
change in funding or ownership status.
Provide financial assistance for property maintenance .and improvements, or provide assistance in
obtaining state and/or federal funding for property maintenance and improvements.
Identify one or more non-profit entities interested in the right of first refusal should one or more
of the properties become available for sale. Provide financial assistance, or assist the non-profit
in obtaining state or federal funds for acquisition and preservation as affordable rental housing.
Require that any financial assistance is tied to a minimum 30-year affordability covenant binding
on all current and future property owners during the effective time period.
Timeframe:
Monitor annually. Further action will depend on the intention of
property owners.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division.
Funding: CDBG, California HOME Program, federal Section 8 Program,
other state/federal sources for acquisition and preservation
GOAL 5: PROMOTE EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL SARATOGA RESIDENTS
· 'program 5.1: Fair Housing Program
The City will encourage fair housing practices by continuing to cooperate with non-profit housing
and citizen organizations. The City will also encourage citizen participation from all segments of
the community in identifying and discussing housing issues. The City has designated a Fair
Housing Coordinator to monitor and coordinate fair housing activities in the City, including an
annual fair housing event to be conducted with representatives of non-profit, real estate, and
lending institutions. The Fair Housing Coordinator will also refer discrimination complaints to
the Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair or the County of Santa Clara Office of Consumer Affairs.
Timeframe:
Designate Fair Housing Coordinator by April 2002.
Responsible Agency: City Council to designate responsible agency/position.
Funding: CDBG, General Fund.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
Program 5.2: Sites for Homeless and Transitional Housing Facilities and Services
The City will amend the Zoning Code to designate appropriate zones for the location of homeless
and transitional housing facilities and supportive services should the need for such services arise
in Saratoga. The proposed mixed-use overlay zone (see Program .1.2) will be the designated zone
for such land uses.
Timeframe: AdOpt Zoning Code amendment by July 1, 2002.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department, Planning Division (draft Zoning
Code amendments); Planning Commission (review and recommend
amendments to City Council); City Council (adopt Zoning Code
amendments).
Funding: General Fund.
QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES (January 1, 1999 - June 30 2006)
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
Accommodate RHND
75 36 108 320
Allocation
New Construction* 75 36 108 320
Housing Rehabilitation 10 20 N/A N/A
Preservation of At-Risk
177 N/A N/A N/A
Rental Housing
*Estimated number of dwelling units anticipated to be constructed in consideration of market
trends and available resource for funding and subsidy of affordable housing--includes 177 above
moderate-income dwelling units constructed, under construction, or approved by permit between
January 1, 1999 and August 1, 2001.
DISCUSSION OF NEW CONSTRUCTION OBJECTIVES
The following table and notes provide more detail on specific development projects and sites that
comprise the City's new construction objective and that show how the City will accommodate its
regional allocation. Program numbers are references to the programs contained in the Housing
Element that will achieve the objectives stated below.
INCOME RHND I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL
GROUPS
VERY LOW 75 49 10 16 75
LOW 36 1 20 20 10 51
MODERATE 108 61 72 64 197
ABOVE 320 177 72 100 349
MODERATE
TOTAL 539 177 110 144 11 20 20 90 100 672
,4.
¸7.
SARATOGA HOusING ELEMENT
GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES
Dwellings that have been completed, are under construction, or have received
building permits between 01/01/99 and 08/01/01. All of these units have been
market rate units affordable to above moderate-income households.
Odd Fellows Phase I contains 110 senior units under construction. Of these units. 49
have been set-aside for households with annual incomes of $15,000 or less. Phase I
also includes 69 units that will be affordable to moderate-income households. (See
Program 2.2)
Odd Fellows Phase II contains 144 dwelling units and has been approved by the
Planning Commission. This phase will contain market rate units affordable to
moderate- and above moderate-income senior households. (See Program 2.2)
The City has approved 10 artist studios plus one caretaker residence at Montalvo, a
nonprofit arts center located in the Saratoga hills on 175 acres donated to the public
by Senator James Duval Phelan. The units are currently under construction.
According to a development agreement with the nonprofit owner, the artist studios
must be rented to very low-income individuals. The City assumes that the caretaker
unit will be occupied by a low-income individual.
The City will adopt a second unit amnesty program to convert nonconforming second
units that were created without proper permits to conforming second units that
provide affordable housing for low-income occupants. Under the City's second unit
ordinanc, e, such units must be rented to low- or very low-income occupants. Based
on the City's estimate of nonconforming second units currently in existence, the City
believes that 20 units is a reasonable objective over five years. (See Program 1.1)
New second units: the City believes that 4 new second units per year over the next
five years is a reasonable objective given the past rate of second unit creation. (See
Program 1.1)
The City will adopt a mixed-use overlay zones that will apply to commercial,
..community facility and quasi-public facility areas. The City has identified -
approximately 45 acres of commercially zoned land on six sites to which the mixed-
use overlay zone will apply and which have the potential for re-use within the next
five years based on the age, condition, and existing uses of the properties (see Map
A, following page). The mixed-use designation will apply to much larger number of
sites in the City, but these other sites do not appear to have significant re-use
potential within the next five years. (See Programs 1.2 and 2.1)
The City anticipates that an additional 100 market-rate dwelling units affordable to
above moderate-income households will be developed on infill parcels and through
small land divisions over the next five years. (See Program 1. I)
Commercial and community facility sites, including quasi-public sites, to which the
proposed mixed-use zone will apply, are shown in white (excluding K-12 school sites).
Proposed mixed-use zone areas and locations are approximate. Based on field
survey, there are about 45-acres which include older commercial areas with marginal
uses that are expected to be developed as mixed-use or re-developed as mixed-use,
between, 2001 and2006.
MAP KEY
~ HILLSIDE
RESIDENTIAL
~ SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
. .' ~' ~ MULTI-FAMILY~,~,,~
RESIDENTIAL
~ PLANNED COMMUNITY
~ PROFESSIONAL
&
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE
I COMMERCIAL
I MIXED-USE
PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
~ RESIDENTIAL
OPEN SPACE
~ AGRICULTURE
I AGRICULTURE
PRESERVE/
OPEN SPACE OVERLAY
CITY of SARATOGA
ZONING MAP
11
INTERNAL
PLAN
CONSISTENCYOF
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
GENERAL
State law requires the Housing Element contain a statement of ~'the means by which consistency
will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals" (California Government
Code, Section 65583[c][6][B]). There are two aspects of this analysis: 1) an identification of
other General Plan goals, policies, and programs that could affect implementation of the Housing
Element or that could be affected by the implementation of the Housing Element, and 2) an
identification of actions to ensure consistency between the Housing Element and affected parts of
other General Plan elements.
The 1983 General Plan contains several elements with policies related to housing. Polices and
the means for achieving consistency are summarized below in Table 1. The City will ensure
consistency between the Housing Element and General Plan policies through the following
actions in the Housing Element:
Summary of General Plan Goals and Policies Affecting Ho'using
General Plan Policy Means for Achieving Consistency
Element
Lands shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless they are contiguous to the
existing City limits and it is determined by the City that public service can
be provided without unrecoverable cost to the City atut dilution of service
to existing residents.
Land Use Element Policy 1.1
The City's ability to accommodate its RHND allocation and meet future.
housing consmaction needs is not based on an assumption that land will
need to be annexed. If annexation is necessary to accommodate the City's
regional allocation, such annexation will conform to Policy 1.1
Relate new development and its land uses to presently planned street
capacities to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and public safety hazara~. If it
is determined that existing streets need to be improved to accommodate a
project, such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to
issuance of building permits.
Goal 5.0
The City does not anticipate that accommodation of the City's RI-IND
allocation will require street expansion or improvements beyond the needs
of the development site. New residential developments will be designed to
comply with existing street capacities, therefore. If local improvements
are needed to address the traffic impacts of a specific project, appropriate
conditions will be imposed to ensure that traffic management
improvements are conslructed as part of the project.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
Prior to initial approval, the decision making body. shall consider the
cumulative traffic impacts of single family residential projects of 4 or more
lots, multi-family residential projects of eight or more units, cowl
commercial projects designed for an occupancy load of more than 30
persons.
Policy 6.1
Developers of single family and multi-family residential projects meeting
the minimum threshold requirements will provide analysis of cumulative
a'affic impacts prior to project approval. The Housing Element does not
contain any policies that conflict with this impact review requirement.
Existing non-developed sites zoned single-family detached residential
should remain so designated
Policy 8.1
Residentially Zoned site will remain so designated. The Housing Element
does not propose redesignation of any currently zoned single family sites.
Prior to further development of major residential (4 or more single-
family units; 8 or more multi-family units) or major commercial (more
than 30 person occupancy) projects along the City's ntajor arterials,
the impacts of increased traffic shall be studied and a plan for
Circulation and
minimizing these impacts shall be developed to the extent feasible.
Scenic Highway Policy 2.7
Element
The majority of new housing to be constructed over the next five years
will be on existing streets and will continue to meet City standards.
, The Housing Element does not any policies that conflict with this
traffic impact policy.
In the process of all new development, particular care shall be taken to
preserve native oaks, measuring at least ten inches in diameter at
twenty-four inches above the ground, and other significant trees by
Conservation careful sitting of all improvements.
Element Policy 2.5
All new housing units proposed by the updated Housing Element will
comply with the City of Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance and special care
will be taken during construction to preserve native oaks.
The City shall minimize the impact that development may have on the
quantity of water Consumed by the development.
Policy 3.4
The City will encourage the use of water conserving fixtures in new
residential units as well as drought tolerant landscaping.
Watershed shall be protected by stringent erosion control during
development and by minimizing grading to the fullest extent possible..,
Policy 3.5
New developments will include erosion control management practices.
Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully
considering the visual impact of new developments.
Policy 6.0
All new housing units constructed in the City will reflect the
architectural style of the neighborhoods they are placed and any visual
impacts to the surrounding environment will be carefully considered.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
Impacts on air quality of Saratoga's air resources and protect the
citizens from the potentially harmful effects of air pollut!on.
Policy 8.0
All new housing units proposed by the updated Housing Element will
comply with the City of Saratoga's construction air quality standards~i
The City shall maintain and enforce the noise standards specified in
the City's noise ordinance.
Policy 1.1
All new housing units proposed in the updated Housing Element Will'
comply with the City of Saratoga's Noise Ordinance.
New development deemed noise sensitive shall be appropriately sited
and protected from adverse noise impacts.
Policy 2.3
All new housing units proposed by the updated Housing Element will
Noise comply with the City of Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance, which includes
standards for noise attenuation.
The City. shall require all noise-generating development to mitigate
noise impacts to the adopted noise standards; acoustical analysis may
be required.
Policy 2.4
The updated Housing Element Polices are in accordance with the
Noise Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element does not
address noise mitigation directly. The City's Zoning Code contains
standards to protect residences from noise generators.
No development shall be permitted in the designated urban service
area without individual site-specific geotechnical investigation to
determine depth of bedrock, soil stability, location of rift zones and
Safety Element Policy 1.1 other localized geotechnical problems.
A geotechnicai report will be prepared prior to project approval and
constructions.
Development in areas subject to natural hazards shall be limited and
shall be designed to protect the environment, inhabitants and general
public. In areas that have been proven to be unsafe, development of
structures for human habitation shall be prohibited to the maximum
Policy !.2 extent permitted by law.
The updated Housing Element does not propose the development of
housing in any environmentally sensitive areas.
In order to mitigate the danger of earthquake damage, the City shall"
enforce strict earthquake construction and soil engineering standards,
selecting the most stable areas for development and requiring
developers to compensate for soil instabilities through approved
engineering and construction techniques.
Policy 2.1
All new housing units proposed by the updated Housing Element will
comply with the City of Saratoga's Uniform Building Code (UBC) and
will be inspected by the City's Building Inspector for compliance with
all earthquake prevention standards.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
The City shall continue to enforce its existing flood control
regulations, and will cooperate with the Santa Clara Valley Water
District when proposed projects will affect floodways in the CiO' in
order to prevent development activities from aggravating or causing
Policy 3.1 potential flood problems.
All new housing units proposed by the updated Housing Element will
comply with the City of Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance.
The City shall require the installation of an early warning fire alarm
system in all new single-family and multi-family dwellings and any
existing single-family dwellings which are expanded by fift)., percent or
more in floor area, where such new or expanded dwellings are located
Policy 4.1 within designated hazardous fire areas.
All new housing units proposed by the updated Housing Element will
include an early warning fire alarm system and will be inspected by the
City's Building Inspector.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City encouraged public participation by all segments of the community by conducting a
series of public workshops and study sessions with the Planning Commission and City council
between October 2000 and July 2001 in the preparation of the Housing Element. Community
organizations known to the City to have an interest in affordable housing issues, such as the
Senior Center, church groups, and teacher groups, were notified of the meetings and invited to
attend. The general public was notified through the City's monthly newsletter, a mailing to City
residents, posted notices in prominent public locations, and local cable access television.
Attendees at the City's meetings included, in addition to the general public, representatives of
senior organizations, the local teacher's union, church and other ecumenical organizations, and
nonprofit organizations with an interest in housing issues.
INTRODUCTION
ASSESMENT
TO THE
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
HOUSING NEEDS
The Housing Element is one of seven state-mandated elements of the General Plan. The Housing
Element contains a comprehensive list of information regarding housing needs and the existing
housing stock as presented in the Housing Needs Assessment. Section 65583(a) of the Housing
Element Law states that the housing element must contain an "analysis and documentation of
household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing
characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition." The Housing Needs
Assessment fulfills this requirement.
The Housing Needs Assessment provides background information on the housing needs and
conditions in the City in order to prepare goals and policies that will adequately meet the needs of
the community. The 2000 Census results have just begun to be released and will continue to be
disseminated through 2002. As information becomes available, it will be incorporated into the
City's Housing Element. It is likely that the basic thrust of this report will not change a result of
new data, but the order of magnitude of the problems and relative needs will probably shift. As
such, this report should be considered a work in progress. The data presented in the Housing
Needs Assessment will not only guide the development of housing goals and policies, but will
also be integrated into the body of the Housing Element to present the current status of housing
and housing related issues in Saratoga.
This assessment is organized into four data sections. The first section focuses on demographic
information such as population size, ethnicity, age, household type, income, employment,
housing characteristics, and general housing needs by income, and special housing needs for
specialized segments of the population. This first section basically outlines the characteristics ,of
the community, and identifies those characteristics that may have significant impacts on housing
need in the community.
The second section identifies the City's resources, the historic development pattern and areas ,of
housing opportunity in the community. It also identifies special housing and other resources that
are characteristic of the City and provide opportunity and potential constraints to housing growth
and maintenance in Saratoga.
The next section'discusses the governmental and non-governmental constraints to housing
development in the City: The City has building standards that can limit the amount or location ,of
housing in certain areas or can result in fees that make certain types of housing infeasible. In
addition, there are environmental constraints that cause housing limitations. Non-governmental
constraints sUch as the housing market, financing, and construction costs also limit housing
growth in Saratoga.
The final section of the Needs Assessment discusses opportunities for energy conservation, which
can reduce homeowner costs and infrastructure costs to the City. With a reduction in basic living
costs through energy savings, more households will be better able to afford adequate housing.
Combined, these sections provide an analysis and documentation of the community's
characteristics and needs, and identifies potential constraints to meeting the community's needs
adequately. .
MAJOR FINDINGS
1. The affordability of housing in Saratoga has been an issue of concern for at least the past
20 years, but the magnitude of the problem has become especially critical over the past
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
decade. Those at the lowest-end of the income spectrum are experiencing the greatest
financial distress as a result.
2. The problem of housing affordability does not affect Saratoga alone, but is a regional
problem, especially evident throughout Santa Clara County.
3. Low-income renters and homeowners, and low- and moderate-income homebuyers, have
been especially hard-hit by rising housing costs.
4. Twenty years ago or more, the lack of housing affordability affected primarily seniors on
fixed incomes and families living on entry-level wages or public assistance. Since that
that time, the problem of housing affordability has spread to virtually all but the highest
income levels in Santa Clara County. It affects the ability of most governmental agencies
to attract qualified, essential workers such as teachers and emergency service personnel.
It also affects the ability of most entry and mid-level professionals in both public and
private employment to locate suitable housing.
5. Most seniors on limited incomes, even those with substantial equities in their homes, are
experiencing difficulty locating suitable housing that meets their physical needs without
leaving the community. Aside from cost and income considerations, there are
insufficient choices, locally, for various types of senior housing.
o
Saratoga will experience some employment growth over the next decade, primarily in
retail and services. Most workers in these industries will have Iow- or moderate-incomes
and will be unable to find affordable housing in the area. Few of the current workers in
these industries are able to live in the City or nearby.
Most of the remaining land available for development is located in hillside areas with
limited development capacity to accommodate higher density housing that might be
affordable to low- or moderate-income households. A few sites remain that may be
suitable for higher density housing, infill, or mixed-use developments. The potential to
accommodate affordable housing will remain limited, however, unless existing land uses
are re-designated for more intense use. By itself, however, redesignation is unlikely to
have a significant impact on the supply of affordable housing because of such limiting
factors as slope and geology~ cost of land, lack of utilities and infrastructure, cost of
preparation of land for development, and impact 'on established surrounding
neighborhoods.
As a result of the rapid increase in higher paying jobs having outpaced the availability of
living accommodations in the region, the cost of shelter in this demand-driven free
market has risen to accommodate the highest income segments of the population. Not
only has this created a larger number of households for whom housing has become less
affordable, but it has also widened the gap between the price of shelter and what it would
cost to close the affordability gap. Coupled with the lack of an abundance of easily
developable land in the region, the practical opportunities to meet all the affordable
housing needs are severely constrained. Therefore, a meaningful housing strategy will
require that there be a realistic assessment of the availability of programs and fiscal
resources and a careful prioritization of the needs that are to be met.
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Population
Saratoga has not experienced substantial population growth for several decades, that is, by 1979
the City had allowed development of most of the vacant land in the City. Most population
changes that have occurred since 1980 are due largely to changes in households inhabiting
existing dwellings. Because Saratoga is nearly built out, except for hillside areas, there has been
little newly constructed housing over the past 20 years. Changes in household composition
related to age and the percentage of households with children have had a greater influence on
Saratoga's population than growth fi.om new development. The City's population gradually
increased between 1970 and 1980 and peaked about 1980, when the U.S. Census recorded 29,261
residents. Between 1980 and 1990, the number of residents began to gradually decline, to 28,061.
This decline resulted from a combination of little new residential development and a decrease in
the number of families with children.
Since 1990, the City's population has increased about eleven percent, slightly less than the
growth rate (15 percent) for Santa Clara County overall. According to the California Department
of Finance (DOF), the City's population was 31,300 as of January 1, 2000. City projections show
a continual increase in the City's population to 2020 with an estimated increase of ten percent
(Association of Bay, Area Government 2000 Projections). Most of this increase appears to be
related to changes iq household composition--the number of households with children has
increased in the community since 1990.
Ethnicity
In 2000, the relative proportions of the various ethnic groups in SaratOga varied significantly
from those of other cities in Santa Clara County or as the state as a whole. While persons of
Hispanic origin comprise about one-fifth of the countywide population and over one-fourth of the
statewide population, such individuals comprise three percent of the City's population. Similarly,
Blacks and other minority groups representing large segments of the countywide and. statewide
populations consist of less than one percent of the city's population. Asian and Pacific islanders
'comprise twenty-nine percent of the Saratoga's population, close to the population within Santa
Clara County and about eighteen percent higher than the statewide population. Figure 1
compares ethnicity on a citywide, countywide, and statewide basis.
SARATOGA HOi. JSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Comparison of Race/Ethnicity by City, County, and State Population
70%
'; iili :111111 ! ,ii ;/11111 "Hispanic or Latino
(of any race)'
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Saratoga Santa Clam Co. unty Califomia
Source: 2000 Census
*Population of Hispamc origin includes all racial categories. Racial categories include only non-Hispanic origin.
Age
The age distribution in Saratoga is similar to the population of Santa Clara County as a whole,
with a slightly higher number of seniors living in the City and a slightly lower number of
children. The percentage of City residents 65 years of age or more increased in Saratoga from
eight percent in 1980 to 13 percent in 1990 and again to 16 percent in 2000. As a result, the
City's median age is higher than in many neighboring communities, the county, and the state.
However since 1990, Saratoga has experienced an eleven percent increase in population primarily
related to changes in household size and composition. Enrollment statistics from the seven
schools that serve Saratoga suggest that the number of households with school age children has
slightly increased since 1990, with a more substantial increase in recent years. The recent
increase in school-aged children is due to the re-sales of homes formerly occupied by older adults
to families with young children (Saratoga News April 2000). The school districts serving
Saratoga reported that about 4,440 Saratoga residents were enrolled in individual districts for the
1999-2000 school year. Families with children under age five has also increased since 1990;
however the percentage of the population less than 17 years of age is five percent less than the
county and state population. The number of Saratoga residents in the 18-64 year old age bracket
is quite similar to the county and state population.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Age Distribution (percent)
70.
60.
50-
40-
30-
20-
10-
Saratoga
Santa Clara*County California
r-10-18
[] 18-64
E! 65+
Source: 2000 Census
Households
Because of the larger percentage of seniors, non-families, and family households without children
in Saratoga, the average household size is substantially below the countywide and statewide
levels for the same period. At time of the 2000 Census, over half of all-households in Saratoga
consisted of one or two individuals. The large number of non-family households and childless
couples further illustrate the reasons for the smaller average household size in Saratoga.
Although Saratoga has seen a gradual increase in household size between 1990 and 2000, from
2.7 .to 2.8, the average household size is still below the countywide and statewide average
household sizes. Figure 3 compares average household sizes in Saratoga, Santa Clara County,
and California for 2000.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
3
2.9.
2.8.
2.7.
2.6,
2.5
Saratoga Santa Clara County California
IrlAve HH Size
Average Household Sizes (2000)
Source: 2000 Census
Of the approximatery 8,600 families reported in Saratoga in 2000, over ninety percent were
married-couple families. Over one-third (38 percent) of households in the City are families with
children under 18. About three percent of all households were single-parent households in 2000,
two-thirds of which were single mothers. The proportion of single-parent households in Saratoga
was below the levels both countywide (seven percent) and statewide(ten percent).
INCOME CHARACTERISTICS
According to the 1990 census, the median household income in Saratoga was $86,674. This was
above the c6unty median of $48,115.. There was no income data available from the 2000 Census
at the time.the Housing Element was updated. Federal income guidelines for~participation in
various housing subsidy programs (Department of Housing and Urban Development), is based on
the size of a household's income relative to the median income for the area. For a family of four,'
the median income was estimated to be $87,300 in Santa Clara County in 2001. The federal
government does not provide income guidelines or estimates for individual cities.
In evaluating income levels, four standard measures are often used: "very low-income," "low-
income," "moderate-income," and "above moderate-income." These income levels are expressed
as a percentage of the median income (the mid-point at which half of all households earn more
and half earn less) and are usually adjusted for household size. Thus, a "low-income" household
of four has a higher income than a "low-income" household of two. Low-income limits for
households in 2000 are shown in Table 3. An income below $48,350 for a single person was
considered low-income according to HUD. An income of $91,150 for an eight-person household
was also considered low-income.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
1990 Saratoga Household Income
Income Percent of Households Number of Households
Less than $10,000 3% 318
$10,000- $19,999 3.3% 337
$20,000 - $29,999 4.1% 416
$30,000 - 39,999 5.9% 929
$40,000 - $49,999 6.6% 671
$50,000- $59,999 6.5% 661
$60,000 - $74,999 10.8% 1099
$75,000 - $99,999 17.6% 1786
$100,000 - $124,999 15.9% 1616
$125,000 - $149,000 8.4% 851
$150,000 or more 17.7% 1797
, soUrCe: 1990 Census
INCOME DEFINITIONS (1990):
Very low-income = 50% or less of the Santa Clara County median income ($24,057).
Low-income = 51% to 80% of the Santa Clara County median income ($24,439 - $38,492).
Moderate-income = 81% to 120% of the Santa Clara median income ($38,973 - $57,738).
Above Moderate-Income = 121% or more of the Santa Clara County median income ($58,219).
Income Distribution Scale
20%
MEDIAN
INCOME
Source: Parsons
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
In a normally distributed population (that is, one not skewed to either end of the income scale),
approximately 40 percent of the population will have incomes within the very low- and low-
income ranges, about 20 percent within the moderate-income range, and about 40 percent in the
above moderate-income range (Figure 4) a substantial dispersion of income within the City
around the median, as shown in Table 1. Still, over three-fourths of Saratoga residents earned
above moderate incomes in 1990 as defined below. Saratoga has a larger relative percentage of
above moderate-income households and a smaller percentage of low-income households in
relation to the countywide income distribution.
Table 2 shows the number of households in each income group in 1990. Figure 4 shows that
slightly over three quarters (77 percent) of Saratoga residents had above moderate incomes in
1990, while only one-sixth (16 percent) had very low or low incomes. Although there has been
no citywide census update since 1990, economic trends, such as rising home prices, suggest that
households who have moved to Saratoga Since 1990 have higher average incomes than long-term
residents. If the 2000 Census confu'ms this hypothesis, then the gap between countywide
incomes and incomes among Saratoga residents· has widened further, as the gap between city and
county housing prices has increased (Housing prices are discussed on page 21).
1989 Saratoga Household Income Range by Income Category
Income Category Income Range Percentage of # of Households
Very Low Income $0-$24,058 8% 848
Low Income $24,059-$38,492 8% 819
Moderate Income $38,493-$57,738 7% 671
Above Moderate $57,739+ 77 % 7810
Median Income: $86,674
Source: 1990 Census ·
1989 Saratoga Income Distribution
lei Very Low
[] Low
13 Moderate
[] Abv Mod
Source: 1990 Census
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
HUD income limit areas are the same as Fair Market Rent areas. HUD normally uses current
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and Primary
Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA) definitions to define income limits areas because they
closely correspond to housing market area definitions. The median income level for a four-person
household was approximately $87,300.
Santa Clara Counly IncOme Limits (2001)
Household Extremely Low Income Very Low Income (50% of Low Income (80% of
Size (30% of Median) Median) Median)
1 Person $18,350 $30,550 $48,350
2 Persons $20,950 $34,900 $55,250
3 Persons $23,600 $39,300 $62,150
4 Persons $26,200 $43,650 $69,050
5 Persons $28,300 $47,150 $74,550
6 Persons $30,400 $50,650 $80,100
7 Persons $32,500 $54,150 $85,600
8 Persons $34,560 $57,600 $9 I, 150
Source: HUD 2001 Income Guidelines.
Poverty
'The poverty rate is a federally defined level of income for minimum subsistence. The dollar
threshold for poverty is adjusted for household size and composition. In 1989, less than two
percent of the population was living below the poverty level, which is a small percent compared
to neighboring cities in the region. Of the individuals in households with incomes below the
poverty level, 30 percent were senior citizens, 59 percent were adults between the ages of 18 and
64, and 11 percent were children under the age of 17.Table 4 provides 1995 poverty thresholds
for several types of households:
Poverty Thresholds (1999)
Single Person 65+ $7,990 Two Adults, One Child $13,410
Single Person Under 65 $8,667 One Adult, Three Children $16,954
Two Persons 65+ $10,070 Two AdultS, Two Children $16,895
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Two Persons Under 65 $11,156
One Adult, Two Children
$13,423
One Adult, Four Children $19,578
Two Adults, Three Children
$19,882
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
According to 1990 Census data, less than two percent of the City's population had incomes below
the federally defined poverty level. Groups most likely to have poverty level incomes were
married couples without children and the elderly. Of those below the poverty level, 77 percent
were White, 18 percent were Black and Asian/Pacific Islander, and 11 percent were of Hispanic
origin. The racial composition of people below the poverty level is similar to the racial
composition of the City as a whole, as higher proportions of Whites are impoverished. The
highest number of impoverished Whites, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Others were adults age 18
to 64. The highest numbers of impoverished Blacks Americans were age 75 and older.
By comparison, slightly less than eight percent of the County's population was below the poverty
level. About 50 percent of the impoverished were White, compared to a total White population of
58 percent. Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanic origins comprised about the same
percentages of impoverished individuals as their representation in the total population (less than
one percent, six percent, 18 percent respectively). Although Asian/Pacific Islanders comprised
17 percent of the total population, they represented 23 percent of the impoverished.
Census data for the State revealed that approximately 18 percent of the total population was
below the poverty level in 1990, although statewide poverty levels have declined substantially
over the past two years. Even so, the City's poverty rate is still less than one-fifth of the
statewide rate. Census data on poverty was not available from the 2000 Census at the time the
Housing Element was updated.
Saratoga 1990 Poverfy Rates
Group Above Poverty Level Below Poverty Level Poverty Rate
Elderly 3250 105 3%
'Non-Elderly 25,570 292 1%
Children 5,650 48 1%
Adults 18,345 244 1%
Single Mother Families 461 8 2%
Single Father Families 213 0 0
Married Couple 7,648 35 0.5 %
Families
Black 78 14 18%
Asian/Pacific Islander 4,144 62 1.5%
Hispanic 216 44 20%
Native American 22 0 0
Other 41 0 0
White 22,904 308 1.3%
Total Population 27,642 397 1.5%
Total Households 10,148 159 1.6%
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Source: 1990 Census Bureau Data.
EMPLOYMENT TRENDS
According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the City of Saratoga
had a 1.2 percent unemployment rate in September 2000, about 200 persons of a total labor force
of 17,520 people. The unemployment rate for the City is lower than the countywide rate but
reflects the general statewide trend of dramatically lower unemployment since the early 1990s.
In 1990, the City had an unemployment rate of 2.4 percent, compared to the County's
unemployment rate of three percent. The unemployment rate in Saratoga has been low
historically in comparison to other areas of the County and the rest of the United States. Even
during the early 1990s at the depth of California's recession, unemployment in Saratoga was
relatively low (2.4 percent). Now, the labor force is rising (14,800 in 1990 compared to 17,520 in
2000).
The 1990 Census data shows that most residents were employed in managerial and professional
specialty occupations (58 percent of employed residents). This is a very high percent compared
to most communities in California and explains .the substantially higher incomes in the City.
Other common occupations included sales occupations (13 percent) and administrative support
(12 percent). The census data shows that over 90 percent of the employed residents work within
Santa Clara County; however, only about 15 percent of these employees worked in Saratoga. A
majority of residents travel over twenty minutes to work, with over 65 percent having to travel at
least 20 minutes to work.
One measure of local retail employment is the amount of retail sales activity. Figures from the
Board of Equalization show that taxable sales in Saratoga are low compared to most other cities
in Santa Clara County. In 1997, taxable retail sales in Saratoga totaled $13,750 per capita, while
all taxable sales totaled $18,578 per capita. In 1998, per capita taxable retail sales rose to
$15,495 while total taxable sales increased to $19,297. In 1999, per capita taxable retail sales
decreased to $14,993 and total taxable sales decreased to $18,652.
The Association of Bay Area Governments projections for Saratoga's show a steady increase in
the number of jobs in Saratoga from 1995 to 2020, with the number of jobs increasing from 7,270
'to 10,480. According to the 1.997 Economic Census, there were 2,830 annual payroll employees
in Saratoga, 40 percent, were employed in retail trade and accommodation and foodservice.
Health care and social assistance employed 14 percent of the population. Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) projected that the labor market in 2000 is made up of 55 percent
service workers, 24 percent "other" employees, 15 percent retail employees, four percent
manufacturing/wholesale and two percent agricultural/mining.
Jobs available in the City of Saratoga, the jobs held by city residents, whether located in the City
or elsewhere, are affected by regional trends. The State Employment Development Department
1999 annual average statistics show the civilian labor force for Santa Clara County to be 962,800,
with an unemployment rate of three percent. This is significantly lower than the state's
unemployment rate of just over five percent. Santa Clara County enjoys one of the lowest
unemployment rates in California, but at the expense of upward pressure on housing costs.
According to the State Employment Development Department 1995-2002 projections data for
Santa Clara County, the largest industries in the County are services (46 percent growth), retail
(24 percent growth), and manufacturing (9 percent growth). The business services sector is
expected to account for the largest growth, with more than 80,000 new jobs. The fastest growing
occupations in the County between 1995 and 2002 are expected to be computer system
analysts/electronic data processor (95 percent), home health care workers (86 percent), computer
engineers (68 percent growth), amusement/recreation attendants (68 percent), computer support
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
specialists (58 percent), and database administrators (56 percent). Occupations that have large
employment and have high turnover rates generally provide the most job openings. Santa Clara
County is projected to have employment opportunities not only in these high turnover
occupations but also in the more technologically advanced categories.
Despite projections for strong job prospects and regionally available high-paying jobs for City
residents, many, if not most, of the jobs expected to be created in Saratoga will continue to be in
services and retail industries that typically employ low- and moderate-income wage earners. In
addition, the demand for services of all kinds will remain strong. For these reasons, Saratoga will
continue to experience a local demand for housing affordable to these income groups. The' large
number of high paying jobs in the region in recent years has created an upward pressure on
housing costs that has left behind other wage earners who have not shared in the newfound
wealth. The result is that households previously considered middle class, such as teachers and
public safety personnel have joined the ranks of other disadvantaged groups in need of affordable
housing. According to the 1998 Occupational Employment Statistics Survey produced by the CA
Employment Development Department, the mean hourly wage for Santa Clara County is $19.42.
Some of the major Employers listed for Santa Clara County include 3 Com Corp, Apple
Computers, Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Intel Corp.
The CA Employment Development Department (EDD) produced an Occupational Employment
and Wage Data spreadsheet by County for 1998. This spreadsheet lists over 600 jobs in Santa
Clara County alone. A sample of jobs and salaries was taken relating to necessary serves in
Saratoga. The mean annual wage, and the 25~ percentile and 75~ percentile of the working force
for each job category are listed below (Table 6).
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Occupational Employment and Wage Data for Santa Clara County 1998
Occupational Title Employment Mean 25t~ Percentile 75th
Estimates Annual Annual Wage Percentile
Urban and Regional Planners 4 $52,420 $38,230 $70,283
Social Workers, Medical and 1,160 $37,870 $24,315 $47,736
Psychiatric
Human Service Workers 1,330 $27,140 $18,450 $32.385
Teachers (Preschool) 2,320 $22,070 $18,782 $24.211
Teachers (Kindergarten) 1,170 $39,900 * *
Teachers (Elementary School) 8,200 $46,860 * *
Teachers (Secondary School) 7,560 $50,150 * *
Teachers (Special Education) 1,690 $49,940 * *
Teachers and Instructors, 1,280 $34,790 $22,589 $41,392
Vocational Education and
Librarians, Professional 670 $49,140 $37,440 .$65.208
Technical Assistants, Li,brary 370 $27,710 $22,776 $30,451
Vocational and Educational 740 $48,020 $31,844 $70.283
Counselors
Teachers Aides, 4,070 $20,040 $13,832 $24,689
]pi~raorofessional
Emergency Medical 420 $25,500 $20,404 $29,681
Pharmacists 1,040 $64,370 $61,027 $82,180
Municipal Clerks Not Available $57,330 $48,526 $75,899
.Receptionists and 'Information 10,740 $23,620 $18,366 $27,934
Clerks .
Fire Fighting and Prevention 790 $61,400 $46,924 $82,492
Supervisors
Police and Detective 800 $62,230 $53,913 $84,115
Supervisors
Fire Fighters 2,590 $44,390 $34,985 $55,515
Police Patrol Officers 2,130 $52,490 $43,409 $69,971
Parking Enforcement Officers Not Available $31,450 26,353 $29,556
Bus Drivers, School 1,010 $26,300 $22,568 $31,075
Source: Emplo},ment Development Department
* For some occupations, workers may not work full-time all year-round. For these occupations it is not feasible to
calculate an hourly wage.
Residents in Saratoga are in a strong position to fill suggested job vacancies in the county given
the education attainment levels, workforce numbers, and the number of persons receiving public
assistance. Table 7 shows that over four-fifths of adults (85 percent) in the City attained
additional education after high school, well above the County's 64 percent. Less than five percent
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
of adults in Saratoga had less than a high school education, compared to approximately 17
percent of adults countywide.
1990 Saratoga Educational Attainment
Educational Level City Percent of County Percent of
Population Population Population Population
Less than 9~ Grade 326 1% 87,215 7%
9~' to 12~ Grade - No Diploma 994 4% 128,257 10%
High School Graduate (or GED) 2,672 10% 223,671 18%
Some College - No Degree 4,710 17% 273,815 22%
Associate Degree 1,504 5 % 91,076 7 %
Bachelor's Degree 12,126 44% 335,368 26%
Graduate or Professional Degree 5,247 19% 119,081 9%
Source: 1990 Census Bureau Data; Educational Attainment
for persons 25 years and over.
Few adult, non-senior Saratoga residents receive public assistance or are not part of the labor
force. In the City of Saratoga, 187 households (less than two percent) received public assistance
in 1989 according to the 1990 Census. About 35,215 households (about seven percent) in the
County received public assistance in 1989.
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA)
ABAG's methodology is based on the regional numbers supplied by the State Department of
Hous!ng and Community Development (HCD), these are "goal numbers" and are not meant to
match, and often exceed, anticipated growth in housing units. A goal vacancy rate is set by
(HCD), and then a housing unit need to meet that vacancy, rate is derived by assessing potential
growth rates (population, jobs, households) and loss of housing due to demolition. The numbers
produced by HCD will be provided to ABAG in the form of a regional goal namber, which is
then broken into income categories. ABAG is then mandated to distribute the numbers to Bay
Area jurisdictions by income categories. ABAG is responsible for allocating the Regional
Housing Needs Determination (RHND) goal number to cities and counties in the Bay Area.
The "Regional Housing Needs Determination," was adopted by AB.AG in March 2001. This plan
covers the period from January 1, 1999 through June 30 2006. Existing need is evaluated based
on overpayment (30 percent or more of income) and overcrowding by lower income households
and the need to raise vacancy rates in the jurisdiction to a level at which the State Department of
Housing and Community Development market would operate freely.
The methodology used to determine the future need considered the growth in number of
households expected, the need to achieve ideal vacancy rates, the need for more housing
opportunities, and compensation for anticipated demolition. An "avoidance of impaction"
adjustment was applied to the preliminary allocation figure to avoid further concentration of low-
income units in jurisdictions that have more than the regional average.
The RHND allocation is a minimum needs number-~cities and counties are free to plan for, and
accommodate, a larger number of dwelling units than the allocation. The City must however use
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
the numbers allocated under the RHND to identify measures (policies and ordinances) that are
consistent with these new construction goals. While the City must also show how it will
accommodate for these units to be built, it is not obligated to build any of the units itself or
finance their construction.
According to the RHND, the City of Saratoga has a total housing construction need of 538 units
and an annual need of 72 units. Table 8 shows Saratoga's 1999:2006 planning period allocation.
Regional Housing Needs Determination (2000)
Dwelling Units % of Total Income Level
75 14% Very Low Income
36 7% Low Income
108 20% Moderate Income
320 59% Above Moderate Income
Source: ABAG 1999-2006 Rel~ional Housinl~ Needs Determination
SARATOGA HOUSING PROFILE
According to the California Department of Finance, approximately 278 housing units were vacant
in 2000, a vacancy rate of 2.6 percent. By comparison, the countywide vacancy rate was 3.8
percent. The proportion of different types of housing countywide remained constant between
1990 and 1999--fifty-six percent single detached houses, twenty-five percent multiples of five or
more units, nine percent single attached houses, eight percent multiples of two to four units, and
four percent mobile homes. Over four-fifths of the City's housing units were single family
detached homes (90 percent), followed by multiple units of five or more (4 percent), multiple
units of two to four (two percent), single-family attached units (one percent), and far less than one
percent mobile homes. Countywide, t. here is a substantially higher percentage of housing units in
· multifamily buildings of- five or more units and a substantially lower percentage of single-family
'homes than in Saratoga. '
Annual changes in the housing stock were small between 1990 and 2000 due to the low level of
new construction activity. In 1991, 12 multiple housing units were added to the housing stock
and in 1992, three more multiple units were constructed. Most new residential construction
comprised single-family homes, with 460 houses added since 1990. Tables 9 and 10 show the
annual changes in the housing stock between January 1990 and January 2000 as determined by
the California Department of Finance.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Housing Estimates for the City of Saratoga (1990 through 2000)
Housing Units Persons
Single Multiple MObile % Per
Year Total Detached Attached 2 to 4 5 Plus Homes Occupied Vacant Household
1990 10,315 9,214 483 148 465 5 10,050 2.6 2.7
1991 10,369 9,256 483 152 473 5 10,103 2.6 2.7
1992 10,398 9,282 483 155 473 ~ 5 10,131 2.6 2.7
1993 10,429 9,313 483 155 473 5 10,161 2.6 2.7
1994 10,441 9,325 483 155 473 5 10,173 2.6 2.8
1995 10,458 9,342 483 155 473 5 10,189 5.6 2.8
1996 10,489 9,373 483 155 473 5 10,219 2.6 2.9
1997 10,636 9,520 483 155 473 5 10,362 2.6 2.9
1998 10,718 9,602 483 155 i' 473 5 10,442 2.6 .2.9
1999 10,764 9,648 483 155 473 5 10,487 2.6 2.9
2000 10,790 9,674 483 155 473 5 10,512 2.6 2.9
2000
(Census) 10,649 ............... 10.450 1.9% 2.83
SoUrce: Califorma Department of Finance, 1990-2000 City/County
Population and Housing Estimates; 2000 Census (partial information
available only)
Housing Estimates for Santa Clara County (1990 through 2000)
Housing Units Persons
Sin,qle Multiple Mobile % Per
Year Total Detached Attached 2 to 4 5 Plus Homes Occupied Vacant Household
1990 540,240 303,212 47,668 42,096 126,338 20,926 520,180 3.7 2.8
1991 543,532 304,332' 47,956 42,167 128,155 20,922 523,532 3.7 2.8
1992 547,884 305,447 48,210 42,407 130,972 20,848 527,541 3.7 2.8
1993 551,584 306,578 48,872 42,507 132,779 20,848 531,107 · 3.7 2.9
1994 555,429 308,364 49,060 42,699 134,628 20,678 534,729 3.7 2.9
1995 559,010 310,242 49,423 42,742 135,984 20,619 538,094 3.7 2.9
1996 562,352 312,166 49,423 43,018 137,126 20,619 541,406 3.7 2.9
1997 566,164 314,649 49,531 43,225 138,141 20,618 544,358 3.8 3.0
1998 573,593 318,463 49,725 43,594 141,193 20,618 551,516 3.8 3.0
1999 581,532 322,454 49,839 43,760 144,861 20,618 559,166 3.8 3.0
2000 589,010 325,874 50,045 44,062 148,411 20,618 566,188 3.8 3.0
2000 579,329 565,863 ............... 2.3 2.92
(Census)
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Source: California Department of Finance, 1990-1999 City/County
Population and Housing Estimates; ; 2000 Census (part!al
information available only)
Housing Occupancy and Tenure
Of the 10,790 year-round dwelling units reported by the Department of Finance (10.649
according to the 2000 Census), less than two percent was vacant in 2000. Most of the vacant
units were for sale, as shown on Table 11. In 1990, more housing units were owner-occupied (89
percent) than renter-occupied (11 percent). By comparison, the tenure of occupied housing units
in the County was 60 percent owner-occupied units and 41 percent for renter-occupied units.
Table 11 shows that both the City and County had a substantial shortage of ownership housing
that was vacant and available for sale compared to rental housing that was vacant and available to
rent in relation to the proportion of ownership and rental housing in 2000.
Because of the substantially lower percentage of lower-income residents in the City, most City
residents face fewer financial barriers to homeownership compared to County residents.
However, as prices have risen over the past 20 years, it has become impossible for low-income
and most moderate-income households to purchase a home, with the exception of a small
percentage of older homeowners who have substantial equity in an existing home. To afford even
the least cost-home in Saratoga, a low-income household would have to possess accumulated
equity in an existing home, or equivalently valued assets that could be converted to cash, of at
least $400,000. A moderate-income household would have to have accumulated assets of at least
$300,000.
Type of Vacant Units in Saratoga (2000)
Unit Number of Number of Percent of City Percent of
Units in City Units in County Vacant Units County Vacant
Units
For Rent 13 .2,382 8% 22%
For Sale Only · 151 8,577 91% 78%
Source: 2000 Census.
According to the 2000 Census, 90 percent of households Were homeowners in Saratoga,
compared to 60 percent countywide. Analysis of tenure by ethnicity (Table 12), which was
available from the 1990 Census but not the 2000 Census at the time of Housing Element update,
reveals that homeownership in Saratoga and Santa Clara County among White households far
exceeds that of minority households. This disparity is largely a function of income, as minority
households include a higher percentage of lower-income individuals.
SARATOGA HOusING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Tenure by Race and Hispanic Origin (1990)
Race Saratoga Percent Santa Clara Percent
County
Owner Occupied Units
White 7,759 88 % 225,224 78 C7c
Black 14 0.2% 5}926 2%
Native American 6 0.1% 1,057 < 1%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1,038 11% 4 I, 184 14c~
Others 31 0.3% 19,834
Hispanic Origin 171 2% 13,148 5%
Renter Occupied Units
White 928 89% 131,173 69 %
Black 15 1% 11,657 6%
Native American 0 0% 1,254 < 1%
Asian/Pacific Islander 98 9% 26,812 14%
Others 0 0% 222 < 1%
Hispanic Origin' 21 2% 19,612 10%
Source: 1990 Census.
Ownership rates shown in Table 13 reveal that there were more owners in each ethnic group than
renters. However, slightly higher or equal percentages of Blacks rented than owned, suggesting
that they may have difficulty becoming homeowners due to their relatively lower incomes.
Native Americans had the highest rate of homeownership (but there were very few of these
households in the City in 1990), followed by Asian/Pacific Islanders and Whites.
Homeownership Rates
Race Owners Renters Ownership Rate Rental Rate
White 7,759 928 89% 11%
Black 14 15 48% 52%
Native American 6 0 100% 0%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1,038 98 91% 9%
Other 0 6 0% 100%
Hispanic Origin 171 21 89% 11%
Source: 1990 Census.
Analysis of 1990 Census data on tenure by age of householder in Saratoga reveals adults aged 45
and over tended to own their housing units rather than rent, while younger adults mostly rented
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
rather than owned their homes. With the exception of householders under age 35, between 80%
and 90% of residents of Saratoga own their own homes. Even among younger households, over
two-thirds own their own homes. Of all occupied housing in 1990, 94 percent were owned by
persons 35 years and older: persons ages 45-54 owned 2,695 units or 30 percent, 2.054 units (23
percent) were owned by persons ages 55 to 64, followed by 1,906 units (21 percent) owned by
persons age 35-44, and 1,221 (13 percent) owned by persons ages 65-74 (Table 14). Adults aged
75 and older and younger adults ages 25-34 owned seven and six percent of the units
respectively. Not surprisingly, less than one percent of the adults under age 24 own homes in
Saratoga.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Tenure by Age of Householder' (1990)
Age City t Percent t County Percent
Owner Occupied Units
15 to 24 16 <1% 2,362.
25 to 34 502 6% 49,309 16%
35 to 44 1,906 21% 76,171 25%
45 to 54 2,695 30% 68,348 · 22%
55 to 64 2,054 23% 52,383 17~'
65 to 74 1,221 13% 37,007 12%
75 and over 594 7% 21,744 7C7c
Total 8988 100% 307,324 100%
Renter Occupied Units
15 to 24 27 3% 21,291 10%
25 to 34 205 19% 82,729 39%
35 to 44 359 ' 34% 51,615 24%
45 to 54 163 16% 23,776 1 i%
55 to 64 57 5% 13,288 6%
65 to 74 69 6% 10,336 5%
75 and over 182 17% 9,821 5%
Total 1,062 100% 212,856 100%
Source: 1990 Census
Housing Costs
Rental Rates
The 1990 census data shows rents were higher in the City of Saratoga than in Santa Clara County.
The median rental costs in Saratoga was over $1,000 in 1990 compared to $773 in Santa Clara
County. This might be caused by the fact that Santa Clara County has a diverse housing stock
with more multi-family units that the City of Saratoga has. Saratoga's rental stock consists of 50
percent condominium rentals, 39 percent single-family rental, 9 percent multi-family, non-
condominium rentals and 3 percent other rentals. Larger houses and higher housing costs were
consistent with a population of substantially more upper-income residents in the City.
Housing costs from 1998 to present indicate a dramatic change in the cost of housing and the
availability of housing units. Currently, rental costs in Saratoga are similar to those through out
Santa Clara County and the entire San Francisco Bay area. A recent California Budget Project
Report (May 2000) conf'u'ms that rental rates far exceed the Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom
'SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
apartment in 1999. The Fair Market Rent is a rent level established by the federal government for
participation in various rental subsidy programs, but does not necessarily indicate the-average
market rents being charged in an area. Rents in Santa Clara County exceed the Fair Market Rent
for both one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments (Department of Finance 2000). Rental costs
have increased far more than incomes throughout the county (San Jose Mercury News September
2000).
Rental stock available in Saratoga is extremely limited at any monthly rental rate. Table 15
shows the rental units listed locally for rent. Listing varies from month to month however the
vacancy rate in March 2001 was less than one percent. Out of 25 listings 12 were single-family
homes, 8 were condominiums, and 5 were apartments.
Very few units are available at rates affordable to very low-income individuals or families. Rents
currently average over $1,500 to $2,850 for a one-bedroom apartment in the Saratoga/Santa Clara
Valley and over $2,000 for a two-bedroom apartment. A sample of housing within Saratoga
revealed that the average two-bedroom home was above $2,000 per month. Rent for a three-
bedroom home was $4,995 per month, while rents for four-bedroom homes were between $3,000
and $5,500 per month.
Rental Rates in Saratoga (2000)
Type Studio I Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4-Bed
Apartment ' $850 $1,500-$2,850 $2,000-$2,700 $2,745
Home $1,850 $2,000-$3,900 $4,995 $3,000-$5,500
Condominium $1,850-$2,700 $2,600
Source: Ba~, Area. Corn and Apartments. Corn, March 2001
Home Prices
Recent trends in home prices in Saratoga and in Santa Clara County show a dramatic increase in
median home prices in the area. Sales Of existing homes in California in August posted a 4.7
'percent increase and the median home price rose 14 percent (California Association of Realtors
September 25, 2000). A. nOtable highlight in the sales figures for California is that Saratoga was
listed as one of the top ten cities and communities with the highest median home prices in
California during July 2000. Saratoga's median home price for the month was $1,328,000.
Saratoga also made the list of top ton cities and communities with the greatest increase in median
home-price for July 2000 compared to the same period last year. The California Association of
Realtors lists the median housing prices for the County as of August 2000 as $445,000. The
median price increased in the County over the past year by almost 29 percent. Compared with
California and the rest of the country, fewer households in Santa Clara County - 29 percent in
1998 - can afford to purchase the median-priced home. Housing affordability was actually lower
in 1990 (as measured by the percentage of households that can afford the median-priced home),
increased during the economic downturn of the early 1990s, but declined again in recent years.
A review of approximately 380 homes sold in Saratoga during 1998 and 1999 (Dataquick 2000)
clearly showed the rapid increase in home prices during the past few years. The most expensive
home sold in Saratoga during 1999 was $4.7 million, and even the least costly home was over
$500,000. Table 16 lists prices of homes for sale as of March 14, 2001. The listing comes from
Coldwell Banker and Alain Pinel Realtors and Bay Area. Com. The highest percentage of homes
had five or more bedrooms followed by four-bedroom homes. There were only 7 listings for
multi-family homes/condominiums in Saratoga during the month of March. The median price of
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
homes sold increased in the City by approximately 59 percent within the last year. The price
increase may not accurately reflect the full range of housing costs in the City due to the number
of homes sold.
Home Prices in Saratoga (2000)
Bedrooms Units for Median Average City Range % of Total
Sale
Single Family Homes
2 6 $1,045,000 $1,129,666 $425,000-$2,198,000 7%
3 17 $1,497,500 $1,706,529 $759,000-$3,900,000 20%
4 26 $1,995,000 $3,045,842 $799,915-$12,888,000 30%
5+ 31 $3,124,500 $3,678,290 $1,398,00-$7,950,000 35%
Total -- 81 ...... 92%
Condominiums
2 4 $562,n.~.~. $560,987 $420,000-$699,950 5%
3 3 $945,000 $998,000 $899,000-$1,150,000 3%
Total -- 7 ...... 8%
Source: Coldwell Banker. Alain Pinel Realtors and Ba,v Area. Com.
Table 17 compares median home prices in the County to other counties in the region between
August 1999 and August 2000. Median home prices in Santa Clara County are nearly the highest
in the region. Therefore, the housing market in Saratoga as with the remainder of Santa Clara
County is likely to only attract above moderate-income households.
Comparative. Median Home Prices (1999 - 2000).
County August 1999 August 2000 Percent Change
between 1999 and
2000
Santa Clara $345,250 $445,000 22%
San Mateo $394,000 $481,000 18%
Alameda $276,500 $340,000 19%
Source: California Association of Realtors. Au~,ust 2000
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Lower Income Households Overpaying
An important indicator of housing need is the relationship of household income to housing costs.
Households should pay no more than 30 percent of their gross incomes for housing costs. This
figure is higher for other households because the cost of other necessary goods becomes a smaller
percentage of the total income. The California Statewide Housing Plan (CSHP) is a publication
undertaken to facilitate efforts addressing this State housing goal. This update and the prior one
provide perspective on the State's housing needs for subsequent policy development. It takes a
county-by-county look at California's projected housing needs through the year 2020, the
constraints to meeting those needs, and the possible consequences of not meeting them. The
document is comprised of two volumes. Volume One is the main report, divided into seven
chapters. Volume Two is the Appendix containing several appendices.
According to the 1990 Census, 345 (60 percent) of all renter households in Saratoga with incomes
less than $35,000 per year paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing.
Comparatively, 487 (61 percent) of owner-occupied households with incomes less than $35,000
per year paid in excess of 30% of their incomes.
Number of Households Paying Over 30 Percent of Income on Housing
Income Owners. Renters Total
Very Low-Income 281 238 519
Lower-Income 206 107 3 ! 3
Total 487 345 832
Source: 1990 Census Bureau Data.
Note: 1990 Census data uses income ranges that do not correspond exactly to the income categories. Therefore. there
are people in the lower-income category that actually fall into the moderate-income category and likewise between
the very low- and lower-income categories. The numbers in the table include more persons than are actually in
those categories.
Further analysis of housing expenditures as a percent of income show that most home owners pay
less than 25 percent of their income on housing (Table 19). Renters with income below $34,999
tend to pay a higher percentage of their income on housing. The majority of people earning
$50,000 or more paid less than 25 percent of their income on housing regardless of whether they
rented or owned.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Saratoga Housing Expenditure Rate per Income Group
Income <$10,000 $10,000- $20,000. $35,000. $50,000+ Total
$19,999 $34,999 $49,999 Households
Renters
Under 30% 39% 33% 32% 35% 80% 601
30%+ 15% 19% 15% 13% 10% 127
35%+ 46% 48% 52% 52% 0% 264
Total 158 79 131 164 460 992
Households
Owners
Under 30% 8% 51% 77% 70% 72% 5,840
30%+ 42% 0% 2% 6% 7% 594
35%+ 50% 49% 21% 24% 21% 1,821
Total 92 175 495 676 6,817 8,255
Households
Source: 1990 Census Bureau Data
Affordability Trends
Rental Housing
According to 1990 Census data, th~ median gross rent was over $1,000 in the City and $773 in
'Santa Clara County. In 1990, people with very low- incomes had some affordable housing
options with about'22 percent of the rental units in the City having rents below 30 percent of their
income. People with low incomes had more options than those with very low incomes, as
approximately 44 percent of all rental units were affordable to households in this category. There
were about 12 percent more rental units available to moderate and above moderate-income
households in 1990. Although 22 percent of the rental units were affordable to very low-income
households, availability still suggests a need for housing assistance among the poorest of the
community.
Table 20 provides an estimate of the number of affordable rental units at each income level. The
percentage of apartments affordable within the low- and moderate-income groups is cumulative
and includes the percentage from the previous income group. Also, households of many income
levels will often compete for housing in the same price range, so the existence of lower-cost units
does not mean that such units are actually available to lower-income households.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Affordability of Rental Housing in Relation to Income 1990
Income Group Affordable Rent Limit % of Saratoga Rentals % of County Rentals
Very Low $601 Approximately 21% 22 c~
Low $962 Approximately 42% 47%c~
Moderate $1,443 Approximately 100% Approximately 100%
Source: 1990 U.S. Bureau of Census
Current rental rates in 2000 indicate a dramatic shift in the rental units affordable to very low,
low, and moderate-income households. Households within these income categories have a
difficult time locating appropriate rental units because the less than one percent vacancy rate and
the strong market pressure have inflated rents .beyond affordability. For example, a person with
an income of $37,200 (a low-income level for a single individual) could spend up to $808 (fair
market rate for a one-bedroom apartment) a month on an apartment, which is approximately 26
percent of the individual's income. Rents currently average over $1,500 for a one-bedroom
apartment in the Santa Clara Valley (not only Saratoga) and over $2,000 for a two-bedroom
apartment. A sample of apartment complexes in the County revealed that the average one-
bedroom unit was above $1,200 per month. Existing rental availability and rental costs suggest a
strong need for housing assistance for verY low, low, and moderate income households within the
community.
For Sale Housing
A household can typically qualify to purchase a home that is 2.5 to 3.0 times its annual income,
depending on the down payment, the level of other long-term obligations (such as a car loan), and
interest rates. In practice, the interaction of these factors allows some households to qualify for
homes priced at more than three times their annual income, while other households may be
limited to purchasing homes no more than two times their annual incomes. Based on the homes
.sold in the' last year and affordability rates at 3.0 times the annual income of a four-person
household, Table 21 shows that there were no homes affordable to four-person households in the
verY low-- low- or moderate-income categories. It is important to note that subsidized housing is
not included in this housing affordability analysis.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Sold Units Affordable to Lower-Income Households (1999)
Income Group Affordability Homes Sold in Percent of All Houses
Level 1998-99 Sold
Very Low-Income $1307500 0 0%
Low-Income $208,800 0 0%
Moderate-Income $3137200 0 0%
Source: Coldwell Banker and Alain Pinel Realtors Home Prices 2000
Housing Rehabilitation and Replacement Needs
A majority of homes in the City of Saratoga were constructed between 1950 and 1979 as shown
in Table 22 below. However, there are few homes in Saratoga in substandard condition. The
recent surge in housing costs in the City has resulted in an increase in home improvement.
Because home prices are so high, even for homes that require considerable repair and
rehabilitation, only above moderate income households can afford to purchase them. These
homes are rehabilitated quickly after purchase thereby resulting in a reduction in the number of
homes in substandard condition. A more recent trend is the compete "mansionization" of smaller,
older homes in the City. Above moderate-income household can purchase these smaller homes
and still afford to completely rebuild homes to further increase their values. The housing market
supports such activities.
Based on the small, and declining number of dwelling unit in need of rehabilitation, the City
estimates that less than one percent of the housing stock in Saratoga is need of repair, and that
there are nor dwelling units deteriorated to the point of needing replacement.
The City has used federal funds to implement the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation
Program (SHARP). The program consists primarily of a home improvement loan subsidy
program for low and moderate-income homeowners to repair and bring their homes up to code
standards. The purpose is to rehabilitate deteriorating housing units and maintain a housing stock
.for iow to moderate-income households (See City Housing Programs).
In 1996, the safety Grant Program was established to aid the rehabilitation of aging homes.
Made possible by the Federal-Community Development Block Grant, this progr, am grants up to
$10,000 to qualified residents who need to make repairs to their homes but do not want to take
out a loan through the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program. Funds are
granted to correct health and safety problems within homes, such as, by covering exposed wires,
installing stair and porch railings and improving disabled access to homes.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Age of Saratoga's Housing Stock
Year Structure Total Total Occupied Renter
Built Occupied
1991-1999 676 N/A N/A
1980-1990 977 702 206
1970-1979 2,311 1,969 295
1960-1969 3,256 3,004 185
1950-1959 2,939 2,632 252
1940-1949 489 378 95
1939 or earlier 343 303 29
Total 10,315 8,988 1,069
Source: 1990 Census, and California Department of Finance, 1990-1999 City/County Population and
Housin~ Estimates.
According to the 1990 Census, all of the housing units in Saratoga are equipped with water and
sewage disposal and heating systems. However seven housing units lacked complete plumbing
facilities, and nine housing units lacked complete kitchen facilities. Tenants between 15 and 65
years of age occupied the units lacking complete plumbing.
SPECIAL NEEDS
Special housing needs arise due to physical, economic, social, or cultural characteristics or
conditions that are present in a substantial percentage of the local population.. These
characteristics or conditions distinguish individuals from the general population and lead to
· housing or supportive services need that are not (or cannot) be met by the private market acting
alone. Examples of special housing needs include accessibility for the mobility impaired,
transitional housing for those leaving a homeless environment, and housing spec!fically designed
for the physical and social needs of older adults.
Characteristics such as age or physical limitations may be present in a large portion of the
population. It is important for the community to accommodate a variety of housing types to serve
such special needs groups. For example, handicapped accessible housing or units that are
designed to aid the physical limitations of the elderly may be needed in a community with a large
populations of this age group. Conversely, a community may have a large population of large,
low-income families that need adequately sized housing at a low cost or a large number of
students attending a nearby college or university. Affordability issues are also important to
groups such as female-headed households, farm workers, or military personnel. Therefore, the
City needs to evaluate the types of special needs groups in order to address the special housing
needs. In Saratoga, the number of residents with special needs related to income status is lower
than in most communities because the community's housing stock is uniformly expensive and
consists primarily of single-family homes. There are several important special needs evaluated
below, however.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Elderly
As is the case in many well-established suburbs, the numbers and percentages of the elderly
population remain a significant part of the local population. Table 23 lists the population figures
by age of those residents over the age of 55 and over the age of 65 during a ten-year period. It
also shows that the percentage of elderly in the overall population increased. According to the
2000 Census, 16 percent of the total population was above the age of 65, an increase of over 30
percent. The percent of the population in the 55-64 age group actually declined since 1990--
most in this age group moved into the 65 year and over category.
Pattern of Aging of the Saratoga Population
1990 2000 Percent Change
Total Population 28,061 29,843 6%
Population 55 -64 3,846 (14%) 3,695 (12%) -4%
Population 65+ 3,721 (13%) 4,859 (16%) 31%
Source: 1980-1990 U.S. Censuses.
In 1990, the incidence of poverty was higher among the population over 65 years of age (three
percent) than it was for the population between the ages of 18 and 64 (one percent). The poverty
rate among seniors was still well below the countywide and statewide rates, however. One
hundred and ninety-six persons over the age of 65 received public assistance that year. In 1990,
168 homeowners age 65 and older paid 30 percent of their incomes or more on housing. This
represented 10 percent of all elderly homeowners. Approximately 50 percent (122 renters) of
elderly renters paid 30 percent or more of their income on housing. Thus, while elderly renters as
a group had a higher incidence of overpayment, more senior homeowners than renters overpaid
for housing in 1990 due to the much higher number of owner-occupied homes.
Tenure is important When analyzing the needs of seniors. The percentage of seniors living in
owner-occupied housing was 20 percent according to the 1990 Census, compared to 89 percent of
the population at large. Because of the small senior population and the many senior citizens
living on fix6d-incomes some are likely to face difficulty with the costs of major home repairs. In
combination with mobility limitations or the need for supportive services (such as medical or
meal assistance), it can become very challenging for the elderly to adequately meet their housing
needs. A more senior population living in an aged housing stock leads to a need for rehabilitation
programs for existing units, as well as the creation of affordable senior housing units.
One common special need for a portion of the elderly is for assisted living facilities that combine
meal, medical, and daily living assistance in a residential environment. There are three State
Department of Social Services licensed elderly care facilities and two that are in the process of
being licensed that provide such supportive services. Saratoga Place (capacity 25) and Saratoga
Villa Retirement Home (capacity 6) are two new facilities that have just submitted applications
for licenses. A Saratoga Home for the Elderly is licensed for six residents. Olives and Roses is
licensed for five persons and Saratoga Retirement Community offers skilled and assisted living
services with a capacity of 174 persons. Our Lady of Fatima Villa offers 85 skilled nursing beds.
There are currently 74 beds occupied. These would be made up of studio, one and two bedroom
units. There is also a two to three month waiting list for bed in this facility. One reason behind
the vacancy and the waiting list is that there is a shortage of staff.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
The Saratoga Retirement Community has three facilities owned and operated by the Independent
Order of Odd Fellows and Rebekahs of California, a non- profit fraternal organization. In 1994
the Odd Fellows Home in Saratoga was opened. The Odd Fellows Health Center has a capacity
of 68 and it is a skilled nursing facility only. The Odd Fellows Home, now called the Saratoga
Retirement Community (SRC), currently has 93 assisted living units. SRC will construct
additional assisted living and independent living duplexes and apartments. The addition will also
include a small Alzheimer's care facility. The addition will be finished by 2004. The total
number is of units added is yet to be decided, (approximately 500 assisted living units and
additional beds have been proposed). There is already is a waiting list for the facility. The
Fellowship Plaza is under contract with HUD and offers Section 8 low-income senior housing.
This facility had 150, mostly one -bedroom apartment. These apartments are always at maximum
capacity.
First Community Housing is a private developer that' builds affordable housing in San Jose and
surrounding areas. They do not have any active development projects in Saratoga but if given the
opportunity the would. They have built 436 low-income residential units, worth more than $45.8
million. Their projects include multi-unit apartments; single-family homes, rental town homes,
Single room Occupancy (SRO) units, and Senior Independent Living units. There are currently
four new projects under construction, for an additional 390 units under contract and in
predevelopment. Of the future facilities there will be 90 one-bedroom Senior Apartments, 100
town homes, 80 two and three bedroom apartments, and 100 studio apartments all located in San
Jose and Morgan Hill.
Saratoga will remain an attractive place to live for families seeking to purchase homes in Santa
Clara County. These new residents are primarily affluent young families with school-aged
children. These new residents want to purchase homes in the community but the available
housing stock is limited because many of the current homeowners are seniors who have no
alternative housing in the community once they sell their homes. As a result, many seniors delay
the decision to sell their homes, reducing turnover in the local housing market and opportunities
for new families to move to Saratoga.
The facilities listed above are primarily institutional care facilities. Many of the seniors who
might consider selling their home are younger, active seniors who do not yet require institutional,
nursing care. There is a need in the community to provide high-quality, independent living senior
housing that provides on-site nursing care and individual living units. Because many seniors
desire to "downsize" when they move, these senior housing developments will necessarily be
higher density projects with on-site supportive services. An increase in this type of available
housing for seniors makes it possible for them to sell their homes and remain in the community.
Large Families
Large families can have difficulty s~curing adequate housing because they cannot afford houses
with enough bedrooms to meet their space needs. It becomes ,even more difficult when large
families try to find adequate rentals within their budget, because rentals are typically have fewer
bedrooms than ownership housing. According to the 1990 Census there were 901 households of
five or more persons. Of the large household, 881 are large families and the remaining 10 are
non-family households. Large households occupied approximately nine percent of owner-
occupied units and 11 percent of renter-occupied units.
The median household size is currently 2.94 people per household as of January 1, 2000.
(Department of Finance 2000). At the time of the 1990 Census, the median household size was
2.76 people, with the largest number of households having only two persons (3,843 out of
10,148). The next largest group was three person households (2,070 out of 10,148) and following
closely behind was four person households (1,943 out of 10,148).
The City contains more housing units with four or more bedrooms (53 percent) than the number
of large households with the need for multi-bedroom dwelling units. There is an adequate supply
SARATOGA HOusING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
of dwelling units to meet the space needs of large families. None of these larger homes are
affordable to low- or moderate-income large families, however.
Overcrowded Households
Another indicator of housing need is the percentage of households living in overcrowded
conditions. Most housing analysts define overcrowding as 'more than one person per room,
excluding bathrooms, hallways, and service areas.
Saratoga has a relatively low incidence of overcrowding in 1990 only 146 households (one
percent) were overcrowded. Overcrowding occurred both in rental and owner-occupied housing
at about the same rate. There were 24 overcrowded rental units (2 percent of all rental units) and
122 overcrowded owner-occupied units (1 percent of all owner-occupied units).
The low percentage of large families combined with the low incidence of overcrowding indicates
that there is not a large proportion of the population living in overcrowded conditions.
Disabled Citizens
Approximately three percent of the City's non-institutionalized residents have physical conditions
that affect their abilities to live independently in conventional residential settings. These
individuals have mobility impairments, self-care limitations, or other conditions that may require
special housing accommodations or financial assistance. Individuals with such disabilities can
have a number of special needs that distinguish them from the population at large.
· Individuals with, mobility difficulties (such as those confined to wheelchairs) may require
special accommodations or modifications to their homes to allow for continued independent
living. Such modifications are often called "handicapped access."
· Individuals with self-care limitations (which can include persons with mobility difficulties)
may require residential environments that include in-home or on-site support services,
ranging from congregate to convalescent care. Support services can include medical therapy,
daily living assistance, congregate dining, and related services.
· Individuals with developmental disabilities and other physical and mental conditions that
'prevent them from functioning independently may require assisted care or group home
environments.
· Individuals with disabilities may require financial assistance to meet their housing needs
because a higher percentage are low-income than the population at large and their special
housing needs are often more costly than conventional housing.
Some people with mobility and/or self-care limitations are able to live with their families to assist
in meeting housing and daily living needs. A segment of the disabled population, particularly
low-income and retired individuals, may not have the financial capacity to pay for needed
accommodations or modifications to their homes. In addition, even those able to pay for special
housing accommodations may find them unavailable in the City.
Disabled persons often require special housing features to accommodate physical limitations.
Some disabled persons may have financial difficulty due to the cost of having their special needs
met or due to difficulty in finding appropriate employment. Although the California
Administrative Code Title 24 requires all public buildings be accessible to the public through
architectural standards such as ramps, large doors, and restroom modifications to enable handicap
access, not all available housing units have these features. According to 1990 Census data, there
were approximately 721 non-institutionalized disabled persons over age 16 in Saratoga.
According to the 1990 Census, 388 or one percent of persons between the ages of 16 and 64 had
mobility and/or self-care limitations.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Many persons with disabilities can benefit from a residential' environmental that provides
supportive services in a group setting. San Andreas Regional Center, located in San Jose is a
community-based California state-funded program designed to serve persons with a
developmental disability, as required by the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act.
The Center is a private, nonprofit corporation under contract for provision of services through the
State Department of Developmental Services. San Andreas Regional Center serves the four-
county area of Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz.
Families with Female Heads of Households
Most female-headed households are either single elderly women or single mothers. Traditionally,.
these two groups have been considered special needs groups because their incomes tend to be
lower, making it difficult to obtain affordable housing, or because they have specific physiCal
needs related to housing (such as child care or assisted living support). Single mothers, in
particular, tend to have the difficulty in obtaining suitable, affordable housing. Such households
also have a greater need for housing with convenient access to child-care facilities, public
transportation, and other public facilities and services.
Of the 10,050 households in the City, 469 are female-headed households or slightly less than five
percent of the total households in Saratoga. According to the 1990 Census, eight of the City's
female-headed households are classified as :living below the poverty .level. These eight
households account for five percent of the total 159 households below poverty in the city and less
than two percent of the total female householders. It may be assumed that most of these
households are overpaying for housing (i.e. more than 30 percent of their income), or are
experiencing other unmet housing needs. As a result of poverty, female heads of households
often spend more on immediate needs such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care,
than on home maintenance, which results in living units falling into disrepair.
Farm Workers
According to the 1990 Census, 104 persons (one percent) were employed in farming, forestry,
and fishing occupations of a total labor force of 14,437. The California Employment
Development Department includes farm workers, nursery workers, delivery truck drivers for
produce and flower, horticulturists, landscapers, tree trimmers, and lawn gardeners in this
category. Given Saratoga's location in an urban region, it is likely that few, if any, of these
"farmworkers" are employed in crop production or harvesting.
Homeless
Homelessness is caused by a number of social and economic factors, including a breakdown of
traditional social relationships, unemployment, shortage of low-income housing, and the
deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. A homeless person lacks consistent and adequate
shelter. Homeless persons can be considered resident (those remaining in an area year-round), or
transient. Emergency and transitional shelters can help to address the needs of the homeless.
Emergency shelters provide a short-term solution to homelessness and involve limited
supplemental services. In contrast, transitional shelters are designed to remove the basis for
homelessness. Shelter is provided for an extended period of time, and is combined with other
social services and counseling, to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency.
The nature of the homeless population makes exact counting difficult. The 1990 Census found no
"visible" persons living on the streets and no people in homeless shelters. However, Census
counts are not generally accepted as an accurate reflection of homelessness. Because the
homeless move around and are not always visible on the street, it is difficult to get an accurate
count of homeless persons in a community. Discussions with social service organizations and
others dealing with emergency housing and the homeless on a daily basis reveal that there are
homeless in the area. The Police Department does not track the number of homeless in Saratoga,
however, nor do other social service organizations.
Agencies Offering Homeless Assistonce
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
The City offers one homeless shelter program at the Church of Ascension and Congregation. The
Church participates in a rotating shelter program that provides housing for 12 to 15 men for 1
month a year. There are also organizations in surrounding cities that serve the needs Saratoga
residents. Although these services are not intended specifically for homeless individuals and
families, homeless persons often avail themselves of food and clothing closets that help the poor.
There are a number public service organization and agencies in the County of Santa Clara that
offer shelter, counseling, or other services for the homeless, abused, or elderly.
Emergency Housing Consortium of Santa Clara Cout~ty
Their most successful program is the Transitional Housing Program (THP). This program enables
a person to obtain a job and work and eventually achieve independence in a conventional housing
environment. Under THP, a person with-a job is entitled to a cubical with a bed for $200 per
month for up to 3 months. Another program, The Working Man's Program, grants individuals
who are employed a bed for up to 30 days while they seek permanent housing.
Other Consortium programs include the New Start Program, which helps homeless individuals
obtain employment, and the Waste Management Program, which gives people a job with the
Waste Management Department for the City of San Jose. Under these programs, participating
individuals are guaranteed beds at a cost of one-third of their paychecks, with the potential to
move into transitional housing. Currently the single person capacity is 125 for the spring and
summer season. During the winter, the capacity can increase to 250 to 300 beds, including floor
mats. There are also rooms available for families that have sufficient income to qualify.
Lastly the Consortium offers a Volunteer program through its facility, which in return guarantees
a room for 30 days. The Emergency Housing Consortium has shelters and programs located in
Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose, San Martin and Gilroy.
San Jose Fam#y Shelter
This facility provides overnight rooms and meals for families with children for stays of up to
three months. The Program can accommodate 35 families (143 people). There are currently have
33 families occupying 35 rooms. Two of the families are especially large and require tWo rooms
'each. A case manager helps-each family with its individual circumstances.
County Housing Programs
The Santa Clara County Community Development Commission/Housing Authority administers
the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program (HAPP). This program links landlords with
tenants eligible for rental assistance. HAPP guarantees landlords fair market rent while providing
subsidies for tenants in rental properties. HAPP tenants are those elderly, handicapped, or low-
income families needing help to secure decent housing. Saratoga is participating in this program
that encourages landlords to accept Section 8 vouchers and certificates, and will be on the list of
cities in the rent subsidy program. There are three families who use the Section 8 program, two
of which have disabled heads of households. Due to limited budgets, there are currently 47
people on the Section 8 waiting list, of whom 20 are disabled (Housing Authority of Santa Clara
County April 13, 2000).
Fair market rents for the Santa Clara County area in fiscal year 2000 are provided in Table 24
below. For the 40~ percentile fair market rents for manufactured home spaces in the Section 8
Choice Housing Program, space rents in Santa Clara County are listed at $808 for fiscal year
2000 (Federal Register, February 2000).
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Fair Market Rents for Existing Housing in Santa Clara County
Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom Three BedrOom Four Bedroom
$808 $922 $I;139 $1,561 $1,753
Source: Federal ReFister. HUD. February, 2001
The County has four Federal Grant Programs to assist eligible persons seeking permanent.
transitional, or emergency housing-related services.
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)
Provides funding to nonprofit agencies to enable them to offer housing and housing-related
services to eligible lower-income persons including seniors, persons with disabilities, and the
homeless and battered spouses. Provides funding for acquisitions, construction, or rehabilitation
of affordable housing to lower-income persons. Each of the Urban County cities develops their
own CDBG program. Each city has a housing rehabilitation program offering low-interest loans
or grants for home repair to qualified Urban County residents. Individual initiative and the use of
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) have helped. In previous years the CDBG
program has been used to assist with home improvement for applicants that meet the income
guidelines.
Home Program (Home Investment Partnership Act)
Provides loans and grants to nonprofit organizations to assist with financing to develop
permanently affordable housing through acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation.
Emergency Shelter Grant Program (ESG)
Provides grants to nonprofit organizations operating existing homeless shelters for rehabilitation
of the facility, maintenance and operations, essential supportive services and prevention of
homelessness.
Shelter Plus Care (S+C)
Provides a 5-year rent subsidy to homeless/disabled individuals and their families to assist them
in securing permanent affordable rental housing. Applicants must be currently homeless and must
be diagnosed with one of the following disabilities: mental illness, HIV/AiDS, and a drug and/or
alcohol dependency. In addition to rent subsidy, the program also arranges for various treatment
services and case management. S+C clients are required to pay 30% of their monthly income
toward rent and S+C pays the balance.
City Housing Programs
Table 25 is a list of projects and programs that were recommended by the Saratoga City Council
for allocation of funds for the 2000/01 funding cycle. The City Council of Saratoga approved the
budget on April 4, 2001.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
City of Saratoga Human Services and CDBG Proposals
' Agency Type Project Amount Amount
Requested Recommended
SASCC Human Services Senior Day Car $36,667.00 $36,667.00
Program
Project Match CDB G Rent Subsidy $19,500.00 $19,500.00
Blauer Ave. Senior
Home.'
Bridge Housing CDBG Cupertino $37,707.00 $37,707.00
Community
Services
Apartments"
City of Saratoga CDBG ADA Project for $50,000.00 $50,000.00
Hakone Gardens
City of Saratoga CDBG County $20,000.00 $20,000.00
Rehabilitation
Services~
City of Saratoga Administration Project $15,000.00 $15,000.00
Administration
Total $178,874.00 $178,874.00
Source: Cit}, of Saratoga 2001.
Will provide shard residential housing to approximately six low-income seniors at a time.
Will provide 24 affordable apartment units for individuals and families who currently live in Saratoga, Cupertino and
other Santa Clara County cities whose household incomes are at or below 60 percent and 50 percent of the
median, as defined by HUD.
Each participating City utilizing the services of the County's Housing Rehabilitation Specialist is required to pay
$15,000 for its annual CDBG grant to cover these costs. These services include site inspection, estimates, work
write-ups, the job bidding and award processes, and project supervision and compliance oversight.
The purpose of the City's Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP) is
to further the goal of providing a decent home and a suitable living environment to all citizens in
Saratoga. The SHARP provides Zero Interest Partially Deferred Payment and Below Market
Rate Interest Loans to eligible homeowners citywide, with special emphasis in designated
Community Development areas targeted for housing rehabilitation and related capital
improvement projects. It brings existing dwelling units to local housing standards for decent,
safe and sanitary living conditions. There are currently 22 outstanding SHARP loans with an
ending balance of $439,243.
ASSISTED HOUSING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS
Assisted housing projects and programs in the City can alleviate the financial hardships low-
income households may face. Assisted housing projects are those that offer financial aid or
provide extra services for people in need of financial or basic living assistance. There are a
variety of programs, each focusing on a specific need or with a specific goal to eliminate unmet
housing needs in the community. Three multi-family complexes in the City participate in HUD's
Section 8 program (in which Federal funds are used to close the gap between the fair market rent
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
and what lower income households can afford to pay) with 177 units in the program. The
Fellowship Plaza has 150 Section 8 units, it is owned and operated by the nonprofit agency Odd
Fellow who is dedicated to being a non-profit organization; therefore the 150 units at the
Fellowship Plaza are in low risk of being converted. Saratoga Court (both the project and owner
name) has 20 Section 8 units and their Section 8 contract was renewed in September of 2000 with
plans to continue renewing on a yearly basis. Laura Ville Apartment has seven units in Section 8
contracts for seniors only.
Based' on the costs of land, permits, development, and construction (see Non-Governmental
Constraints Section), the minimum estimated cost per unit to replace 177 affordable rental units
in Saratoga would be $250,000 per dwelling unit, or $44.25 million. There are no comparable
multifamily properties in the City, but based on .an Intemet search (LoopNet®) of seven
multifamily properties for sale in surrounding communities, the cost of.acquiring 177 rental units
is estimated to be $200,000 per dwelling unit, or $35.4 million.
The City also has two other affordable housing programs. Tri-Aegis offers a residential care
home for developmentally disabled adults. There are six rooms funded by Title
22/Private/Grants. Project Match offers affordable housing for seniors using CDBG guidelines.
There are currently 5 rooms shared in residential homes. No developers in the City have taken
advantage of density bonus programs.
Units Eligible for Conversion
In 1989, the California Government Code was amended to include a requirement that localities
identify and develop a program in their housing elements for the preservation of assisted,
affordable multi-family units. Subsequent. amendments have clarified the scope of the analysis to
also include units developed pursuant to inclusionary housing and density bonus programs. In the
preservation analysis, localities are required to provide an inventory of assisted, affordable units
that are eligible to convert within ten years. As part of the analysis, an estimation of the cost of
preserving versus replacing the units is to be included, as well as programs designed to preserve
the affordable units.
The California Housing Partnership Corporation provides an inventory of federally subsidized
rental units at risk of conversion. The 1999 update, which identifies units at risk through the year
2020, identifies two HUD-assisted multi-family housing developments with Section 8 contracts
in the Saratoga. The Section 8 contract expired for these two developments in 1999 and one was
identified as high risk for conversion according to the 1999 update.
RESOURCES AND POTENTIAL GROWTH AREAS
Development Patterns and Phiiosophy
In 1956, the City of Saratoga incorporated as a minimum service community comprised primarily
of low intensity residential uses with a minimum of commercial-industrial development. This
growth philosophy has continued to be important in guiding the City's future, and there is a desire
to maintain and preserve the community created by this philosophy. However, as land has
becomes scarce, the pressure to increase housing density rises. The majority of development
opportunities are on infill sites and hillside areas, the latter of which can are quite expensive to
develop.
VACANT LAND
There are approximately 956.41 acres of vacant undeveloped land available, primarily located on
hillsides. The remaining infill sites could be redeveloped with single-family or high-density
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
residential uses. These lands are broken .down in the following tables by current land use and
zoning.
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
There are six land use designations in the General Plan. The first four designations allow single-
family dwellings. The fifth designation allows single-family and multi-family dwellings. The
sixth allows single-family and multi-family dwellings if the site is designated P-D residential and
allows flexibility in terms of density and development. The six land-use designations and the
implementing zoning districts are described below:
Hillside Conservation Single-Family
Hillside Conservation Single-Family corresponds to the R-I, HR, P-C, R-M, R-OS and MU-PD
zones. The maximum density in this designation is 0.5 dwelling units (DU) per net acre. or 1.55
people per acre. The maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage is 15,000
square feet or 25% of the site area, whichever is less.
Very Low Density Single Family
Very Low Density Single Family corresponds to R-I, HR, P-C, R-M, R-OS and MU-PD zoning.
The maximum density allowed in these areas is 1.09 DU/net acre or 3.38 people per acre. The
maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage is 35% of the site area.
Low Density Single, Family
Low Density Single Family corresponds to the R-I, HR, P-C; R-M, R-OS and MU-PD zones.
Development densities of 2.18 DU/net acre are permitted these areas. The maximum intensity of
building and impervious surface coverage is 45% of the site area.
Medium Density Single Family
In the M-1 zone, the Medium Density Single Family designation densities range from 2.90
DU/net acre to 4.35 DU/net acre or from 9.0 people/acre to 13.5 people/acre. The maximum
intensity of building and impervious surface coverage within the M-1 zone ranges'from 50
· percent - 60 percent of.the site area.
Multi-Family Residential
Multi-Family designation falls into the P-C, R-M and MU-PD zones. The density of this
designation is 14.5 DU/net acre or 27-45 people/acre. The intensity of building coverage is 40%
of the site area.
P-D (Planned Development) Residential
This designation corresponds to the P-C and MU-PD zones. Densities within these sites are 4.35
to 12.45DU/acre or 13.5 to 38.6 people/acre. The maximum intensity of building coverage is 25
percent to 35 percent of the site area. All projects proposed on sites with this designation require
use permit approval.
P-D (Planned Development) Mixed
The General Plan also has allowable residential development within the broad commercial
category. The P-D (Planned Development). Mixed commercial subcategory allows a mix of
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
residential and commercial uses under certain design criteria. This designation corresponds to the
P-A, C-N, C-V, and C-H zones.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Vacant Lands in Saratoga by Zoning District 2001
Zone Acres I Maximum Potential Dwelling
Ullit; Under Current Zonina*
Residential
Hillside Residential 565.21 270
R- 1-40,000 106.60 85
R-I-20,000 7.11 14
R- 1-15,000 1.00 3
R-1-12,500 2.37 7
R-l-10,000 6.18 21
R-M-5,000 Planned Community 0.00 0
R-M-4,000 Planned Community 5.11 30
R-M-3,000 Planned Community 0.68 8
Commercial
Professional/Administrative 2.43 42
C-N .36 5
C-V 0.00 0
C-C 1.21 17
C-H** 0.19 5
Open Space
Residential Open Space 18.64 2
Land Under Williamson Act Contract 220.93*** N/A
Agriculture 17.39 5
Total ' 956.41 ' 514
Vacant Land by Parcel Size
Parcel Size Total # of'
Parcels
< ~A acre ~A - V: ac. 1/2 - 1 acre 1 acre +
Hillside Residential 4 4 6 52 66
Single-Family 59 20 23 34 136
Mutlifamily 8 1 I 2 12
Commercial 6 2 1 0 9
Source: Cit~ of Sarato~za 2001
**Before density bonuses for very low- or low-income units; assumes that one dwelling unit will be permitted on non-
conforming lots that are less than the minimum required lot size.
**Residences are allowed in the rear and second story of commercial useswthere is one, small vacant parcel in this
commercial category. The estimated number of dwelling units assumes a two-story commercial structure meeting
all applicable zoning requirements.
*** 114.99 of these acres is under an expired contract and will be available for non-agricultural use between 2008-
2015.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The City allows multifamily residential use in its commercial districts through a conditional use
permit process. Approximately 5.19 acres of these the commercial lands are vacant. These lands
can be further developed to medium/high densities to accommodate affordable housing.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
The City has used federal funds to implement the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation
Program (SHARP). The program consists primarily of a home improvement loan subsidy
program for low and moderate-income homeowners to repair and bring their homes up to code
standards. The purpose is to rehabilitate deteriorating housing units and maintain a housing stock
for low to moderate-income households. By 1990, 50 units had been rehabilitated by the
program.
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT HOUSING STOCK
In 1987, the city identified 105 historic buildings and properties within Saratoga, however four
had been demolished by 1996. In order to be listed on the inventory, a building must meet one of
seven criteria established by the City's Heritage Preservation Commission. The criteria are based
on the architecture, prominence in the city and historic significance of the site. The Commission
has been established and is defined as follows:
The Heritage Prese~ation Commission functions as a liaison working in conjunction with the
Council, the Planning Commission, and the agencies and departments of the City to implement
the City's Heritage Preservation Ordinance. This includes conducting surveys of properties within
the boundaries of the City of Saratoga for the purpose of establishing an official inventory of
heritage resources and recommending to the City council specific proposals for designation as a
historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district. Currently, there are 108 buildings on the
City's Heritage Resources Inventory list. The Saratoga Historical Foundation nominates one
member and at least one must be trained and experienced in the field of construction and
structural rehabilitation, such as a licensed architect, engineer, contractor or urban planner. The
City is also a Certified Local Government as defined by the State Office of Historic Preservation
for the purpose of implementing historic preservation requirements.
While there are many historic buildings in Saratoga, the city lacks authority to protect the
buildings without buying them. Many owners of historic houses have renovated them, however
many cannot afford to do so. If an owner cannot afford or does not wish to renovate, the current
Heritage Preservation Ordinance allows demolition of a historic building after a 30-day notice
period. The costs related with restoring housing can be exorbitant primarily because once a
property owner adds to an old building, the entire building must be brought up to current building
codes. This may be too much for owners and they may opt to demolish the house instead. The
Heritage Preservation Ordinance requires a permit for architectural changes, additions or
demolition of a designated landmark.
AVAILABLE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE
Most of the vacant land is located in hillside areas. These areas tend to be further away from
urban services, have limited access, and have geologic and other environmental constraints on
development. New sewer and storm drainage systems are required for development in the
hillsides. Control of the runoff is critical to protect water quality and prevent erosion and
flooding.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
There are some remaining small isolated vacant parcels that are scattered throughout the City
surrounded by existing development anti,Id be classified as infill. Providing services to areas
that are not currently being service woul~Srelatively easy since they are close to existing utility
systems and would require only minimal extension of such systems. Police and fire protection
and access to the schools are easier for these parcels than hillside areas since the travel distances
is significantly less. These infill parcels are also better served by public transportation because
many of them are within walking distance of an existing bus route.
CONSTRAINTS
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Availability of Financing
The City has not uncovered any local constraints to the availability or cost of financing for home
purchases or rehabilitation that differ significantly from the availability and cost of financing
generally in California. Even in older neighborhoods of the City, there are no barriers to
obtaining financing for home purchase, improvement, or construction (other than customary
underwriting considerations by lenders). Because virtually all homeowners and homebuyers in
Saratoga have moderate or higher incomes, there are few barriers to obtaining financing relating
to income--the primary consideration is whether the housing price or home improvement cost is
consistent with the borrower's ability to make monthly loan payments.
Rental Availability
Rental availability in Saratoga is extremely low with a vacancy rate of less than one percent. The
low vacancy rates means that there are limited housing choices for residents who cannot afford to
purchase a home in Saratoga. A five percent rental vacancy rate is considered necessary to
permit ordinary rental mobility. With less than one percent vacancy rate tenants have difficulty
locating appropriate units and the strong market pressure has inflated rents beyond the reach of
the very low, low, and moderate income Saratoga residents.
Land Costs
Land costs are a major factor in the cost to build in Saratoga. According to the California
Association of Realtors, housing prices have been rising in the area, nearly five percent between
December 1999 and December 1998. This increase also includes vacant land, which is very
scarce in the City. A search of LoopNet® Internet land-for-sale records between September 2000
and June 2001 uncovered no vacant residential properties for sale in Saratoga. A wider search of
vacant residential properties, and properties with residential potential, within a five miles of
Saratoga revealed the following results:
9. Single family residential lots, hillside: $230,000 to $1 million per lot
10. Single family residential lots, non-hillside: $200,000 to $850,000 per lot
11. Multifamily, medium density: $175,000 to $250,000 per dwelling unit
12. Commercial properties with residential potential: $1.7 - $3.5 million per acre ($70,000 to
$290,000 per dwelling unit, depending on assumptions about density)
13.
Given these extremely high land costs, it is unlikely that increases in density (such as a 25%
density bonus) would significantly reduce the unit cost of building a dwelling unit to the level of
affordability for low- or moderate-income households. Densities of 40 units or more per acre,
combined with greatly reduced dwelling unit sizes, would be necessary to construct affordable
housing to moderate- and some low-income households without significant public subsidies.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Construction and Labor Costs
The most significant constraint on development of new housing in Saratoga is the overall cost of
housing, including land costs and construction costs. Many factors can affect the cost to build a
house, including the type of construction, materials, site conditions, finishing details, amenities.
and structural configuration. Development costs were developed from estimates provided by
Allen Lambert of Morse Enterprises in Saratoga and Chuck Bommarito, Pinn Brothers
Construction.
Permitting costs in Saratoga are about $30,000 for an average size home. The total includes
permitting costs and school fees.
Once a vacant parcel is purchased, the contractor has to make certain site improvements to
prepare for building on the property. Such improvements include connections to existing utility
systems, rough grading, plus installation of water, and sewer lines. This type of work generally
costs between $40,000 to $70,000 depending on the amount of work required at each location.
Materials and labor have a wide range of costs depending on the type of materials used for
construction. Typically more expensive materials are used for custom homes, which ranged from
$140 to $200 per square foot. An average quality.construction single-family home generally
costs less because the materials are less expensive and easier to handle. These material and labor
costs for these homes cost around $65 per square foot.
In addition to site improvement costs and the cost for building materials, there are engineering
and architecture soft costs, which can range from $10,000 and $70,000 per lot. Additional costs
including trash and temporary fencing average about $5,000 per lot.
At the costs listed above,.none of the very low, low, or moderate-income households in Saratoga
can afford to build a home in .the area. The scarcity of easily developed land, combined with the-
great demand, indicates that housing construction costs are likely to remain high in the future.
Saratoga will continue to follow the trend that is occurring throughout the Bay Area and the
Silicon Valley.
Available Senior Housing
There is a lack of available housing for younger seniors who might otherwise sell their family
homes to relocate into smaller homes with less maintenance requirements. There are a number of
facilities in the City that offer institutionalized care however many of these facilities have
extensive waiting lists. There are very few facilities that offer independent living for seniors and
the ones currently available have waiting lists and often have long application processes. These
processes can often take more than a year to complete. As a result, many seniors are opting to
remain in their homes and are choosing to retain their homes rather than relocate.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Hillside Development
Since most undeveloped land in the City is located in the hillside areas, development of these
areas carries environmental and f'mancial risks and constraints. Due to environmental constraints,
particularly unstable soils, topography, and the ability of hillside areas to accommodate septic
systems, development densities are limited to single family homes on large lots. There are
currently 565.21 vacant acres of land in the hillside areas.
Maintaining Public Open Space
The City is dedicated to the preservation of its open space. Open space is a valuable resource as
it discourages noncontiguous development patterns that result in sprawl and inefficient use of
community service funds. Open space also maintains the natural character of the area so that
urbanization does not become out of control and cities do not lose their natural resources. Open
spaces are beneficial to the responsible growth of cities and offer many environmental,
recreational, and psychological benef'~ts to the community. The City's existing open space lands
are diverse in scale, use, and level of improvement. While most of the open space in the hillside is
characterized by undeveloped and undisturbed, the typical open space in the foothills and valley
are landscaped and designed.
Seismic Safety
Like most other areas of the state, Saratoga is located on a number of active fault lines. Most
notably, the San Andreas fault. Other faults include Berrocalm the Monta Vista/Shannon, and the
Sargent faults. Therefore, development of the hillside and other open space areas, which are most
susceptible to ground failure and landslide during earthquake activity, should be limited to low
occupancy to avoid potential disasters.
Development Costs
Since little to no improvements have been made on hillside properties, development of
infrastructure would add to the cost of development. Parcels would need to be graded and utility
and road extensions would need to occur. Due to seismic risks, further provisions for earthquake
safety would need to be imposed including building design safety standards. These costs would
create a large burden on the City and developers to such a degree that the City does not provide
incentives for hillside or any other type of development of low- and moderate-income housing.
Land Use Controls
Historically, Saratoga has been a large lot single-family home community.' The basis of the
community's identity has been low-density residential neighborhoods that maintain a semi-rural
feel to the City. Commercial development has been limited primarily to retail and services
needed by the local population, although the historic downtown business district does attract
visitors from outside the City. The preservation of heritage orchards, hillside and other open
spaces, and active agricultural lands have been integral to maintaining this community vision.
The City's land use policies have worked well in past decades when plenty of open space and
developable land was available in other parts of Santa Clara County to meet the needs of a
growing, and diverse, population. Over the past 20 years, however, vacant land has become
increasingly scarce, except in the southern part of the County, while countywide employment
growth and redevelopment in many developed communities have created large demands for
additional housing. Over the past decade, in particular, Saratoga has been greatly affected by the
extreme increase in housing costs that have accompanied the shortage of housing.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Saratoga and other Santa Clara County communities are required by state law to plan for. and
accommodate, additional housing at a variety densities to meet a fair share of the additional
housing needs of all income segments under a regional housing allocation plan (Regional
Housing Needs Determination, or "RI-IN-D") prepared by ABAG. Under the RHND, the City
must accommodate 111 additional dwelling units at densities suitable for the development of
housing for very low- and low-income households, and 108'additional dwelling units at densities
suitable for moderate-income households.
As .shown in Table 26, the City can accommodate up to 515 dwelling units on vacant residential
land and commercial properties that permit residences, about 96% of its total RHND allocation of
539 dwelling units. The City could also approve up to 20 second units per year (more if the City
Council waives the annual limit on second unit permits), or 100 second units in the five
remaining years of the current RHND allocation period. In addition, approximately 50 single-
family homes have been constructed or approved by permit since January 1, 1999. Other ways in
which the City could accommodate additional housing include the construction of dwelling units
over or behind existing ground-level commercial uses in the historic downtown area and approval
of additional dwelling units in the Saratoga Retirement Community (Odd Fellows).
In combination with development potential on vacant land, the City can meet its total RHND
allocation.
The City's current zoning policies and land use patterns will make it difficult to accommodate
City's share of regional housing needs for very low- low-, and some moderate-income households
under ABAG's Plan for several reasons:
There is very little vacant land left in the City zoned for residential use, or that could be
rezoned for residential use to accommodate higher densities needed for low- and moderate-
income housing. Nearly two-thirds of vacant, non-hillside residential parcels are less than V2
acre, and almost half are less than ~,~ acre.
Maximum residential densities in the CitY's residential zones (excluding hillside zones) range
from one dwelling unit per acre to 14.5 dwelling units per acre. Current zoning would not
permit the kinds of densities that could make the production of affordable housing feasible to
low-income, and even some moderate-income households.
Residential uses, although permitted in commercial zones, are limited to the same maximum
densities as in multifamily zones and are subject to conditional use permit. The allowed
density is determined on a case-by-case basis.
4. Re-use potential in Saratoga i~ limited as there are few sites containing older, substandard
land uses that could recycle to higher density residential uses.
The City's potential to accommodate housing affordable to low- and moderate-income
households could be increased through higher densities of vacant sites along arterial roads (such
as Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road), higher densities for housing in commercial
zones, incentives to construct housing in commercial zones (including dwelling units over or
behind ground-level commercial structures in the historic downtown district), and a negotiated
inclusionary requirement on new housing construction at the Saratoga Retirement Community.
Residential uses are permitted in residential zones as shown in the table below. However,
conversion of commercial uses in commercial zones to residential uses is permitted with the
approval of a conditional use permit. The Zoning Ordinance does allow the construction of new
residential units in all commercial zones with a Use Permit. Single family dwelling are permitted
uses in residential zones and in Agriculture, Planned Community, Multiple Use Planned
Development, and Commercial districts; however, multi-family dwellings are either permitted or
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
conditional uses in Planned Community, Multi-Family Residential, Multiple Use Planned
Development, and Commercial districts.
Single Family Residential
The majority of land in Saratoga is zoned R-l, which only 'allOws one unit per lots of at least
10,000 square feet, or just over one-fifth of an acre. In addition there are setbacks, yard sizes and
height restrictions that guide development on these parcels. These restrictions and the limitations
cater to households with moderate incomes and above.
There are parcels in Saratoga that are underdeveloped and could be subdivided to achieve
maximum density as allowed by the zoning provisions. However, a sewer permit is needed for
each parcel that was formerly one parcel, causing additional fees and constraints to development.
Upon recordation of a final subdivision or parcel map covering any site, no lots or parcels shown
on the map may be further subdivided to increase the total density.
Hillside Residential and Residential Open Space Districts
As with most other hillside communities, Saratoga has specific guidelines and standards for
hillside development to preserve the character of the hillside and protect .residents and the
environment. The Hillside Residential District (HR) and the Residential Open Space (R-OS)
both strive to maintain the natural environment and existing rural character of hillsides while
encouraging development on gently sloping sites that have natural screening features rather than
on steep, visually exposed sites.
The development stax~dards are very specific in this district. Low Density residential housing is
allowed; however a site development plan must be prepared and approved by the advisory
agency. Existing vegetation and land formations must be retained as much as possible and plans
for erosion and sediment control must be in place, consistent with City ordinances. Grading shall
be conducted along the natural contours as much as reasonably practical and shall be designed to
avoid erosion, flooding, slides and other hazards.
In addition to the site development plan, a geologic and soils report must be prepared. Additional
studies may be required unless the City Geologist determines that existing information is
adequate. The location of the structure is limited by the maximum site coverage of 25% and the
slope percentage. Because of the strict regulations involving hillside development,, it is not
feasible for affordable housing:
Planned CommUnity
The P-C designated land designed for a common open space development or for persons desiring
smaller residences or dwelling units than is economically feasible under existing zoning districts,
and which combines a number of uses in order to develop a living environment that conforms to
the General Plan. Single-family or multi-family dwellings are permitted. The constraints may be
the lack of available land in this zoning designation.
Second Units
Some of the City's affordable housing needs can be met through the construction of second units,
which are permitted in all single-family zones on lot sizes on 12,500 square feet or more. Most
of the City's single-family lots meet this minimum requirement. Other requirements for second
units are:
· The minimum lot size for properties with second units is 1.6 times that otherwise needed in
the applicable zones if the second unit is detached.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Occupancy of either the second unit or the principal residence is limited to a person sixty
years of age or more or an individual with a physical handicap. This requirement§'~may be
waived by conditional use permit if the property owner can show that extreme hardship will
result from the application of this requirement.
The total number of second units that may be approved per year is 20, of which no more than
five per year may be located in the R-10,000 zone, although the City Council may increase or
decrease this number based on a periodic review of the impacts of second units on the
community.
Second units may be approved for a limited duration, with or without the right to apply for an
extension. Property owners with approved second units must certify every five years that the
units continue to comply with all applicable zoning and conditional use permit requirements.
Although Saratoga's second unit permit requirements allow such units to be constructed in most
of the City, the restrictions on lot size for detached units, occupancy, the number of annual
permits, and renewal/re-certification could serve as disincentives for many property owners to use
this housing option.
Homeless Facilities and Transitional Housing
The Saratoga Zoning Code does not expressly allow or prohibit homeless shelters, homeless
supportive service facilities, and/or transitional housing. Institutional, religious, charitable, and
public facilities are permitted by conditional use in multifamily and commercial zones.
Depending on the operator and nature of the services provided, it is possible that a homeless or
transitional housing facility could fall under the Zoning Code definition of institutional, religious,
charitable, or public facility. Because the City does not have a significant internal homeless
problem, there has never been a request to operate a homeless shelter, supportive service facility,
or transitional housing facility in the City. However, state law (Section 65583[c][1] of the
California Government Code) requires that the Housing Element:
identify 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, including...emergency shelters and transitional
.housingin order to meet the community's housing goals.
Clarification in the Zoning Code of where such uses would be permitted, if requested, would help
the City show compliance with this section of state law.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Saratoga Zoning Code Requirements with Allowable Residential Development
Developme R-1 HR P-C R-M R-OS MU-PD P-A Agriculture Commerci
nt al
Component
S
Lot Area - 10,000 to 2-10 acres lot size can 3,000 to minimum is 25 acres 12,000 sq. ft C-N: 10,000
Minimum 48,0002 depending vary 5,000 20 to 180 gross with C-V: 10,000
(sq/ft) on the minimum subdivision,
minimum per dwelling consistent CH- 1:5,000
slope, unit with CH-2:7,500
surrounding
Zoning
District.
Lot 35%-60% 25% or Can vary but 40% 25% or 60% 30% 25% or C-N 60%
Coverage - 15,000 ft~ guidelines 12,000 ft2 15,000 ft~ C-V 60%
Maximum which ever is refer to R-1
greater and RM CH- l 80%
standards CH-2 60%
Maximum 26 feet 26-feet 26 to 30 ft. 30 feet 22-26 feet 30 feet 30 feet. 26 feet C-N 20 feet
Height - C-V 20 feet
Structure (ft)
CH- ! 35 feet
· ' Ctt-2 26 feet
Parking Two 2 covered Can vary One covered 2 covered Can use R- ! One space 2 within Varies by
Requirement covered spaces space within within a or RM per 200 sq. 'garage use from l
s spaces within a a garage and garage standard ft. of gross per 75 sq. ft.
63
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMI::I'
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Developme R-1 HR P-C R-M R-OS MU-PD P-A Agriculture Commerci
nt al
Component
s
within a garage one and a floor area to I per 500
garage, half sq. ft.
additional
spaces on
site for each
dwelling unit
Allowable two two Two two two two two two
Stories
Unils/Aere 1.09 to 2.9 0.5 units/per ' 12.45 14.5 0 to 0.5 Single 10.89 Refers to 14.5
units/acre acre units/acre units/acre units/acre Family - units/acre surrounding units/acre
10,000 zoning
ft:/unit
Multi Family
7,000 ft2/unit
Senior
Housing 20
units/acre
Single Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Not Permitted C-N: multi-
Family Use Use Use Use Use Use Permitted Use family only
Dwellings C-V: multi-
family only
CH: single
and multi
family above
and behind
retail with a
CUP.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Developme R-1 HR P-C R-M R-OS MU-PD P-A Agriculture Commerci
nt al
Component
$
Second Conditional Conditional Not Depends Not Not N/A Conditional Not
Residential Use Use Permitted upon density permitted permitted Use permitted
Units
Apartments Not Not Permitted Permitted Not Permitted Conditional Not C-H District
/Multifamily permitted permitted Use Use Permitted Use · Use Permitted Permitted
Units Use
C-N and C-V
Conditional
Use
Guest Permitted Permitted Not Not Not Not feasible N/A Permitted Permitted
Houses Use Use Permitted Permitted Permitted with
approved
residential
Institutional Conditional Conditional Conditional Conditional Not Some Requires a Conditional Permitted
Facilities Use Use Use Use permitted CUP Use
Nursing Conditional Conditional Conditional Conditional Not Permitted Requires Conditional Permitted
Homes/Day Usc Usc Use Use Permitted Usc CUP Use
Care
Clustering Permitted Permitted N/A N/A Permitted N/A N/A N/A N/A
Lots
Saratoga General Plan
65
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Measure G
On March 26, 1996, the voters of the City of Saratoga approved a measure (Measure G) to
change the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to require that certain amendments
to said Land Use Element may only be made by a voter of the people, and on April 23, 1996, the
City Council did certify the results of the March 26, 1996,' election and adopted a resolution
incorporating the Measure G amendments in the Land Use Element. These land use policies were
set forth to protect the character of Saratoga's residential neighborhoods, including the following:
'LU.8.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single-
family detached residences.
LU.8.1 Existing non-developed sites zoned single-family detached residential should
remain so designated.
This initiative provides assurance by giving greater stability to the City's General Plan. to protect
the residential and recreational open space areas in the City. The initiative requires, with certain
exceptions, a vote of the people to permit: (1) the redesignation of residential lands to
commercial, industrial or other land use designations, (2) an increase of densities or intensities of
residential land use, or (3) the redesignation of recreational open space lands to other land use
designation. This initiative does not affect the City's existing regulations that authorize the
creation of second dwelling units. Nor does the initiative interfere with the City's obligation
under state law to revise the Housing Element of the General Plan every five years.
Infrastructure and Roads/Traffic
Since the City and most of its-developments are quite old, infrastructure, including streets,
sewers, storm drains, and water lines, are quickly aging and in need of repair. To offset the cost
of installation and repair, new developments are required to provide on-site infrastructure and pay
an impact fee for these facilities. There are no physical infrastructure limitations on the City's
ability to accommodate affordable housing, nor are there infrastructure or public service
constraints on remaining sites potentially suitable for affordable housing. The City cannot
presently serve hillside sites above the current limits of development without extending roads,
water, and sewer lines.
Thei'e is a concern that higher densities or intensities of residential development will strain the
planned capacity of city streets. The General Plan EIR states that: "Traffic impacts are significant
primarily in a regional sense since Saratoga will be contributing to the traffic congestion of the
region but it may also be Significant to specific neighborhoods." In addition to potential impacts
on State Highways, citizens are concerned about the traffic levels on other arterial streets in the
city. Additional development along some of the more congested roadways should be carefully
examined for potential significant traffic impacts. Potential aesthetic and noise impacts will also
have.to be carefully considered.
Neighborhood Character
Allowing higher densities on infill parcels may create incompatible uses when they are
substantially surrounded by low single-family development. There is a strong desire by residents
to maintain low housing densities to retain the neighborhood character. One of the major reasons
Saratoga incorporated in 1956 was to preserve its low-density character.
Building and Fire Codes
Fire sprinklers are required by the City in all residential garage structures, which increases the
cost of housing construction. The City also requires Class A roofing for all new roofs. Class A is
the highest standard for fire retardant roofing and is the most effective against sever fire exposure.
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
Roofing materials that meet Class A requirements are also among the most expensive and can add
significantly to the cost of an affordable housing development.
Enforcement
The City has an active enforcement program, with two code enforcement officers. The City's
main code enforcement problems range from vehicle storage within the front yard set backs to
garbage complaints. They have encountered very few illegal second units in the City but as
housing prices rise this might become a problem. About one percent of the housing is in need of
rehabilitation. This one percent is located in an older section of town where people are starting to
buy these houses and remodel them; so this problem is quickly ending.
Processing and Permit Procedures
The City's permitting procedures are not a barrier to housing development as requests for single-
family homes and multi-family projects are processed within the time limits set forth by AB-884,
CEQA, and the Subdivision Map Act. According to the Planning Department, Plan Checking
takes 3 to 4 weeks to receive a permit. Design Reviews and Use Permits take three months to
process Two months for a public heating, and 1 month to get a zone clearance and building plan
check.
The City has a design review procedure for residential developments. The parking requirements
have not been an impediment to housing development. Single-family dwelling units currently
require two covered spaces, excluding a covered parking space for a second unit. Second units
require one covered space within a garage. Multi-family units require one covered space, or a
garage for each dwelling. Parking requirements are not considered excessive in comparison to
those of similar corm~n, unities.
Fees and Exactions
Direct Development costs due to governmental processes include permit and application fees,
park and recreation fees, improvement bonds, public works improvement fees, and environmental
review fees. The fees charged in Saratoga are comparable to the fees charged by other local
governments, rates were established to cover most of the costs incurred by the City to process an
application. Since Saratoga's median housing value is high, fees charged by the City make up a
proportionally smaller percent of the overall cost of the unit than in other communities.
City of Saratoga Planning Department Application Fees
Development Type [
Fee
Permit Fees
Accessory Structure Director Approval [
$500
Annexation
Waiver Request $500
Exempt from LAFCO Review $2,500
Subject to LAFCO Review $5,000 plus LAFCO fee
Appeals
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
City of Saratoga Planning DePartment Application Fees
Development Type Fee
To Planning Commission $150
To City Council $250
Building Site Approval (Tent.) $2,500
Building Site Exemption $500
Certificate of Compliance $500 Deposit
Construction Trailer Permit $100
Continuance Request (2,a and ea. additional) $250
Design Review
Administrative $1,500
Single Family (Addition to: include demo/new) $2,500
Single Family (New on Vacant Lot) $3,500
Multiple Family or Non-Residential $5,000
(Addition to include demo and new)
Multiple Family or Non-Residential $5,000
(New on Vacant Lot)
Accessory Structure $1,500
Document Storage Fee
Administrative File $50
Public Hearing File $150
Environment Review
Environmental Assessment $1,500
Dept. of Fish and Game Neg. Dec. $1,250 (DFG) $25 (City)
E.I.R Cost of Consultants plus 35%
Extension of Approved Application $1,500
Fence Exception Request $1,500
General Plan Amendment $1,500
Geotechnical Review (Deposit) $3,500 for 1" lot/up to $10,000 for each added lot.
Horticultural Review (Deposit) $1,000
Lot Line Adjustment/Merging of Parcels $250
Modification of approved application $1,500
Sign Permit
Permits Issued by Staff $100
Permits Issued by PC (Single- Tenant) $500
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
City of Saratoga Planning Department Application Fees
Development Type Fee
(Multiple Tenant) $1,500
Sound wall Permit $500
Storage Permit $1 O0
Tentative Subdivisions
Less than ten lots $5,000
Ten or more lots $5,000 plus $150 for each lot over ten
Use Permit
Accessory Structure or Use $1,500
No New Construction $2,500
Addition to (Include Demo and New Construction) $3,500
New Construction on Vacant Lot $5,000
Second Unit: Planning Commission $2,500
Second Unit: Administrative $500
Temporary Use: Planning Commission $500
Temporary Use: Administrative $200
Variance
Accessory Structure or Use $1,500
Single Family Main Structure
(Addition to include Demo and New) $2,500
(New on Vacant Lot) $3,500
MultiPle Family' or Non-Residenti~il Main $3,500
Structure (Addition to include' Demo and New)
(New on Vacant Lot) $5,000
Zoning Ordinance Amendmefit $3,500
Source: Cit~ of Saratoga 2001.
On and Off-site Improvement Requirements
When new developments are constructed there is a need to improve the land upon which the
development is located, or provide improvements in the general area to properly serve the
development. These improvements vary depending on whether the development is located on
raw land or an infill site. Typical raw land improvements include the installation of sewers,
curbs, gutters, and streets. Many infill sites are already equipped with some if not most
improvements, particularly streets. Therefore there are usually no dedication or easement
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
requirements. Most of the new construction in the City occurs on existing lots that are being
recycled for reuse.
ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES
There are many opportunities for conserving energy in new and existing homes. New buildings,
by design, can easily incorporate energy efficient techniques into the construction. Since much of
Saratoga is already developed, however, it is important to consider the opportunity for energy
savings in existing housing also. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the concept of
energy efficiency in buildings is the building envelope, which is everything that separates the
interior of the building from the outdoor environment: the doors, windows, walls, foundation,
roof, and insulation. All the components of the building envelope need to work together to keep a
· building warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
Constructing new homes with energy-conserving features, in addition to retrofitting existing
structures, will result in a reduction in monthly utility costs. There are many ways to determine
how energy efficient an existing building is and, if needed, what improvements can be made.
PG&E offers free home energy audits and can specify areas for energy conservation. Examples
of energy conservation opportunities include installation of insulation and/or storm windows and
doors, use of natural gas instead of electricity, installation or retrofitting of more efficient
appliances and mechanical or solar energy systems, and building design and orientation which
incorporates energy conservation considerations.
Many modem building design methods are used to reduce residential energy consumption and are
based on proven techniques. These methods can be categorized in three ways:
Building design that keeps natural heat in during the winter and keeps natural heat out during
the summer. Such design reduces air conditioning and heating demands. Proven building
techniques in this category include:
location of windows and openings in relation to the path of the sun to minimize solar gain
in the summer and maximize solar gain in the winter;
· use of "thermal mass," earthen materials such as stone, brick, concrete, and tiles that
absorb heat during the day and release heat at night;
-· "bUrying" - part of the home in a hillside or berm to reduce solar exposure or tO insulate
the home against extremes of temperature;
· use of window coverings, insulation, and other materials to reduce heat exchange
between the interior of a home and the exterior;
· location of openings and the use of ventilating devices that take advantage of natural
air flow (particularly cool evening breezes);
· use of eaves and overhangs that block direct solar gain through window openings during the
summer but allow solar gain during the winter; and
· zone heating and cooling systems, which reduce heating and cooling in the unused areas
of a home.
14.
2 Building orientation that uses natural forces to maintain a comfortable interior temperature.
Examples include:
· north-south orientation of the long axis of a dwelling;
· minimizing the southern and western exposure of exterior surfaces; and
· location of dwellings to take advantage of natural air circulation and evening breezes.
15.
3 Use of landscaping features to moderate interior temperatures. Such techniques include:
SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESMENT
· use of deciduous shade trees and other plants to protect the home;
· use of natural or artificial flowing water; and
· use of trees and hedges as windbreaks.
16.
In addition to natural techniques, a number of modern methods- of energy conservation have been
developed or advanced during the present century. These include:
· use of solar energy to heat water;
· use of solar panels and other devices to generate electricity;
· window glaZing to repel summer heat and trap Winter warmth;
· weather-stripping and other insulation to reduce heat gain and loss;
· use of natural gas for dryers, stovetops and ranges;
· use of energy efficient home appliances; and
· use of low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators to reduce hot water use.
The city's Mediterranean-like climate is typical of coastal northern California with year-round
mild temperatures and provides an opportunity to use solar energy techniques to generate
electricity, heat water, and provide space heating during colder months, as well. Natural space
heating can be substantially increased through the proper location of windows and thermal mass.
Use of solar panels can generate 1,000 watts of electricity on a sunny day. This can constitute
more than enough power for daily residential operations and a special converter attached to the
solar panels can take excess electricity and funnel it back into the PG&E grid.
There are local programs that assist low- and moderate-income households in retrofitting their
homes. PG&E offers free weatherization to qualified residents, including free attic insulation,
weatherstripping and caulking, water heater blankets and low flow showerheads. They also offer
rebates on the purchase of certain energy efficient appliances and vouchers for replacing
windows, furnaces and other household items. In addition to PG&E, The City uses SHARP
funds to offer installation of insulation for low and moderate income rehabilitated homes.
State Building Code Standards
Policy H.4.0 and the supporting policies of the City's 1990 Housing Element requires compliance
with Title 24 as discussed below..Compliance with Title 24 will enable homeowners to reduce
energy consumption.
The California EnergY commission was created in 1974 by the Warren-Alqi~ist State Energy
Resources Conservation and Develgpment Act (Public Resources Code 25000 et seq.). Among
the requirements of the new law was a directive for the Commission to adopt energy conservation
standards for' new construction. The first residential energy conservation standards were
developed in the late 1970s (Title 24; Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) and have been
periodically revised and refined since that time.
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAl. IMPACT
Attachment: 2
trtcoq3ora~ted Oc~a~er ~o. 1
draft
Housing Element
. 2 0 01
NEGATIV
DECLARATION
Prepared by
PARSONS
1. Project Title:
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Amendment No. 01-001
Saratoga Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale-Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Tom Sullivan
(408) 868-1222
City of Saratoga
Saratoga Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
~. General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
8. Description of the Project:
City-wide; all residential and some commercial.
Residential and some Commercial zones
The 2001 Housing Element update is a comprehensive
statement by the City of Saratoga of its current and future
housing needs and proposed actions to facilitate the
provision of housing to meet those needs at all income
levels. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify
current and projected housing needs and set forth goals,
policies, and programs that address those needs. The
Housing Element has been prepared to meet the
requirements of State law and local housing objectives.
The City of Saratoga is essentially built out, with the
majority of vacant parcels located in the western and
southern hillside areas. These areas are typically zoned for
single-family residential development at Iow densities.
Some capacity for redevelopment and reuse exists; in older
commercial areas and community facility sites.
The Housing Element contains programs for special needs
groups (such as seniors, Iow-income families, and persons
with disabilities), fair housing, improving the existing
housing stock, and providing housing subsidies for owners
and renters. These activities are exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), or not
considered a project requiring CEQA review. Exemptions
include:
Financial assistance for the development and
construction of residential housin9 for persons and
families of Iow- or moderate-income, as defined in
Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
Development Projects which consist of the
construction, conversion,, or use of residential
housing consisting of not more than 100 units in an
urbanized area, provided that it is either:
Affordable to lower-income households, as
defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and
Safety Code, and the developer provides
sufficient legal commitments to the
appropriate local agency to ensure that the
housing units will continue to be available to
:lower income households for a period of at
least 15 years; or
Affordable to Iow- and moderate-income
households, as defined in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the
Government Code, at monthly housing costs
determined pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subdivision ('h) of Section 65589.5 of the
Government Code.
The adoption of an ordinance regarding
second units in a single-family or multi-family
residential zone by a city or county to
implement the provisions of Sections 65852.1
and 65852.2 of the Government Code as set
forth 'in Section 21080.17 of the Public
Resources Code.
/~other component of' the Housing Element is the
accommodation of 539 additional dwelling units between
1999 and 2006 as part of the City's regional allocation
under the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Regional .Housing Needs Determination (RHND). These
dwelling units can be accommodated under the existing
General Plan land use designations or a proposed mixed-
use overlay zone on commercial and community facility
sites.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
This is an amendment to the General Plan that is City-
wide in application.
O. Other public agencies whose
,~pproval is required (e.g. permits,
financing approval, or participation
agreement).
None
=_NVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below (0) would be potentially affected by this project, invoMng at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Hazards & Hazardous Public Services
Materials
Agricultural Resources Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation
Air Quality Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic
Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Geology/Soils Population/Housing
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a X
.~EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
~ find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated~' impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed
by mitigation, measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DEDCLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name
=.VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1)
2)
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact'; answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening, analysis).
All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-sitel cumulative as
well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3)
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4)
"Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5)
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, progrem EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (d). In this case, a
brief discussion should identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
(b)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
6)
(c)
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encOuraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared' or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference tp the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
.7)
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencieS should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
9)
The analysis of each issue should identify: (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each
question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially [ Less than
Significant I Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
lncoqoorated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Nc, Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to X
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site X
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely X
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion: A substantial adverse effect to visual resources would result in the introduction of physical features that are not
characteristic of the surrounding development, substantially change the natural landscape, or obstruct an identified public scenic
vista.
New dwelling units would not result in substantial light or glare as they would be scattered
throughout the City, would not be designed with excessive lighting, and would be subject to City
standards and design regulations, and Uniform Building Code standards. Although hillside
development would occur on previously undeveloped land, the parcels would be developed to hidie
units within the natural terrain formation, so that light accumulation and visibility would not occur.
The development of 539 residential units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Determination
(RHND) will be accomplished in compliance with the following goals and policies of the City:
· Goal 5.0 and Policies 5.1-5.2 of the General Plan's Conservation Element ( page 2-19) state tlhat
the natural beau _tY_0_f, the s_c_e_nic reso.u_.rces (hillsides and ridgelines) shall be protected and only
minimum cut and fill should be permitted.
· Goal 6.0 of the General Plan's Conservation Element (page 2-19) requires the protection of the
existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new
developments.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on.
agriculture and farmland. Would theproject?
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or'Farmland of Statewide X
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their X ,
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- ,,
agricultural use?
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than I Less Than
Significant ! Significant
With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Discussion:
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May 4m 1983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate impacts to an acceptable level or avoid the
significant environmental effects including the following: · *.
Loss of agricultural lands and open space; the Goals and Policies of the General Plan to be acted upon
with appropriate ordinances and actions, will encourage renewal and discourage cancellation of
Williamson Act contracts, encourage the use of school sites for recreation, and require exactions from
development to maintain and preserve open space.
3. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
~ollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicableiair quality
31an?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing X
or projected air quality violation.
X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
~ollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable
,deral or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial .number of people?
Discussion:
X
X
X
The development of 539 residential units to meet the City's RHND will be accomplished in compliance
with the following goals and policies from the Conservation Element of the General Plan:
Conservation Goal 8.0 and Policies 8.1-8.4 (page 2-20) will preserve the quality of Saratoga's air
resources and protect the citizens from the potentially harmful effects of air pollution through
implementing the City's environmental review and permit issuing procedures. Impacts on air
quality shall be evaluated in connection with new development proposals and highway
construction projects. Appropriate mitigation measures for air quality impacts shall be identified
and implemented.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantially adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or bY the California Department of Fish and Game or U. $.
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
larsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
~terruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially -
Significant
hnpact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?
X
X
Discussion:
The development of 539 residenUal units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Determination
will be accomplished in compliance with the following goals and policies listed in the City of Saratoga's
General Plan:
Conservation Goal 3.0 and Policies 3.2-3.2 (page 2-17) will preserve the quality of the natunal
environment and character of the City through appropriate regulaUons of site development. The
City will strive to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats when considering proposals, for
development or plan for active recreation.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.57
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.57
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
~) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
X
X
X
X
Discussion:
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May 4~ ~L983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including the following:.
The development of 539 residential units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Determination
will not alter any historicalf archaeologicalf and paleontological resources as new housing will onlly be
constructed on previously disturbed sites and will not disturb any historically significant structures.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a.') -Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
~eismic ground sh~
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
X
J) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
X
X
(iv) Landslides? X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Significant
lmpact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-a-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
X
Discussion:
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on blay 4m 1983~
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including the following:
The development of 539 residential units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Determination
will be accomplish in compliance with the following goals and policies listed in the City of Saratoga's
General Plan:
The Seismic Safety Element's Goals 1.0 - 3.0 and Policies 1.1 - 3.3 (pages 61 and 62) state that
the City will protect residents from injuries and minimize property damage from earthquakes,
flooding, and other natural hazards in populated areas. The City will continue to enforce its
existing flood control regulations, and will cooperate with the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) when proposed projects will affect floodways in their jurisdiction, to prevent
development activities from aggravating or causing potential flood problems. The City's
Emergency Plan will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the proiect?
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an exiting or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
w. orking in the project area?
t) 'For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially I Less than [ Less Than
Significant [ Significant [ Significam
Impact With Impact
Miti~atio~
Incorporated
No Impact
Discussion:
The City of Saratoga does not have any significant problems with hazardous materials storage and
handling. No major chemical handlers are located in the City since such operations are severely
limited by existing regulations. The storage, use~ and disposal of hazardous materials is limited to the
gas stations in the City, and typically consists of anti-freeze, brake fluid, motor oil and gasoline
(General Plan page 31). .:
The development of 539 residential units to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Determination
will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. New development will not occur
near an airport and will not physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan which will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially degrade groundwater supplies or interfere s. ubstantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been ~
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
,~anner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ·
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or sudace runoff in a manner which would
result in floodin0 on- or off site?
e) Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Discussion:
Resolution 430.2 of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May 4, 1983. The City Council
acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon the environment
impact report. However, Goals and Policies have been incorporated in the General Plan to mitigate to
an acceptable level or avoid the significant environmental effects including the following:
Conservation Element Goal 3.3 and Policies 3.4-3.6 (page 2-17 and 2-18) of the General Plan states
that the City shall minimize the impact that development may have on the quality of water within the
City and its Sphere of Influence, including the application of strict standards to sanitation services to
avoid ground water contamination. The City will also adhere to the provisions of CEQA and
coordinate with the various public agencies concerned with water quantity. The City shall minimize
the impact that development may have on the quality of water consumed by the development.
The future risk of hazards from flooding is most likely to occur in areas which have been subject to
flooding during the past 100 years on record. Residential development should not be permitted in
designated floodplains unless it has been previously approved by the SCVWD, or only if the structures
are adequately protected by raising the first habitable floor at least one foot above the base floodline
level.
The principal land use in the floodplains within the City is Iow- to medium-density residential, with
limited areas designated as agricultural, open space, or commercial use. Uses which do not subject
human life to danger, such as orchards or wildlife preserves, can be permitted in the floodplains.
Existing development in the floodplains can be further protected through the use of levees or
engineering methods which increase stream capacity.
The development of 539 houses will be in compliance with the City's development review procedure
and with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), which addresses flooding potential and the
impact on development. In Saratoga, land development proposals adjacent to a floodplain or creek
must be reviewed by the SCVWD, which makes recommendations for possible flood prevention
measures. SCVWD usually requires the dedication of an easement along natural watercourses or
channels under its jurisdiction for the purpose of maintaining the channel or for the future
construction of channel improvements.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? -
b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan?
X
X
'X
Issues and Supporting Information Potentially Less than I Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
- Impact With I Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
Discussion
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May 4~ 1'983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including the following:
The General Plan contains goals, policies, and land use designations designed to mitigate adverse
environmental effects of development for land located within the sphere of influence of the City oi
Saratoga. Currently, such lands are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the County of Santa
Clara, which has adopted regulations consistent with the City General Plan.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would X
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land X
use plan?
Discussion:
There are no major oil or gas fields located in the City, therefore, no mineral resources would be
impacted by the project. According to Conservation goal 2.0 and policy 2.$., mineral extraction in 'the
City and its Sphere of Inflbence shall be reg SUl m,n,mlze ph¥
damage to the existing environment. The development of 539 new housing units will occur on already
disturbed sites and will not result in the loss of any new mineral resources.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or X
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase-in ambient n~)ise levels in the project X
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantially temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in X
, the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a
plan has not been. adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use X
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project
ar, ea to excessive noise levels?
f). For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise ..X
levels?
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Discussion:
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on May 4~-1983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including~the following: ·
Noise Element Goal 1.0 and Policies 1.:t-l.2 (page 2-2:t} of the General Plan will protect Saratoga
residents from excessive noise. The City shall maintain and enforce the noise standards specified in
the City's noise ordinance. The City shall work with the appropriate agencies to develop and
implement a plan to protect residential areas that are located adjacent to the West Valley Corridor
right-of-way from excessive noise.
Ail' residentially zoned properties are Saratoga is considered noise sensitive. The development of 539
housingunits Will be in compliance with the Saratoga Noise Control Ordinance to limit excessive noise
to neighboring residences. Construction activities will be permitted only between the hours of 7:30
am and 6:00 pm. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 83 dBA at a
distance of 25 feet from the source.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
xample, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
X
X
Discussion:
The project is based, in part, on the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) projection of in its
:1999 Regional Housing Needs Allocation, that 539 new residential units will be needed in the City
during the period 1999 to 2006. These new units are part of the residential units projected and
analyzed in the :1983 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR}. The Housing Element
update proposes various housing programs to assist in providing housing for iow- and moderate-
income households. Therefore, the project would not result in displacement of existing residents, but
would facilitate adequate housing for the City residents. As stated in the General Plan EIR,
development will be scattered throughout the City on infill and other residential sites, making impacts
minimal.
1.3.1 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
~tection?
Schools?
Parks?
) Other public facilities?
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information
Significant Significant Significant
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Discussion:
All potential impacts to public services, including fire protection, medical aid, police protection,
schools, parks, solid waste clispos~l, maintenance of public facilities, and other governmental services
were thoroughly analyzed in the 1983 General Plan and EZR. The development of 539 new housi~g
units will require the increase of fire and police services but only minimally, especially since infill
parcels will be focused for higher density housing units. New roads and increasecl traffic will increase
the need for maintenance; however, most of the new housing will occur in flatJand on infill sites that
will require no significant extension of urban services.
14. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical X
effect on the environment?
Discussion:
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on Hay 4~ :L983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significantl~
~nvirnnmental effecl~ includina the-followina:
The Land Use Element evenly distributes the general location and extent of the uses of the land for
housing, business, industry, open space (including agriculture) natural resources, recreation, an~l
enjoyment of scenic beauty. Therefore the development of 539 new homes on vacant infill lots already
zoned for housing would have a less-than-significant impact on land use.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) cause an increase in the traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic Icad and capacity of the street sYstem (i.e.., result in a X
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,-the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion.at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion managem .ent agency for designated X
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in X
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
'd) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or X
olangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
e) .Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
g) Conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially
Significant
impact
Less than ] Less Than
Significant I Significant
With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No Impact
Discussion:
Resolution 430.2 of the City Council of the City of Saratoga adopted the General Plan on Hay 4t' 1983.
The City Council acknowledges that adoption of the General Plan would have significant effects upon
the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report. However, Goals and Policies
have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant
environmental effects including the following:
Traffic increases--goals and policies of the General Plan encourage the use of energy efficient forms of
transportation and use of pedestrian and bicycle trails as alternative transportation modes. There are
policies to plan means of reducing traffic impacts and to address cumulative impacts of certain heavily
traveled roads.
All potential impacts to transportation and circulation were thoroughly analyzed in the Circulation and
Scenic Highway Element of the General Plan (pages 2-6 through 2-12). The City shall encourage and
participate in the countywide implementation of a variety of modes of transportation to serve
Saratoga. The City will also work toward improved public transit, including more frequent service and
access to the village. Generally, radical reclassification and upgrading of streets in Saratoga is not
necessary to meet the existing and anticipated future vehicular needs.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
))ater Quality Control Board?
~ or ~ ~'n co-'-~'~uctibn of new water or wastewater treatment
acilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
services or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient.permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal needs? -
f) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentially I Less than
Significant { Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
I L ess Than No Impact
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
The creation of 539 new residential units would not significantly impact the ability of the City's p;-,blic
services to meet the demands of the public because most of the new housing units will occur on infill
parcels and will require no significant extension of urban services. ~
The goals and policies of the General Plan, particularly the conservaUon element, will encourage *the ..
use of alternate forms of renewable energy source; building designs that conserve energy; use of
natural passive heating and cooling systems; tree preservation; minimization of water use and
degradation; minimizaUon of disrupUon to soil and topography. These impacts will be further reduced
by implementation of existing codes and ordinances.
Conservation Element Goal 3.3 and Policies 3.4-3.6 (page 2-17 and 2-18) of the General Plan states
that the City shall minimize the impact that development may have on the quality of water within the
City and its Sphere of Influence, including the application of strict standards to sanitation services to
avoid ground water contamination. The City will also adhere to the provisions of CEQA and
coordinate with the various public agencies concerned with water quanUty such as the SCVWD. The
City shall minimize the impact that development may have on the quality of water consumed by the
development.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
._~cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
lreaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current
proJects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
X
X
LIST OF MITIGATIONS:
NONE
MITIGATION MONITORING:
NONE
ATTACHMENT 3
MINUTES OF JULY 18, 2001 JOINT WOEKSHOP
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 18, 2001
The City Council °fthe City of Saratoga met in a scheduled Study Session on July 18.
2001 at the Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue.
Vice Mayor Streit called the_Adjourned City Council meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Councilmembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsrnith,
Vice Mayor Nick Streit
ABSENT:
ALSO
Pi~ESENT:
Councilmember Stan Bogosian, Mayor John Mehaffey
Dave AnderSon, City Manager
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Tom Sullivan, Director of Community Development
The following Planning Commissioners were present:
PRESENT
Cynthia Barry, Mike Garakani, Jill Hunter, Ema Jackman,
Lisa Kurasch, George Roupe, Ruchi Zutshi
ABSENT: None
Mayor Mehaffey welcOmed the Planning Commission.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director, presented staff report.
Director Sullivan explained that Jeff Goldman, ConsultanffParsons Harland Bartholomew
& Associates Inc, would present the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element.
Director Sullivan pointed out that Mr. Goldman would address the following topics:
· Approval process that the Housing and Community Development Department will
use to review the Housing Element.
· State of California mandates and regulations.
· Issues related to timing, the "numbers" and public participation.
City Council Minutes
July 18, 2001
Director Sulhvan noted that the Administrative Draft of the Housing Element contain the
methodology of how the City can meet the "Fair Share" assigned to it fi.om Association o:['
Bay Area Governments(ABAG).
Jeff Goldman, Consultant/Parsons Harland BartholOmew & AssOciates Inc, summarized!
the purpose of a Housing Element and the issues he is attempting to address. Mr. Goldman.
explained that State Law requires that a housing element identify adequate sites that will be:
made available through appropriate zoning and development standards for a. variety of
housing types meet the community's housing goals. Where the inventory of sites does not
identify adequate sites to accommodate the need for groups of all household income levels
the City Housing Element must contain a program to show how the City will 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 very low and low-income households.
Mr. Goldman explained that some communities with conditions similar to Saratoga have
successfully used residential-commercial mixed-use programs to show how adequate sites
will be made available at suitable densities to meet Iow and moderate-income housing
needs. Under a mixed-use strategy, residential projects are permitted in specified
commercial zones, either independently or in conjunction with commercial development,
at sufficiently high densities to meet the "adequate sites" provision of state law.
Mr. Goldman explained that there are two approaches to a mixed-use strategy: 1) designate
specific commercial zones or sites on which residential uses are permitted with appropriate
development standards, and 2) designate a mixed-use or residential overlay zone, with
separate development standards, that can be applied to commercial zones throughout the
jurisdiction.
Mr. Goldman explained that the Saratoga Housing Element is based on five strategic goals:
1.) accommodating the City's. fair share of the region's housing needs, 2) promoting the
construction of housing .affordable to Iow and .moderate-income households, 3)assisting
low-income property owners in improving substandard dwelling unitg, 4)preserving the
cun'ent stock of affordable housing in the City, and 5) assuring non-discrimination in
housing.
Mr. Goldman explained that once the draft Housing Element has identified all of the City's
needs it is sent to the Housing and Community Development Department for review. The
HCDD will in turn issue an Advisory Opinion Letter whether the Element does or does not
comply with state law. The HCDD has 60 days by law to respond. The final step is to
adopt the Housing Element, send it back to the HCDD who will issue a final opinion.
Mr. Goldman briefly explained the five goals of the Housing Element and how the city
would achieve each one. -
Goal 1 - To accommodate the City's fair share of the Bay Area Regional Housin?
Needs for aH income groups. This goal can be achieved by designating sufficient vacant
land and/or sites with re-use potential to accommodate the City's allocation under the
Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) adopted by the Association of Bay Area
Governments. The City can accommodate the total number of dwelling units allocated by.
ABAG under the RHND through a combination of vacant residential land, residential or
mixed-use projects on vacant commercial land, addition of dwelling units over or behind
existing commercial uses throughout commercial districts in Saratoga, approval of second
units, and dwelling units constructed or approved by permit since January 1, 1999. To
meet the needs of the very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, however, several
zoning changes will needed to encourage the production of affordable housing.
Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she would not support alloWing low income
housing to be build in one particular area.
Councilmember Baker pointed out that the original Measure G prohibits increasing the
density on a particular piece of land.
Mr. Goldman responded that according to state law allowing new secondary units is not a
zoning change; furthermore state law may overrule Measure G.
City Attorney Taylor commented that Measure G did not change any of the existing
provisions in the City's General Plan, it .just reaffirmed and readopted those provisions, so
any place that secondary units were allowed under the General Plan they could continue to
be allowed, there is nothing in the language in Measure G that would preclude the City
from implementing the General Plan in a manner that allowed there to be secondary units.
Commissioner Roupe asked Mr. Goldman how he would define a secondary trait.
Mr. Goldman responded that under state law it is defined as any separate habitable space
that would meet the definition of a dwelling unit. A secondary unit typically has a cooking
facihty, a separate entrance, and physically separates from main residence.
Commissioner Kurasch questioned how the City would make sure that these secondary
units are used as rentals.
Mr. Goldman noted that the City would have to set up a monitoring system.
Muriel Mahrer, 13577 Myren Drive, questioned if existing illegal secondary units would be
made legal.
Mr. Goldman responded that there is nothing to prevent an illegal unit obtaining a permit to
legalize the unit.
Director Sullivan added that at a Council retreat in May 2001, there were discussions
regarding an amnesty program for secondary units. There would be minimal inspections;
just to make sure the unit is safe to live. The property owner would then agree to maintain
the unit as a low-income rental.
Vic Monia, 14665 Granite Way, expressed concern that if secondary units are legalized
Would it affect the homeowners tax base, would their property value go up increasing their
property tax.
· Mr. Goldman responded that the County Assessors Office would have to determine if a
reassessment is needed.
Commissioner Zutshi asked if the of the property owner had to live on the property.
Mr. Goldman responded that state law and the City's ordnance on secondary units states
that one of the units has to be owner occupied.
Meg Caldwell, Saratoga Resident, noted that she supports an amnesty program but must be
careful on how the City frames the program. Property owners will be hesitant to come
forward for permits if their units are labeled illegal.
Betty Feldhym, 20841 Franklin Avenue, suggested the City of Saratoga contact the Town
of Los Gatos because a few years ago they had a successful amnesty program.
Ms. Caldwell asked if residential overlay was considered in other zoning districts such as
institutional and quasi public property, for example Civic Center, West Valley College,
Churches etc., perhaps these places could be used as employee living.
Mr. Goldman responded that in theory you could apply this concept to those types of
properties but it would be up to the Council to consider that option.
Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goal 2.
Goal 2 -. Encourage the construction of housing and affordable to lower and
moderate4ncome households and increase affordable housinll options. This goal can
be achieved by increasing the supPly if affordable housing and ho~sing options in Saratoga
to house additional households and families earning less than 120% of the Santa Clara
County median income. The City will amend the Zoning Code to implement state law
requirements at least 25 percent density bonus for any residential project in which at least
10 percent of the units are affordable to very low-income household or 20 percent of the
units are affordable to low-income households or 50 percent of the units are designed for
seniors.
Commissioner Kurasch suggested an additional incentive, to offer inclusionary zoning.
Commissioner Kurasch explained the City could require a minimum percent of low and
moderate-income housing in all new housing developments or subdivisions or require a
percent fee in lieu of building affordable units. This in turn would not require a density
percent increase on projects and would allow flexibility in building a fund or making sure
there are defin five nU2rfiber of low income units for the future.
Mr. Goldman responded that many communities have adopted inclusinary-zoning
ordinances, which goes hand in hand with density bonuses and other incentives programs.
In addition, Director Sullivan explained that with the completion of the Odd Fellows
expansion project the City will be able negotiate with the owners in order to count a small
number of units within Phase I and in Phase II all of the single unit apartments will be
counted towards meeting the numbers of the Regional Housing Needs Determination.
Vice Mayor Streit asked if whether or not the ten artist studios at Villa Montalvo would
count towards the City's RHND number.
Director Sullivan responded that there are ten artist units and a caretaker's cottage; all
eleven should qualify towards the RHND.
Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goal 3.
Goal 3 - Assist lower-income homeowners in maintaining their homes. This goal can
be achieved by eliminating substandard housing conditions in Saratoga through financial
assistance to low-income homeowners who are unable to properly maintain or repair their
homes. The City will also continue to provide housing rehabilitation assistance to
homeowners earning 80 percent or less than the Santa Clara County median income
through the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP).
Councilmember Waltonsmith asked if within this program could the City provide
financial support to nonprofit groups who provide affordable housing.
Mr. Goldman responded yes.
For example, Director Sullivan noted that Council would be considering making a
contribution to the Housing Trust Fund later this evening.
Mr. Goldman continued to explain Goal 4.
Goal 4 - Preserve existing affordable rental housing. This goal can be achieved by: a)
monitoring compliance with state and federal tenant and public notice requirements prior to
any change in funding or ownership status, b) provide financial assistance for property
maintenance and improvements, or provide assistance in obtaining state and/or federal
funding for property maintenance and improvements, c) identify one or more non-profit
entities interested in the right of refusal should one or more of the properties become
available for sale. Provide financial assistance, or assist the non-profit in obtaining state or
federal funds for acquisition and preservation as affordable rental housing, d) require that
any financial assistance is tied to a minimum 30-year affordability covenant binding on all
current and future proPerty owners during the effective time period.
Cynthia Berry, Chair/Planning Commission, noted that recently an application came before
the Commission where there were two structures on the property, both were rental units
and the applicant wanted to make it into a single-family house. Chair Berry asked in such
conversions, should the City require a property owner keep a secondary-unit on the
property.
Mr. Goldman responded that the primary intent of this program was to preserve existing
rental development that were subsidized by state and federal funds in order to keep them
affordable.
Goal 5 - Promote equal housing oppommity for all Saratoga residents, The City
encouraging fair housing practices by cooperating with non-profit housing and citizen
organizations can achieve this goal. The City will designate a Fair Housing Coordinator to
monitor and coordinate fair housing activities in the City. The City will also amend the
Zoning Code to designate appropriate zones for the location of homeless and transitional
housing facilities.
John Mallory, Saratoga resident, asked if at the end of five years will the City have another
requirement from the state to comply with.
Mr. Goldman responded that Housing Elements have to be updated every five years.
Marge Bunyard, President/ League of Women Voters, thanked the Council and Mr.
Goldman for their efforts to designate affordable housing.
Vice Mayor Streit thanked Mr. Goldman for his presentation.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION AT 6:00 P.M IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CONFERENCE ROOM, 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE.
The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room,
13777 Fmitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m.
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b):
(2 potential cases.)
MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m.
Vice Mayor Streit reported there was Council discussion but no reportable action was taken.
Vice Mayor Streit called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and requested Lode
Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, to lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Evan Baker, Ann Waltonsmith,
Vice Mayor Nick Streit
Councilmember Stan Bogosian, Mayor John Mehaffey
ATTACHMENT 4
MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Saratoga Planning Commiss~ Minutes of August 22, 2001
Page 9
Motion:
Commissioner Roupe motioned for approval of a Variance to allow the installation
of a six to eight-foot high sound wall on propert3.' located at 20200 Mendelsohn
Lane.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the''
Planning Commission denied a Variance request (V-01-010) to allow construction
of an approximately eight-foot tall-sound wall in the front yard setback on
property located at 20200 Mendelsohn Lane.
AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: Roupe
ABSENT: Garakani and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15-day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3
GPA-01-001 (CITYWIDE) - GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT: The 2000 Housing
Element update is a comprehensive Statement by the City of Saratoga of its current and future housing
needs and proposed actions to facilitate the provision of housing to meet those needs at all income
levels. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify cun'ent and projected housing needs and set
forth goals, policies and programs that address those needs. The Housing Element has been preps[red
to meet the requirements of State law and local housing objectives. (SULLIVAN)
Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows:
· Directed the' Commissioners attention to the memo provided by. Commissioner Kurasch, which
highlights her suggestions. Commissioner Kurasch specifically addresses two programs. For
Program 1.2, regarding Mixed Uses, she suggests that particular zones or locations be identified.
For Program 2.1, regarding Density Bonuses, a State mandated program, she suggests that
Inclusionary Housing be incorporate, d whereby a certain percentage of BMR units are required.
· Added that other cities within the West Valley Area do have such Inclusionary Zoning. Typically
used is an In-Lieu Fee.
· Said that it is the real desire of the Council not to point at a particular property for low-income
housing but rather to spread such housing stock through all parts of the community.
· Added that development standards will have to be created.
· Said that one possibility is the creation of mixed-use projects with a ratio between commemial :and
residential that keeps a commercial look.
· Advised that it is proposed that Quasi/Public Facilities zoning also be available for mixed-use
projects and it is suggested that an additional table similar to Table A be developed for the Housing
Element as well as an additional map that shows potential housing areas.
Mr. Jeff Goldman, Consultant, Parsons:
· Said that upon review, they have found that there is a decreasing level of affordability since the last
Housing Element was prepared. Included in that group that cannot afford housing are seniors. The
Saratoga Planning Commiss~
Minutes of August 22, 2001
Page 10
goals in the current Housing Element were examined and found to be still valid although the
magnitude of the problems has increased.
The five areas Of concentration include sharing in the region's future housing needs (ABAG);
construction of affordable housing; assisting low income households with housing availability:
preservation of existing affordable housing; and promoting Fair Housing opportunities.
Pointed out that key programs to achieve those goals include:
· Creating a Mixed-Use Overlay zone as a key strategy;
· Adopting several changes to the Zoning Ordinance to permit more Second units;
· Implementing a Density Bonus program;
· Working with the Saratoga Retirement Community (formerly Oddfellows);
· Implementing stronger First Time Homebuyers Program;
· Continuing the Rehab Assistance Program; and
· Amending the Zoning Code to designate for emergency shelter and transitional housing (also a
State requirement) to identify where such serVices are permitted. Staff is recommending that
the Mixed-Use Overlay Zones be so identified.
Chair Barry said that increased property assessments for second units may be a roadblock to
constructing those units.
Director Sullivan said that this issue has been raised at a recent West Valley Mayors and Managers
Meeting. It was suggested that perhaps this is something the State can help with. Additionally, it was
suggested that cities conta~:t the County Assessor to discuss this detail.
Commissioner Roupe advised that he had a number of typographical and editorial corrections and
comments but nothing substantive.
Chair Barry:
· Said that the preservation of existing housing is an important goal.
· Pointed out that there have been a !arge number of requests to demolish adequate to lovely homes
-to allow for the construction of newer and larger ones..
· Asked if there is a precedent to set conditions for such action such as requiring the owner to live
for some period of time within a house before permitting its demolition.
· Added that this could help to preserx;e some of the moderate housing stock.
Director Sullivan said that a number of cities have sound Housing Preservation Programs. While the
City cannot prohibit demolition, it can establish findings necessary to allow demolition.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for criteria for the First Time Homebuyers Assistance Programs.
Mr. Jeff Goldman:
· Said that the criteria are income.
· Identified the Income Level categories:
· Low to Very Low Income equals no more than 80 percent of the Median County income.
· Moderate Income allows up to 120 percent of Median County income.
· Mid°Income allows up to 150 percent of the Median County income.
· Added that there are limits on the prices and types of homes based on the median housing price in
the County.
Saratoga Planning Commissi
Minutes of August 22, 2001
Page 11
Suggested that ways of providing such assistance includes:
· Silent Second Loans that help bolster the down payment.
home is sold.
· Below Market Rate interest rates.
No repayment is required until lhe
Commissioner Zutshi asked if there is a limit to the percentage of house cost.
Mr. Jeff Goldman cautioned that details on such criteria are not included in the Housi'ng Element and.'
that the City would probably work within existing programs.
Director Sullivan agreed that the City's best means of providing such assistance is to help support
existing programs.
Commissioner Zutshi asked how one qualifies for Rehab funds.
Mr. Jeff Goldman replied that the criteria is much the same as for the First Time Homebuvers Program
he previously outlined. The applicants are typically of low income. The types of repairs eligible lire
for health and safety rather than aesthetic remodeling. There is a cap on the amount available per unit.
Commissioner Zutshi asked how residents learn about the availability of Rehab funds.
Director Sullivan replied through advertising. Cautioned that there is more demand than money
available. Gave the exam. ple that current Block Grant Funds are being used to hook homes up to
sewer.
Mr. Jeff Goldman informed that there is no one specific area or concentration within Saratega
requiring rehab. The need is interspersed within the community.
Commissioner Jackman expressed concern about the high cost of assisting with moderate-income'
housing. Questioned how such assistance can be handled.
Director Sullivan pointed out that this is why the Mixed-Use Zoning is proposed so that smaller lot
projects .can be developed providing more housing units. Said that the Housing Element is as brc,ad
and all encompassing as possible.
Mr. Jeff Goldman said that with a Mixed-use designation, it would be possible to find a for-profit or
non-profit developer to construct these projects. ,,
Director Sullivan said that neighboring communities have some mixed-use projects that could become
a model.
Chair Barry asked Director Sullivan if it would be possible to obtain sketches of the Cupertino mixed-
use project.
Mr. Jeff Goldman said that there are a number of good examples of mixed-use developments and[ it
would not be difficult to obtain information.
Director Sullivan. pointed out that the City of Campbell has some mixed-use projects too.
Saratoga Planning Commissi
Minutes of August 22, 2001
Page 12
Chair Barry said that there is lots of interest within the community and it would be help'ful to see what
such projects can look like.
Mr. Jeff Goldman suggested that the Commissioners look at a-'web site (bridgehousing.com) to see
some positive examples of mixed-use projects.
Commissioner Jackman said that a good sales job would have to be done to obtai.n support, for
affordable housing. Residents will have to be convinced that such housing stock will not turn their
neighborhood into a slum. Pointed out that she could not afford to buy her own house in today's
market.
Chair Barry opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 3.
Ms. Muriel Marr:
· Said that she herself obtained some CDBG money a number of years ago.
· Advised that she has resided in Saratoga since 1955, living in her third Saratoga home today.
· Asked if existing second units will be counted as new housing although they are already occupied
· Added that this housing is not new stock.
· Suggested that only new second units be counted toward the State goal.
· Questioned the definition of remodel versus new construction. It appears that oftentimes only a
small wall is retained and that project is still considered a remodel versus a new home.
· Supported the retention and preservation of existing housing.
· Encouraged the placement of housing above and behind retail.
Director Sullivan:
· Informed that there will be anmesty for existing second units. Of the 539 units assigned by ABAG,
20 units will come from amnesty for existing second units that will be legalized.
· Said that a streamlined permit process,.perhaps using an Administrative Hearing will govern new
secondary living units.'
Mr. Jeff Goldman clarified that of the existing second units, the only ones that 'can be counted against
the 539 ABAG allotment are those that.were illegal that were legalized.
Ms. MurieI Marr cautioned that some of these units are awfully substandard.
Director Sullivan clarified that the standard for a remodel versus'new construction is that if over.'
percent of the home is demolished, the project is considered to be new construction.
Ms. Marge Bunyard:
· Declared that the League of Women Voters has urged mixed-use housing for years.
Suggested that the Planning Commission should try to educate the public about
housing.
· Expressed appreciation for the hard work done by the Planning Commission.
low-income
Mr. John Marjory, 12258 Kirkwood Drive, Saratoga:
· Advised that he has resided in Saratoga since 1967.
Saratoga Planning Commissi Minutes of August 22, 2001
Page 13
· Said that while he likes some of the ideas, he is opposed to the Housing Element.
· Said that the Housing Element is a series of requirements rather than guidelines. The goals are
unreasonable and.unrealistic.
· Said that the real issue is density and not low-cost housing.
· Cautioned that jobs and overpopulation are creating problems and must be controlled as thev add to
congestion and pollution.
· Said that many areas of concentration in the Housing Element do not apply including use of
Housing Fairs and the issue of the homeless.
· Questioned what represents "fair share."
Director Sullivan replied that fair share is determined by two State agencies, the Department of
Finance and the Department of Housing and Community Development. These agencies project
~owth. ABAG has the State mandate to take the regions and divide the future housing needs into
regional shares or allotments. 'The income groups include very low, low, moderate and above
moderate.
Commissioner Jackman advised that the methodology is outlined in page 53.
Mr. Jeff Goldman pointed out that State Law considers a number of criteria including market demand,
employment trends, etc. There is a mathematical formula that is intended over time to adjust the
differences between incorge groups in each community so that they are more even dispersed.
Chair Barry advised Mr. 1;vlarjory that he is not the only one who is unhappy with the ABAG allotment.
Added that the City fought the assigned number but lost that fight with the State.
Mr. John Marjory:
· Suggested that social engineering is the least democratic thing he has heard, calling it "screwy."
· Expressed concern that additional housing will create a need for City services.
Director Sullivan advised that Commission that he and Mr. Marjory had met on tWo occasions: to
discuSs the Housing Element' Update.
Ms. Marge Bunyard said that she did not find the density to be so high.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the' units constructed since January 1,
against this 539 allotment. Therefore, 177 units have already been built.
artist housing and one caretaker's unit at Villa Montalvo.
1999, are being counted
There are 10 permits for
Chair Barry expressed strong support for senior housing, most of it low-cost.
Ms. Marge Ottenberg:
· Advised that in 1961, her family constructed her 1,750 square foot house at a cost of $28,000.
Today that same house could sell for $2 million.
· Added that today she is living on Social Security.
· Questioned whether her home is counted as low-income or moderate.
Saratoga Planning Commissi .vlinutes of August 22, 2001
Page 14
Director Sullivan clarified that Ms. Ottenberg's home is considered existing housing. The focus is on
new housing stock not existing.
Commissioner Roupe asked if an existing home that is demolished and rebuilt is counted as new.
Director Sullivan replied yes. Added that there
replacement of existing stock as well as vacancies.
is a formula that takes into consideration the
Commissioner Roupe expressed concern that four of five applications do not result in net housing
additions but rather are teardowns and rebuilds.
Director Sullivan said that there might be exceptions available.
Commissioner Roupe asked if a house remodeling less than 50 percent is Counted as new housino~
stock.
Director Sullivan replied no.
Commissioner Roupe asked if just one stub was left and the house rebuilt would this house count.
Director Sullivan replied yes. Added that the City has no problem meeting the above-moderate income
units.
Mr. Jeff Goldman said that the distinction is how the City can accommodate ABAG's allotment. That
means availability of sites. It is not the City's responsibility to guarantee these units get built but just
that the possibility exists that the units can be accommodated through zoning.
Director Sullivan added that the City prepares an annual report to the State outlining how each
Housing Element goal is being implemented.
Ms. sharon Kelkenberg:
· Supported the ABAG allotment.
· Added that the provision of affordable housing within a community enhances the quality of
everyone's life.
· Said that creative planning will be needed and that mixed use is the way to achieve this goal.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 9:30 p.m.
Commissioner Roupe reminded that he has redlined typographical and format errors on his draft. Said
that he would have no problem providing this information to staff following the meeting. Asked for
more information about Inclusionary Housing, specifically page five, item 29, last paragraph, whereas
projects with more than five units are required to provide affordable housing units.
Director Sullivan pointed out that this is a density bonus program. If the developer wants 25 percent
density, they must provide some percentage of low cost housing.
Mr. Jeff Goldman suggested that this section have some clarifying language added that defines the
density bonus provisions.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, dinutes of August 22, 2001
Page 15
Commissioner Jackman:
· Said that she will accept the Housing Element as it is although it bothers her to have .&.BAG telling
the City what to do and finds the goals not to be realistic. .~
· Said that the artists' units do not represent real housing and'that these units will not improve the
low-income housing stock.
Director Sullivan pointed out that the artists' units and caretaker's unit are indeed counted as. low-
income units.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Ms. Muriel Marc suggested that a percentage of new construction costs be charged and allocated to an
affordable housing fund.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 3.
Director Sullivan said that this provision is pan of the Inclusionary Housing Program in 'that in-lieu
fees can be charged.
Mr. Jeff Goldman added that the Inclusionary Housing Program specifies that a percentage of units
must be affordable to very low or low-income. An in-lieu fee can be paid instead as an escape clause
to support such housing elsewhere.' The actual provisions will depend upon the specific Ordinance
adopted.
Chair Barry asked how such in-lieu fees would be used.
Director Sullivan said that the Inclusionary Housing Program will simply be a statement in the
Housing Element. The City will have until July 1, 2001, to develop a specific Ordinance. This
-Ordinance will be developed between January and July using public heating process prior to the July
deadline.
Chair Barry asked why the Inclusionary Housing Program is not in the document.
Commissioner Roupe asked staff if the;e is any reason the City might not want to include it.
Mr. Jeff Goldman said that it is not Specifically included because no direction, nor specific need, was
provided to do so. It was not thought to be a direct necessity to meet the established goals.
Commissioner Roupe asked if it is put into the Housing Element, would the City be obligated to pass
an Ordinance.
Director Sullivan replied no. Said that in the Annual Report to the State, the City would simply
provide a reason why it was not accomplished.
Mr. Jeff Goldman said that he would further study an Inclusionary Housing Program.
Saratoga Planning Commissi, .dinutes of August 22, 2001
Page 16
Commissioner Hunter said that she could not support an Inclusionary Housing Program.
that this is a big step and the City should move more slowly on this issue. ~
Suggested
Chair Barry said that Commissioner Hunter has made a reasonable point. Added that there will be
concern in the community.
Commissioner Hunter stated that the Housing Element seems to be thorough and spelled out and the
City should proceed with it as it is.
Director Sullivan clarified that the additions of a map and Quasi-Public Facility zoning for mixed-use
projects had already been agreed upon earlier in the hearing.
Chair Barry asked if the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will be sound if not included in the Housing
Element.
Director Sullivan said that it would not have to be in the Housing Element at the present time but
should be added in the future.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the
Planning Commission recommended Council approval of GPA-01-001 to support
the General Plan Housing Element Update with the addition of mixed-use projects
within Quasi Public zoning districts and a supporting map depicting such zoning
areas in the City of Saratoga.
AYES:Barry, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi
NOES: None
ABSENT: Garakani and Kurasch
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry thanked staff, the consultant and the audience and advised that this item will be considered
by Council.
DIRECTOR ITEMS.
Director Sullivan:
· Advised that the City has ordered new microphones for the Commissioners:
· Informed that SB910 is now'a two-year bill.
· Said that he will be absent for the next meeting on September 12th and that John Livingstone and
Allison Knapp will be assisting the Commission.
Chair Barry advised that she too will miss the meeting on September 12th as her son is getting married.
She asked Commissioner Jackman to chair that meeting in her place.
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Roupe asked staff to conduct some investigation on setbacks for second story additions.
Asked that staff return with a recommendation on what is appropriate and objective and whether an
Ordinance amendment or. policy might be required.
ATTACHMENT 5
CORRESPONDENCE
December 27,2000
Muriel Mahrer
13577 Myren Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
John Mehaf~ey, Mayor
Saratoga City Council
13777 Fruttvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA, 95070
Dear Mr. Mehaffey and Council Members,
I became alarmed when I learned that many of the excellent, hard
working teachers in Saratoga schools were or will be forced to
resign due to the lack of affordable housing in or near our
district, The high quality of Saratoga Schools will begin to
deteriorate if they cannot keep or hire the well trained and
dedicated staffs that have honored our schools during the fifty-
five years I have been a resident of the city and seen my six
children graduate from Saratoga High. Parents who moved to this
area because of the high educational standards are extremely
disturbed about this situation.
Needless to say, it is imperative that you as members of the city
council, along with the planning commission and the planning
department take action to help alleviate this critical' threat to .
Our community. I' attended city council meetings in-the past where
the purpose was to circumvent the mandate ~rom the state to provide
a~fordable housing Units. I am aware that this continues to be the
intent of some. ! urge you to consider the negative impact this
will have on our children and our community.
Since ! have given this a 9rest deal of thought as well as
discussing it extensively with other Saratoga citizens, ! have a
few comments and suggestions which I hope will be of value.
1. Increase ~he number of secondary units on existing properties
by relaxing the present very restrictive standards of who, where
and how these units can be constructed. Grandfathering in the legal
and illegal second units now in existence, although a prudent
action will not increase the number of affordable homes.
2. Provide incentives for upgrading existing second units and
other houses which can be used for affordable rentals or purchases.
3. Require all new developments to set aside a percentage of the
3~nd for b~ilaing below market value units,
Mt~l~L MHh~J~K
h ax : z~lS-SbS-gaUJ
RU9 lb UU :.~.~
5. Use CDBG money for construction of new affordabls housing as
well as purchasing and/pr renovating older housing stock. That
money can also be used to help teachers and other personnel towam'd
down payments or rent subsidies.
5. Encourage lenders to provide low cost construction loans so
affordable units can be built.
7. Establish a non-profit fund to which businesses and individua'ls
can contribute for the purpose of providing below-market units and
=o which teachers an~ other essential personnel can apply.
8. Urge :he state legislature to provide tax incentives for those
willing and able to provide below market value rentals. With many
o~her school districts facing the same shortages, the time is rigl~
for such a proposal.
9.Establish an ordinance that requires a small percentage of tl~e
cost of each real estate transaction be paid to the city, the funds
of which to be used for developing and/or subsidizing below market
value housing.
10. I strongly agree with those who suggest the solution is raising
teacher's salaries, however it is only a partial solution
considering the exorbitant cost of housing in this area.
Providing affordable housing for our teachers and other necessary
..personnel will ensure :hat Saratoga continue to provide high
quality education while preserving property values.
Please pu: me on any mailing lists that contain info-rma:ion °n the
general plan and/or housing issues. My mailing adOress appears
above. I .can also be con:acted by phone at (408) 741-2220 or by
fax at (408) 868-9803.
Sincerely
CC: C~uck Page, Planning Commission Chair
Harjory Bunyard, League of Women Voters
Saratoga News
Ching-Li Chang, Teacher Housing Assistance Project
TO:
FROM:
Saratoga CRy Council
Committee on Homeless Women and Children
Saratoga/Los Gatos Branch
American Association of University Women
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing
We urge you to develop a plan immediately to comply with the ABAG requirement that
Saratoga develop 539 units of affordable housing, including 219 that are below-market-
rate.
Housing costs throughout Silicon Valley are so high that teachers, nurses, police, fire
personnel, and other service workers are finding it difficult to reside here. When they
move out of the area, their long commutes add to air pollution and stress individual and
community resources. In our work with the homeless of Santa Clara County we fmd even
people with jobs, such as store clerks are li .v~ng in crowded homeless shelters.
SUGGESTIONS:
Some of the actions we would support by the Saratoga City Council are:
1. Housing mixed with commercial units
2. Second units on residential lots (mother-in-law units)
3. Apartment units within large homes
4. Town house developments along busy corridors, such as Saratoga Sunnyvale Road
and Saratoga Avenue.
5. Down payment subsidies and/or no interest loans for teachers and others providing
essential services for Saratoga
6. City requirements that developers build 15% of residential projects in below market
units or contribute 15% of sales to the Santa Clara Housing Trust
7. Annual contributions by the city of Saratoga to the Santa Clara Housing Trust Fund
We realize that previous city councils have not taken action on this important issue, so
that you are-now faced with a crisis. We urge you to be creative and positive in
developing Saratoga's plan and'begin implementing it as quickly as possible. Please let
us know if we can be of any assistance to you.
Sharon A. Kelkenberg
14014 Pierce Road
Saratoga CA 95070-5347
For: Committee of 44 members on Homeless Women and Children
Saratoga/Los Gatos Branch
American Association of University Women
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE · SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 · (408) 868-120(1
Incorporated October 22, 1956
May 21, 2001
Sharon A. Kelkenberg
14014 Pierce Road
Saratoga, California 95070-5347
COUNCIL MEMBE RS:
Evan Baker
Stg~
JOi~n Mehattey .
NIck
' Ann Waltonsrn~tn.
RE: Affordable Housing
Dear Ms. Kelkenberg,
Thank you so much for your timdy correspondence regarding affordable housing. The City
Manager requested that I communicate with regarding your suggestions. The seven suggested
actions or housing programs that you suggested are all very interesting and the Cit-5, would
consider them during the preparation of the City's new Housing Element. Some of the
suggested programs are already supported by the City Council.
As with all Bay Area Cities, Saratoga is in the midst of preparing a revised Housing Element that
addresses the Regional Fair Share Allocation of housing needs. The Association of Bay Area
Governments (A_BAG) assigned this fair share allocation to the City. In order to prepare, adopt
and implement a plan that provides housing programs and opportunities in the manner
mandated by ABAG and the State of California the City will have ro be very creative.
I will transmit your correspondence to the consulting firm that is assisting the City in the
preparation of the new Housing Element. I will also discuss the issues with them to ensure that
your suggestions are given a thorough evaluation.
I look forward to meeting you and working with your organization as the City moves forward
with the preparation of the new Housing Element. Thank you again for your insightful and
timely correspondence.
Sincerely,
Community Development Director
xc: David Anderson, City Manager
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
August 16, 2001
To: Planning Directors - please copy to Planning Commissioners and appropriate staff
City and County Clerks - please copy to Councilmembers / Board of Supervisors
City and County Managers
Dear Councilmembers, Supervisors, Managers, Planning Commissioners and Staff:
Greenbelt Alliance has joined With the .Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern
Cah'femia and ether organizations ;n calling for increasing the supply of Bay Area
affordable housing while protecting open space and promoting vibrant, diverse
communities. We are communicating to you because we believe that the Housing Element
update process presents an important opportunity to plan for these outcomes.
Attached are our joint recommendations for key policies and strategies that you may
wish to consider as you draft your updated Housing Element. These strategies, we believe,
represent some of, the most effective tools that local governments can use in addressing the
critical need for affordable housing, while at the same time encouraging a greater variety of
housing options as well as efficient use of land and community resources.
Later this year, we and our partner organizations plan to publicly issue Report Cards
rating Housing Elements from around the Bay Area. We look forward to commending
Housing Elements that include the attached key policies and strategies, as well as an action
plan (including measurable goals, deadlines, and who is responsible). We will also
recognize Housing Elements developed with extensive public Participation and those that
. effectively identify.local, housing needs and constraints.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
Tom Steinbach
Executive Director
Greenbelt Alliance
530 Bush Street, Suite 303
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 398-3730
Dianne Spaulding
Executive Director
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern
California
369 Pine Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 989-8160
Attachment: Key Housing Element Strategies for Bay Area Communities
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
KEY HOUSING ELEMENT STRATEGIES' FOR BAY AREA COMMUNITIES
Greenbelt Alliance and the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern
California (NPH) suggest that the following strategies can strengthen
local housing elements and create affordable, greenbelt-friendly housing
in nearly every Bay Area community:
Summary of Key Strategies
· Identify Sufficient Land for Compact Affordable Housing Development
· Increase Densities & Adopt Appropriate Parking Requirements ·
· Zone for Smart Growth
· Create or Increase Local Funding for Affordable Housing
· Inclusionary Housing Zoning
· Stabilize and Preserve Existing Affordable Housing
Strategy gl: Identify Sufficient Land for Compact Affordable Housing
Development Through the housing element, cities are required to identify an inventory
of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sit-es and sites having
· ·potential for redevelopment. Re-zoning and re-using underutilized land and buildings, is an
effective-way to create affordable housing while rejuvenating neighborhoods and reducing
sprawl. Communities can re-zone surplus public, industrial, institutional and commercial
land for residential use, or for mixed-use development options. Many corm'ri, unities have a
more than adequate supply of employment-generating land uses, and thus could rezone
some surplus industrial and commercial land for residential use.
Communities must zone for "by right" multi-family housing development if the inventory'
of sites indicates that there are insufficient sites to meet the regional housing needs
allocation. Communities should consider going even further by establishing affordable
housing overlay zoning that permits, by right, the development of affordable housing on
medium and high-density residential properties that are covered by the overlay.
Strategy #2:
Requirements
Increase Densities & Adopt Appropriate Parking:
Increasing general plan and zoning densities to allow for higher density
residential development is the. most basic technique for increasing the potential supply of
housing and providing housing choices. For example, Medium Density Residential zoning
should allow at least 20 units to the acre, while High Density Residential zoning should
allow at least 30 units to the acre. At a minimum, sufficient land should be zoned for multi-
family development -- at densities that will make feasible the development of various types
of housing -- to accommodate the unmet need for very low, low, and moderate income
households identified in the Housing Element. Higher densities allow for more housing
choices, by encouraging housing styles such as townhomes, condos, apartments and single-.
room-occupancy developments.
Jurisdictions should also make sure parking requirements are not 'excessive for the type and
location of development. Senior, affordable, and transit-oriented housing have been shown
to have lower parking needs. Parking standards can have a significant effect on affordability
because the cost of developing structured parking is between $20,000 and $35,000 per
space. Excessive parking requirements reduce the number of units that can be provided,
add to the per-unit costs, encourage auto use, and reduce the potential 'for other amenities.
For more information see www.nonprofithousing.org.
Strategy #3: Zoning for Smart Growth Jurisdictions should proactively re-zone
for infill development, transit-oriented development and mixed-use zones in order to
encourage "Smart Growth." Smart Growth refers to efforts and strategies that encourage
infill development in existing Communities where schools, shops, and transit already exist
while conserving open space, farm land, and natural habitat. Jurisdictions should
encourage higher density and mixed-use development along future and current transit
corridors as well as downtown areas. For example, a mixed-use neighborhood zone might
allow a mix of moderate density residential and neighborhood-serving commercial uses as
a matter of right. In establishing such mixed use and higher density zones, reduced parking
requirements should be incorporated and neighborhood design issues addressed. Putting
housing close to transit and shops is especially important for lower income workers, seniors
and others who can't drive' or don't oWn a car, and increasing densities means .transit
systems will be better utilized.
Strategy #4: Create or Increase Local Funding for Affordable Housing
A) Increasing Redevelopment Funds Targeted for Affordable Housing is a very
effective way to provide more support for affordable housing. California law requires
that at least 20% of all redevelopment fUnds be set aside in a special fund to subsidize
the construction and rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing. Many
communities have increased this percentage to higher rates such as 30% or even 50%.
Another important step is to target a large percentage of redevelopment funds to very_-
low income households (people at or beloW 50% of median income).
B) Jobs/Housing Linkage Fees: Jurisdictions can establish a job/housing linkage
program that requires new industrial, commercial, and office development (i.e. any
nonresidential develop,ment) to aid in the development of new housing affordable to
3
very low, low, and moderate income households. In a linkage program, the city
establishes in-lieu fees, or allows the developer to provide (or cause to be provided) a
certain number of affordable housing units. The amount of housing or in-lieu fees
provided is usually related to the size of the new non-residential development project.
Some of the cities and counties with linkage programs include: San Francisco;
Livermore; Cupertino; Pleasanton; Sunnyvale; and Napa. Fees range from relatively
low amounts (50 cents/sq, ft. in Pleasanton) to higher amounts ($7.14 in Sunnyvale).
C) Other local sources include municipal bonds, local taxes, and revenues Man,./
jurisdictions have established Housing. Trust Funds with a dedicated source of on-going
public revenue such as the real estate transfer tax or jobs-housing linkage fees. This can
be done by raising special taxes or redirecting the revenues of existing taxes. It is also
common to receive additional funds such as appropriations or contributions from a
community's general fund. Communities can also use General Obligation (GO) Bonds,
Mortgage Revenue Bonds (MRBs) and/or Tax-Exempt Revenue Bonds.
Strategy #5: Inclusionary Housing Zoning Jurisdictions should establish an
inclusionary housing zoning ordinance, if the jurisdiction does not currently have one, or
strengthen the existing ordinance, to provide for a minimum of 15% of the units in new
developments to be targeted to lower and moderate-income housing. Inclusionary zoning
works best when combined with density bonuses and other incentives such as fee waivers,
reduced parking/:equirements, and/or expedited permit review. Ownership inclusionary
units should be targeted to no more than 80-100% of median income and rental units should
be targeted to 60-80% of median income and below. "In lieu fees" should nOt be:
encouraged; much more preferable is the transfer of land and the creation of deed- restricteC[
units. Over 80 California cities and counties have adopted inclusionary programs that have:
resulted in the production of more than 25,000 affordable units. It works in such diverse:
jurisdictions as East Palo Alto, Emeryville, Half Moon Bay, Livermore, Mountain View..
Napa, Pleasanton, San Francisco, San Rafael, and Sunnyvale.
Strategy #6: Stabilize and Preserve Existing Affordable Housing with
housing costs rising rapidly, stabilizing the existing supply of affordable housing is often
the first priority. Most communities also have a supply of publicly assisted housing that is
at risk of being converted to market rate. Acquisition by building tenants or a non-profit is
often needed to preserve this housing as affordable.
Greenbelt Alliance
530 Bush Street, Suite 303
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 398-3730
Contact: Janet Stone
jstone @ ~eenbelt.org
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
369 Pine Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 989-8160
Contact: Shannon Dodge
Shannon @nonprofithousing.orl.~
August, 2001
To: Saratoga Planning Commission August 22, 2001
From: Lisa Kurasch
City of Saratoga Housing Element and Environmental Determination
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Housing Element as I
will not be able to attend the August 22 hearing.
Overall I think the document is very thorough, professional and well prepared. It is
obvious to me that a great deal of research and effort went in its development. I feel
the programs could benefit from a few more specific goals in defining and
documenting their performance.
I wish to briefly reiterate and add to a few comments that I made at the joint
Council and Commission meeting on July 18, 2001, relating to the specific programs
and actions outlined.
Program 1.2 would implement a residential mixed-use overlay zone to be applied to
any commercial area of the city. The discussion by Parsons in the introductory
memorandum proposes that the City designate specific commercial zones or sites
which would be appropriate for mixed - use development. I am more in favor of
this approach because it gives more clear direction and defined, predictable goals for
the city and for potential development. It is further a way to focus on areas that the
city feels are important to coordinate in overall development, such as downtown
and the Gateway, which have very different profiles, characteristics, and problems.
I have included two articles on the merits of "specific plans" and examples of other
communities' successes with proactive approaches, including Palo Alto.
Program 2.1 Density bonus is an incentive for providing affordable units; however,
applicants may potentially never opt to exercise this bonus. An effective tool I
would add is "inclusionary zoning", which requires a minimum percentage of low
and moderate income housing in all new housing developments. This could be for
developments of more than a certain number of units only, or all multi-family
zoning. An "in lieu of" fee would also be a way to build city assistance funds and
guarantee that programs will continue, particularly since amount of contributions
to assistance programs depends upon city funding available.
Yountville has this kind of program in place, requiring developers of all rental
projects and subdivisions of certain sizes to provide a percent of affordable units or
pay a fee to their housing fund.
Secondary units- needs a system to document and inventory how many units are
actually planned to be used. For example, a tracking system of rental agreements,
contracts, etc. could be implemented as an incentive in order to qualify for tax
credits, waiver of fees or the like.
Energy Conservation Opportunities - I would add
1) - use of passive solar principles in addition to "thermal mass";
2) - passive solar design that draws heat out in summer and in in winter;
- vents and baffles for internal air circulation
3) -Minimizing use of pavement near homes;
- delete: use of artificial flowing water
- use of native and xeriscape materials and methods to redUce water consumption,
one of largest energy uses in the state (water delivery)
4) - use of photovoltaic systems instead of "solar panels";
expand upon list of green building techniques to reduce energy reliance (reference
to city resources)
I would like to emphasize the importance of education and awareness of programs,
and dialogue with the public for the success of these programs. The public must be
sold on the benefits of these efforts. Not only does any second unit amnesty
program depend upon the encouragement and understanding of city officials, but
the cooperation between public and private entities is essential for the community
to benefit fully.
Respectfully,
Lisa Kurasch
cc City Council
September 2, 2001
It is urgent that we seek solutions to the affordable housing crisis facing our
community in the town of Los Gatos and the wider Santa Clara County. The
challenge is great because of the very high cost of housing and of land in this
valley, compared to income levels. The county defines $30,000 a year income as
very low income. Affordable housing is almost nonexistent for this sector.
I believe through collaboration and cooperation with corporations, businesses,
foundations, local government, faith communities and families we can better
produce affordable housing for those in need in this wonderful valley where we
live.
ThrOugh inclusionary zoning for new developments and strengthening renter
· protections, wehave some concrete proposed solutions. Housing is not just
another "competing priority." It is'a fundamental and inalienable human right.'
I support you in actively and creatively pursuing short-term and long-term
solutions to our community's affordable housing crisis.
Respectfully,
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: Allison Knapp DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Appeal of DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011;19752 Versailles Way; Applicant- Lee
Chen; Appellants-Hari and Yvonne Pillai
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Consider the public testimony and record of the Planning Commission's deliberations and
determine if the facts support the Planning Commission's action. If so, it is recommended that
the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal and
incorporate the additional conditions of approval identified below.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The applicant received Planning Commission approval to construct a new 5,986 square foot, one-
story residence. The existing 3,822 square foot, single-story residence would be demolished..
The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 40,000 square feet and is
located within an R-l-40, 000 zoning district.
THIS AREA INTENTIONALL LEFT BLANK
Lot Coverage:
SUMMARY TABLE
Propgsal
26%
Building Footprint
Driveway
Walkway
Covered Patio/Carport
5,986 sq. ft.
1,611 sq. ft.
1,644 sq. ft.
1,184 sq. ft.
TOTAL (Impervious
Surface)
10,425 sq. ft.
Code Requirements
Maximum Allowable
35%
Floor Area:
Setbacks:
First Floor 5,264 sq. ft.
Second Floor 0
Garage 722 sq. ft.
(Basement) (3,340 sq. ft.)
Maximum Allowable
TOTAL 5,986 sq. ft. 6,000~
Minimum Requirement
Front 50 ft. 30 ft.
Rear 76 ft. 50 ft.
Left Side 20 ft. 20 ft.
Right Side 26 ft. 20 ft.
Height: Maximum Allowable
Residence 26 ft. 26 ft.
Detached Garage N/A 12 ft. 2
Planning Commission Action and Issues
On July t2, 2001 the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and continued it to August
8, 2001. On August 8, 2001, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to approve the proposed project.
Planning Commission concerns were: Screening for privacy along the right side property line;
Incorporating a roof tile that more closely matched the color of the building; Continuing the
stone proposed for pedimentation around the windows and around the side of the building;
Increasing the front setback an additional five feet to minimize view impacts; and, Planting
additional landscaping in the front of the building to reduce the formal look of the front fa9ade
There is no height penalty with respect to floor area in the R-l-40, 000 Zoning District.
The Planning Commission may grant up to 15 feet if the appropriate findings can be made.
2 of 13
and lan&cape plan. After public testimony and Planning Commission discussion the
Commission voted to add the following conditions to the project approval.
1) Plant additional Redwood trees along the side (right) property line.
2) Tile roof shah comphment the color of the building.
3) Apply stone around the arches and wails under the windowg. The stone under the
windows shah wrap around the side of the structure.
4) Increase the front setback an additional five feet.
5) Plant additional landscaping in front of the building to soften the entry. At a minimum
plant two mature Ohve trees at either end of the portico.
Plan Revisions
The applicant revised the plans to incorporate the Planning Commission conditions of approval.
The Director of Community Development reviewed the plans and found them to implement the
Planning Commission conditions that were incorporated into the project to address
neighborhood concerns.
Appeal
On August 22, 2001, Yvonne and Hari Pillai fried an appeal of the Planning Commission's action.
The Pillais agreed to one extension. The Pillais cited "design" as the reason for the appeal.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Neighborhood Meetings
The applicant met with members of the neighborhood that had voiced concerns with the design
of the project during. A preliminary consensus was reached in response to the meetings as
noted in the September 19, 2001 letter from the applicant (attached). The applicant, based upon
direction from the neighbors (Marvin and Joan Fox and Hari and Yvonne Pflai). Additional
issues were identified and resolved as a result of the meeting. In summary:
The property owners to the east of the site requested that the proposed new 36-inch box
Coast Live Oak trees be moved from the east property h'ne to the south portion o[ the lot.
The Foxes were concerned that the new trees would block sunh'ght from their yard. Staff
supports the revised placement of the trees. There is ample room on the southern portion of the
lot for the trees to mature.
Remove the three six-inch trees Mong the west property h'ne and locate the three 36-inch
box Coast Redwoods to the west property line where the three six-inch trees were
located. The Pillais believe rids will provide them with more screening and privacy Staff
3 of 13
supports this tree removal and replacement. The six-inch trees are not protected and the Coast
Redwood replacements are natives and more mature.
Move the house seven feet toward the street. The neighbors believe that ttn's will provide
them with a larger view corridor. Staff supports this request. The front setback would be 48
feet where a minimum of 30 feet is required. Please note, the Planning Commission had
increased the front setback by five feet (i.e., a 55 foot setback) in response to the concerns to the
neighbors. After the planning Commission meeting, the neighbors decided they wanted it
moved forward, not backward, to preserve views.
Record on the deed that the new trees conditioned with the house are not to be removed
without obtaining approval from the adjacent neighbors and the City of Saratoga. Clearly,
this request is to assure the longevity of the solutions to be implemented Staff recommends
that a slight modification be made to the request. The deed to the property shall be recorded
with the restriction that trees along the west property line shall not be removed without a tree
removal permit from the City of Saratoga and notice and consent of the adjacent neighbor. The
requirement of the consent of the adjacent neighbor, to the west, shall be waived if it is
determined by the City that the trees are a threat to public safety.
The Pillias withdrew their appeal (see attached letter dated September 23, 2001) based upon
agreement to the above conditions, adding one additional condition and restating the conditions
levied by the Planning Commission. In summary those being:
That the pool equipment be located as shown on the plans (on the north-south center line
of the property) but in addition be housed in a small roofed shed that is no more than h've
feet tu'gh to reduce the noise impact to all the neighbors. The housing structure for the pool
equipment would be less than 25 square feet in area and would not appreciably effect the
percent coverage restrictions. The proposed lot coverage is at 26 percent and is well under the
35 percent maximum permitted.
That two 54-inch trees be added to the front property to reduce the visual impact of the
front arches. The neighbors stipulate a variety to be agreed with the immediate neighbors.'
Staff recommends that the Olive trees (54-inch box) conditioned be the Commission be the
trees to be planted.
The appeYant notes that "Aesthetic improvements that have already been proposed/or the
property at or after the Planning Commission meeting such as the stone like material for
the [a¢ade and the too[tiles more earthen. Staff believes that these issues have been
addressed by the Planning Commission conditions of approval and the Director of Community
Development review as noted above.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None
4 of 13
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Reversal of the Planning Commission's decision would not allow a new single-story single-
family residence to be constructed or the existing single-family residence to be demolished.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Council could deny the appeal without the additional conditions of approval.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS
None required.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
A public hearing notice was mailed to surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the
subject property and published in the Saratoga News newspaper.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Upholding the Planning Commission Decision with Additional Conditions.
2. Planning Commission Staff Report July 12, 2001.
3. Minutes to Planning Commission Public Hearing August 8, 2001.
4. September 19, 2001 letter from Mr. Chen.
5. September 23, 2001 letter from Mr. Paillai.
6. Plans.
5 of 13
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SARATOGA DENYING APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
APPLICATION (DR-01-007 6;r BSE-01-011) 19725
VERSAILLES
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 15-46 of the City of Saratoga Zoning Ordinance an application
was made to the City of Saratoga for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,986 square
foot, one-story residence and demolish the existing 3,822 square foot, single-story residence at
19752 Versailles Way per "Exhibit A" and presented.at the City Council meeting of October 3,
2001; and
WHEREAS, following consideration and approval of the Design Review application by
the Planning Commission on July 11, 2001, the decision of the Planning Commission was
appealed by Yvonne and Hari Pillai in accordance with Article 14-85 of the Saratoga City Code;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a de novo public hearing on the matter at which
time any person interested in the matter was given the full opportunity to be heard and to
present evidence on July 11, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the design review proposed by the applicant in
the exhibit marked "Exhibit A," all as more particularly set forth in File No. DR-01-007 az BSE-
01-011 of this City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, minutes of
proceedings conducted by the Planning Commission relating to the application, and all written
and oral evidence presented to the City Council in support and in opposition to the application;
and
WHEREAS, the Advisory Agency and the City Council has conducted duly noticed
public hearings in connection with this matter at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby finds that:
The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when
considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on
adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will avoid
unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that eighteen trees are on the site
and three would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36- inch box Coast
Redwood and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees are the suggested replacement trees
by the City Arborist which are included as conditions of approval. The trees continue to
provide screening and privacy to the site and adjacent properties.
6 of 13
Additionally, the pool (and pump) is proposed to be placed in the center of the lot, which
would reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. The building on the left side screens
the outdoor activities even more to the property owners on the left of the site.
The carport is proposed to be 20 feet from the right side property line. The separation
from the adjacent property appears adequate to protect from excessive noise impacts for
two reasons. One, it is a carport which by its nature does not have a door associated with
it which would make more noise to raise and lower. Two, it is a single tar'carport and
not a standard two-car garage which by the nature of the increased use would create
more noise exposure to adjacent residential uses.
The proposed entry porch (at the 47 ft. setback) is identified by the use of arched
windows and columns. The setback portions of the building diminish in mass or
"importance" from the street as they continue to be setback from the street. The
"diminishing effect" of the setback portions of the building is achieved by the increase in
setback coupled with an alteration of the architectural detail to a simpler facade with
rectangular windows.
The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to
follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade
changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of
neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas in that the lot is nearly fiat with an
average slope of 5.3 percent. The proposed grading is to construct the basement and
swimming pool, not to alter the topography in order to construct the residence.
Additionally, eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed in order to
construct the project. Four 36-inch four Coast Redwoods and two 24-inch Coast Live
Oaks as shown on Sheet C-1 of the drawings are the replacement tree as recommended by
.the City's arborist.
The prOposEd main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots, and
to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be
integrated into the natural environment, in that the roof line is varied as the building
setbacks are increased from the front property line. Ihe project proposes stone
pedimentation (vertical element) and window trim and an eave line with stone corbels
(horizontal detail). The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular fenestration and
soft colors that include taupe and white break up the mass of the building.
The front entry porch is 47 feet from the front setback. Other elements of the front
elevation increase in setback from 55, 57 and to 76 feet from the front property line. As a
point of reference the existing residence that would be demolished is 32 to 43 feet from
the front setback, with the majority of the building line at 43 feet.
The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height
with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate
neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and
7 of 13
shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties; nor (ii)
unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy _m that the
structure's design incorporates elements and materials which minimize the perception of
bulk and integrate the residence into the surrounding environment. The neighborhood is
an eclectic mix of "statement" architecture and ranch style homes. The proposed project
fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. It does however depart from the ranch
style architecture. The project setbacks provide sunlight and air corridors.
The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion -
control standards used by the City in the construction requires a City-issued building
permit. Appropriate grading and erosion control methods will be required as a part of
that permit.
The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and
techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and~ as required by Section 15-
45.055. In particular the project conforms to PoLicy i "Minimize the Perception of Bulk",
Technique #1, "Minimize Changes to Natural Topography"; Policy 1, Technique $3, "Use
Materials and Color to Reduce BuLk"; PoLicy 1 Technique #4 "Minimize Building Height";
PoLicy 1, Technique ~6 "Use of Architectural Features to Break Up Massing"; Policy 1,
Technique #5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood"; Policy 2, "Integrate
Structures with the Environment," Technique/~3, "Use Landscaping to Blend Structure
with the Environment", PoLicy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique ~3 "Use
Landscaping to Enhance Privacy" and Policy 3, Technique ~4 "Reduce Noise Impacts on
Adjacent Dwellings".
Therefore the appeal should be denied.
City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and
other exhibits submitted in connection, with this matter, the application of LEE CHEN for
Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
8 of 13
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-01-007/BSE-01-001
DENIAL OF APPEAL
CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LEE CHEN; VERSAILLES WAY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated
by reference.
The basement shall not be converted to a secondary dwelling unit as defined by the City's
Municipal Code in absence of abiding by the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit process and
obtaining the requisite building permits. The deed to the property shah include a
statement to such. The deed restriction shah be reviewed and approved by the Director
of Community Development and shown on the Tide Report prior to issuance of building
permits.
3. Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shah be submitted to the Planning
Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans .incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page and containing the following revisions:
Two fireplaces are included on the plans and only one may be wood burning. The
other fireplace shah be gas as burning. One wood burning fireplace with a gas
starter and one gas-burning fireplace shah be noted on the drawings. Both
chimneys shall be indicated on the plans.
ii. All the'recommendations of the City Arborist shah be followed and incorporated
into the plans.
iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or
Licensed Land Surveyor.
iv.
The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to
foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shah provide a
written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans."
4. No Ordinance-size tree, with the exception of tree #'s 4, 7 and 18, shall be removed
without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
5. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no
fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height.
9 o fl3
6. No structure shah be permitted in any easement.
A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and
incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If
all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints,
an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan.
CITY ARBORIST
10.
11.
All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated 04/23/01 shall be followed and
incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to:
The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the
construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on
the site and grading plans.
Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as
recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout
construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building
Permit.
A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or
private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected
trees on the site.
d. A platform buffer shall be placed between the construction of the house and the
protective fence for root protection of tree/~'s 3, 5, 6 and 8.
Tree ~'s 3, 5 and 8 (a 25-inch Canary Island Pine, a 12-inch Coast Redwood and a 13-
inch Coast Live Oak) shall only be pruned by an International Society of
Arboricultural certified arborist.
Four 36- inch box Coast Redwood and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees shall be
planted as shown on Sheet C-1 of Exhibit A. The plantings are also required to
provide year-round privacy screening.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form
acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $22,353
pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the
maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site.
Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify
compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist
and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released.
Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's
recommendations.
10 of 13
12. A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be retained
to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the residence_, and
driveway for the purpose of preventing or minimizing damage to tree ~ 1; and (2) provide
regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision functions as they occur.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
13.
The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or
built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16- -
20:210).
14.
Automatic sprinklers shall'be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per
stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To
insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, fiat, horizontal ceiling.
The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size
of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of
Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]).
15. All driveways shall have a 14-foot minimum width plus one-foot shoulders.
16. Plans shah be checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility.
17.
Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance with
the provisions of City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative requirements,
sprinkler systems 16-60-E).
18. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed
installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval.
19.
Automatic sprinklers are required for the residential dwelling (including the square
footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and. all
calculations shall, be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated
sprinkler system is required. The sprinkler system shah be installed by a licensed
contractor.
CITY ATTORNEY
20.
Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's
defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court,
challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
21.
Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of
the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250 shah be payable to this City per each day of the
violation.
11 of 13
PLANNING COMMISSION
22. Plant additional mature Redwood trees to provide screening along the side property line.
23. Tile roof shall match the stone of ~he building material.
24. Apply stone around the arches and walls under' the windows. The stone under the
widows shah wrap around the side of the structure.
25. Plant two 54-inch box)olive trees one at either end of the portico.
CITY COUNCIL
26. The front setback shall be 48 feet.
27. Relocate the proposed new 36-inch box Coast Live Oak trees from the east property line
to the south portion of the lot.
28.
Remove the three six-inch trees along the west property line and locate the three 36-inch
box Coast Redwoods to the west property line where the three six-inch trees were
located.
29.
The deed to the property shall be recorded with the restriction that trees along the west
property line shall not be removed without a tree removal permit from the City of
Saratoga and notice and consent of the adjacent neighbor. The requirement of the
consent of the adjacent neighbor, to the west, shall be waived if it is determined by the
City that the trees are a threat to public safety.
30.
The pool equipment be located as shown on the plans (on the north-south center line of
the property and shall in addition be housed in a small roofed shed that is no more than
five feet high to reduce the noise impact to aH the neighbors.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire'.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the St,ate, County, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
SECTION 4. The appeal of Design Review DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011 is hereby denied.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the
Saratoga City Council held on the 3h day of October, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
12 of 13
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
John Mehaffey, Mayor
13 of 13
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No./Location:
Applicant/Owner:
Staff Planner:
Date:
APN:
DR-01-007/BSE-01-011; 19752 Versailles Way
LEE CHEN/PAUL DOBEL
Allison Knapp, Contract Planner
July 11, 2001
397-17-034
Department Head:
VERSAILLES
FARWELL
WAY
19752 Versailles Way
F. XECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Application filed:
Application complete:
Notice published:
Mailing completed:
Posting completed:
02/23/01
06/07/01
06/27/01
06/28/01
06/21/01
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 3,822 square foot, single-story residence
and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,986 square foot, one-story
residence. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 40,000
square feet and is located within an R-1-40, 000 zoning district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review apphcation with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-01-
007/BSE-01-011.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Staff Analysis
2. Draft Resolution DR-01-007/BSE-01-011.
3. Arborist Report dated 04/23/01
4. Plans, Exhibit
000002
File No. DR-OI-OO7/Z~
-Ol-Oll; 19752 Versailles Way
STAFF ANALYSIS
Attachment
ZONING: R-l-40, 000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential - Very Low Density
MEASURE G: Not applicable
PARCEL SIZE: 40,000 sq. ft.
AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of Site 5.3%. Slope at Building Site 2.5%
GRADING I:~EQUIRED: Total cubic yards of cut WOuld be 1,630 to a maximum depth of
14.4 feet. Of the total, 1,080 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 14.4' would be
necessary to construct the basement; 150 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of eight
feet would be necessary to construct the pool. Total cubic yards of fill would be 70 to a
maximum depth of 1.2 feet.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of construction
of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, ~New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for
the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The project site is in
an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists of
constructing one single-family residence and associated out buildings.
MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior finish proposed is Ivory stucco;
window mm in a tan-white (Cambridge White) and gutter, fascia and eave molding is
proposed to be taupe. Cast stone in a sage color is proposed as mm and a clay rust colored
roof tile is Proposed as the roofing material. Color and material samples will be available at
the public hearing.
(This Area Intentionally Left Blank)
P:~PlanningkDesign Reviewk2001~3R-01-00?.doc
O O O (} O a
File No. DR-01-007£2,.
-01-011; 1o752 Versailles Way
Lot Coverage:
Building Footprint
Driveway
Walkway.
Covered Patio/Carport
TOTAL (Impervious
Surface)
Proposal
26%
5,986 sq. ft.
1,611 sq. ft.
1,644 sq. ft.
1,184 sq. fr.
10,425 sq. _ft.
Code Requirements
Maximum Allo~vable
35%
Floor Area:
Setbacks:
First Floor
Second Floor
Garage
(Basement)
TOTAL
Front
Rear
Left Side
Right Side
5,264 sq. ff.
0
722 sq. fr.
(3,340 sq. fr.)
5, 986 sq. fr.
50ft.
76 ft.
20ft.
26fr.
Maximum Allowable
6,0002
Minimum Requirement
30ft.
50fr.
20ft.
20fr.
Height:
Residence 26 fr.
Detached Garage N/A
Maximum Allowable
26ft.
12 ft.2
There is no height penalty with respect to floor area in the R-l-40, 000 Zoning District.
The Planning Commission may grant up to 15 feet if the appropriate findings can be made.
P:XPlanningRDesign Review~.001~DR-01-00?.doc O O O O O 4
File No. DR-OI-O07/~..
-01-011; 1,0752 Versailles Way
PROJECT DISCUSSION
Design Review
The apphcant proposes to demohsh the existing 3,822 square foot, single-story residence
and has requested Design Review approval to construct a new 5,986 square foot, one-story
residence. The maximum height of the residence would be 26 feet. The site is 40,000
square feet and is located within an R-I-40,000 zoning district.
The neighborhood was at one time predommatdy single-story large ranch style homes on
large lots. Over the past several years, the neighborhood has and is continuing to witness a
change in architectural style. The large rambling ranch style houses are being replaced
with one- and two-story structures that are more "palatial" in style. The architecture is
palatial in terms of the detailing, mass of the roof lines, use of auto courts that are based
upon the porte-cochere style, the "statement" that the entry-ways announce along the front
elevations, and very large basements (3,000 sq. ft.) with living quarters that could easily be
converted to secondary dwelling units. The predominate building materials of the ranch
homes, wood and brick with some use of stucco is being lending way to stucco and tile
with the construction of the newer homes.
· Ten lots along Versailles Way were surveyed in order to evaluate this application. The lots
include the two lots at the corner of Versailles Way and Wild Oak Way, the lot at the
comer of Versailles Way and E1 Puente Way and all the lots that directly front Versailles
Way. The site location map on the cover of this staff report shows the block. Three lots
have larger style homes constructed on them (19737 and 19753 Versailles Way and 14551 E1
Puente Way). Currently there is a Design Review application under review (for
completeness and referral to the Planning Commission) at the Planning Department for
19805 Versailles Way. The house is across the street diagonally from the subject property.
Similar to the ·project before the Commission, it is proposing to demolish the existing
dwelling and reconstruct a new, larger dwelling. The proposed architecture is nearly
identical in all respects including style, colors and materials, to that being proposed by DR-
01-007. The house at 19800 Versailles Way (adjacent to the subject site) is undergoing a
remodel that is in-keeping with the architecture and materials of the original ranch-style
homes in the neighborhood. Therefore, out of the ten lots surveyed, five have been or are
under review to be constructed with larger "landmark" homes.
A few questions arise when evaluating this application for compatibility with the
neighborhood. We must evaluate the architecture in terms of its compatibility with the
ranch style architecture that was originally constructed in the neighborhood as well as the
other newer and larger homes in the area. Clearly there are some older well-maintained and
remodeled homes within the area that are likely to remain for some years to come. The
newer homes on the block all seem to have their own architectural style that lends an
eclectic feel to the area. We must evaluate this proposal (and the forthcoming one at 19805
Versailles) in light of both styles of architecture in the neighborhood, acknowledging the
eclectic nature of the area while still attempting to preserve a sense of the history of the
neighborhood.
P:LPlanmng~xl3esign Review~200EDR-01-007.doc
~ O O O O 5
File No. DR-OI-O07/~ -01-011; 19752 Versailles Way
The proposed architecture is more in keeping with the architecture of the three newer
dwellings in the neighborhood, although there is no common thread in terms of style or
materials between the project and the other three newer dwellings. The proposed
architecture is a departure from the ranch style of the area and is no less compatible with
the ranch style architecture than the other three residences. It could be required of this
project, and it should be at a minimum required of the forthcoming 19805 Versailles Way,
to include some brick and/or wood in the mm or details of the building.
The proposed project does implement apphcable Residential Design Guidelines as discussed
below.
Policy I "Minimize the Perception of Bulk", Technique ~i, "Minimize Changes to Natural
Topography". The lot is nearly fiat with an average slope of 5.3 percent. The proposed
grading is to construct the basement .and swimming pool, not to alter the
topography in order to construct the residence.
Policy i, Technique/~3, "L/se Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk", which suggests softening
elevations by using different materials on different levels, the use of natural color
and materials on the lower portions and foundations of a house and the use of
materials that create horizontal proportions. The project proposes stone
pedimentation (vertical element) and window trim and an eave line with stone
corbels (horizontal detail). The use of stone and stucco, arched and rectangular
fenestration and soft colors that include taupe and white break up the mass of the
building.
Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of Bulk", Technique ~4 "Minimize Building Height", suggests
varying the roof element of a structure to reduce bulk. The rooftree is varied as the
building setbacks are increased Dom the front property 1me.
Policy 1, Technique #6 "Use of Architectural Features to Break Up Massing".- The front entry
porch is'50 feet from the front setback. Other elements of the front elevation
increase in setback from 62, 64 and to 83 feet from the front property line. As a
point of reference' the existing residence that would be demolished is 32 to 43 feet
from the front setback, with the majority of the building line at 43 feet.
The proposed entry porch (at the 50 ft. setback) is identified by the use of arched
windows and columns. The setback portions of the building diminish in mass or
"importance" from the street as they continue to be setback from the street. The
"dimimshing effect" of the setback portions of the building is achieved by the
increase in setback coupled with an alteration of the architectural detail to a
simpler facade with rectangular windows.
Policy 1, Technique ~5, "Design Structure to Fit with Existing Neighborhood". The proposed
project fits with the eclectic nature of the neighborhood. It does however depart
Dom the ranch style architecture.
PSPlanningAl)esign Review~20Ol~R-01.O07.doc
000006
File No. DR-OI-O07/~. .-01-011; 19752 Versailles Way
Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment," Technique f/:3, "Use Landscaping to Blend
Structure with the Environment", suggests preserving the existing vegetation as rfiUch as
possible. Eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed m order to
construct the project. Four 36-inch box and two 24-inch box trees are the
suggested replacement trees by the City Arborist, which are included as conditions
of approval. The replacement trees shall be Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Big Leaf
Maple, California Buckeye or Coast Redwood or any combination thereof. The
applicant proposes four Coast Redwoods and two Coast Live Oaks as shown on
Sheet C-1 of the drawings as the replacement trees.
Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique #3" Use Landscaping to Enhance Privacy",
which suggests the use of evergreen trees and shrubs to provide year-round privacy.
Four replacement trees, Coast Redwood, are evergreen and placed along the side
property Lines. Existing evergreen trees that would remain which would continue
to provide privacy screening are a Deodar Cedar (/~1), Coast Redwoods (#'s 2,5,6,13,
16 and 17) and Coast Live Oaks (/~'s 8, 12 and 14). The existing and proposed trees
would provide privacy screening. The two Coast Live Oaks shown m the front
setback area are also evergreen.
Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique #4 "Reduce Noise Impacts on Adjacent
Dwellings" suggests screening and controllLng outdoor noise activities. The pool
(and pump) is proposed to be placed in the center of the lot, which would reduce
noise impacts to adjacent properties. The building on the left side screens the
outdoor activities even more to the property owners on the left of the site.
The carport is proposed to be 20 feet from the side (right) property line. The
separation from the adjacent property appears adequate to protect the neighbors
from excessive noise impacts for two reasons. One, it is a carport which by its
nature does not have a door associated with it that would make more noise to open
and close. Two, it is a single car carport therefore not a standard two-car garage
which also by the nature of the increased use would be noisier.
The proposed 3,340 sq. fl. basement is shown to have direct access to the outside. The size
of the basement and the direct access to the outside lends itself to being used as a second
unit. The applicant, through this entitlement review, should be put on notice that no
conversion of the basement to a seCond dwelling unit shall occur in absence of abiding by
the City's secondary dwelling unit process. A condition of approval is also included that
addresses this issue.
The City Arborist, the Public Works Department and the Saratoga Fire District have
reviewed the application. The Public Works Department had no additional conditions and
approved the Building Site Exemption on May 11, 2001. Comments from the City Arborist
and the Saratoga Fire District are included as conditions of approval.
P:\Planning~esign Review~20Ol~DR-01-007.doc
/'h k~h ~ ~ N~
File No. DR-Oi-O07/~ -01-011; 19752 VersMllex la/ay
Parking
The Saratoga City Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking
spaces within a garage. The residence will have an attached 722 sq. ft. three-car garage plus
a one-car carport.
Grading
Total cubic yards of cut would be 1,630 to a maximum depth of 14.4 feet. Of the total, 1,080
cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of 14.4' would be necessary to construct the 3,340
sq. ft. basement; 150 cubic yards of cut to a maximum depth of eight feet would be
necessary to construct the pool. Total cubic yards of fill would be 70 to a maxLmum depth
of 1.2 feet. The project does not require Planning Commission action on a grading plan.
The reformation is provided as background for the Commission.
Geotectuu'cM Review
Background
Soft is classified by its stability. Saratoga's softs are mapped on the "Ground Movement
Potential and Potential Geologic Stability" map which in broad terms identifies softs that
are stable and softs that require additional geologic study prior to issuance of entitlement
permits, and/or building permits. A rule of thumb, softs with either a "P" or an "M" in the
classification will require additional geotechrdcal review. "P" identifies softs that have a
potential for failure while "M" identifies softs that have a moving landslide. Planning staff
consults with the City's Geologist in making the determination if additional geotechnical
investigation is required.
The soft classifications are, "Areas of Relatively Stable Ground" consisting of soft types Sbr,
Sls, Sun, Sff, Sex; "Area of Potentially Unstable Ground" consisting of Prow, Pfs, Ps, Pd and
Pdf; "Areas of Unstable Ground" consisting of soft types Ms, Md and Mrf; and the final
classification, "Areas of Potential Surface Faulting" consisting of Psf softs. The "Areas of.
Relatively Stable Ground" are and predommately level areas with moderately steep slopes
underlain with bedrock. Some areas are subject to soft creep, expansive clay rich softs and
may be on fill. These softs are considered stable and usually do'not require a geologic report
provided that the slopes are not excessive. The City Engineer is consuked on these matters.
The remaining soft classifications typically require additional geotechnical investigation,
review and mitigation. These softs typically have steep slopes, are subject to mass wasting,
slumping, rockfall, shallow and deep landsliding, debris flow and surface faulting.
Depending on the potential for geologic instability, the percent slope and the expertise of
the City Engineer and the City's geologic consultant geologic review is conducted prior to
review of the project by the Planning Commission. The results of the review are
summarized for the Planning Commission, as appropriate, and the recommendations of the
report become conditions of project approval.
P 5PI a nnl ng~Design'Review~2001~DR-01.007.doc
~.~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~
File No. DR-OI-OO?/z
-0]-011; 197.52 VersaJJJes Way
Additionally, any grading in the City's HR District requires City Geologist review and
approval. Grading on stable sites with minor slopes, under 10%, typically does not require
City Geologist review. Grading associated with unstable sites identified above is typically
forwarded to the Planning Commission for review when they are associated xvith
discretionary permit review.
Proposed Project Soil
The subject site contains Sbr soft, which is classified as an "Area of Relatively Stable
Ground". The average slope of the site is 5.3 percent. Therefore additional geotechnical
review was not required. The City Engineer has determined that the standard conditions of
approval are sufficient.
There are eighteen trees on site that would be exposed to some risk due to project
construction. Three trees, as discussed above, would be removed in order to construct the
site improvements. The three trees are an ll-mch Sweet Gum in 'fine" condition, a 19-tach
Coast Redwood in "fine" condition and a seven-inch Hollywood Jumper in "fair" conditionl
Four 36-inch box Coast Redwoods and two 24,inch box Coast Live Oaks are the proposed
replacement trees.
The project driveway was redesigned pursuant to the Arborist's recommendation in order to
save the 17-inch Coast Live Oak (tree #14), which is in "exceptional" condition. Tree #'s 3,
5 and 8 (a 25-inch Canary Island Pine, a 12-inch Coast Redwood and a 13-inch Coast Live
Oak) would require pruning and the pruning shall be conducted by an International Society
of Arboriculmral certified arborist. A platform buffer shall be placed bewveen the
construction of the house and the protective fence for root protection of tree #'s 3,5,6 and 8i
The Arborist's Report contains other tree preservation recommendations, which shall
become conditions of approval and are included on Sheet AB of Exhibit A (the architectural
drawing packet). '
Fireplaces
The plans indicate that two fireplaces and one chimney are proposed in the new residence
without staring wood or gas burning. The plans omit the chimney on the left (east)
elevation of the building. The proposed conditions of approval require the plans to be
revised for zone clearance to show both chimneys and to indicate that only one fireplace
may be wood burning and the other shall be gas burning and identify the fireplaces as such.
Correspondence
No written correspondence was received on this application at the date that the staff report
was distributed to the Planning Commission. The neighbors at 19800 Versailles Way spoke
to the project planner at the counter and expressed two concerns. One concern is the
departure from the ranch style architecture (in particular the type of building materials
PSPlanning~Design Review~2001~DR-01-O07.doc
~ ~Cl~lr~ IF~ ~
File No. DR-OI-OO7/.t., ,-01-011; 19752 VersMlles Way
proposed) and other is the location of the outdoor shower for the pool. The Planning
Commission could condition the project to eliminate the outdoor pool shower'~and/or
relocate it to the interior of the building.
Staff has discussed the issues with the eclectic nature of the architecture in this report. At
a minimum, should the Commission find merit in this concern, the applicant and architect
for the forthcoming 19805 Versailles Way (which are the same for this project), could be
given direction from the Planning Commission as well as staff, to include brick and wood in
the details of the building and less stucco on the 19805 Versailles Way plans. The
Commission could also direct the applicant to work with staff to incorporate some brick
and wood into this project.
Conclusion
The proposed residence is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's
Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15-45.080
of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the
natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it
is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning
regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and impervious
coverage.
STAFF REcoMMENDATION
Approve the Design Review application with conditions by adopting Resolution DR-01-
007/BSE-01-001.
PSPlanmng'd)esign Rev~ewL2001X, DR-01-0OT. doc
Attachment 2
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. DR-01-007/BSE-01-001
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LEE CHEN; Versailles Way'
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an apphcarion
for Design Review approval for the construction of a new 5,986 square foot residence on a
40,000 square foot parcel; and
Wi-i~msas, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Pubhc Hearing at which
time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present ex~idence;
and
Whereas the project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures",
Class 3 (a) of the Pubhc Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the
construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The site is in an
urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves the
construction of one single family home and associated out buildings; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined:
The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed residence, when
considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on
adjacent lots and within the neighborhood; and (ii) community view sheds, will
avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy, in that eighteen trees are
on the site and three would be removed in order to construct the project. Four 36-
inch box Coast Redwood and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees are the
suggested replacement trees by the City Arborist which are included as conditions
of approval and shown on Sheet C-1 of the drawings. The trees continue to provide
screening and privacy to the site and adjacent properties.
Additionally, the pool (and pump) is proposed to be placed in the center of the lot,
which would reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. The building on the left
side screens the outdoor activities even more to the property owners on the left of
the site.
The carport is proposed to be 20 feet from the right Side property line. The
separation from the adjacent property appears adequate to protect from excessive
noise impacts for two reasons. One, it is a carport which by its nature does not have
a door associated with it which would make more noise to raise and lower. Two, it
is a single car carport and not a standard two-car garage which by the nature of the
increased use would create more noise exposure to adjacent residential uses.
File No. DR-OI-OO7ZI:,,
,-01-011; 1.0752 Ves'sMlles Way
The proposed entry porch (at the 50 ft. setback) is identified by the use of arched
windows and columns. The setback portions of the building diminish in mass or
"importance" fi:om the street as they continue to be setback fi:om the street. The
"diminishing effect" of the setback portions of the building is achieved by the
increase in setback coupled with an alteration of the architectural detail to a
simpler fagade with rectangular windows.
The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing
structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil
removal; grade changes will be mimmized and will be in keeping with the general
appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas in that the lot is
nearly fiat with an average slope of 5.3 percent. The proposed grading is to
construct the basement and swimming pool, not to alter the topography in order to
construct the residence.
Additionally, eighteen trees are on the site and three would be removed in order to
construct the project. Four 36-inch four Coast Redwoods and two 24-inch Coast
Live Oaks as shown on Sheet C-1 of the drawings are the replacement tree as
recommended by the City's arborist.
The proposed mare or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots,
and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and
will be integrated into the natural environment, in that the roof line is varied as the
building setbacks are increased fi:om the front property [me. The project proposes
stone pedimentation (vertical element) and window trim and an eave [me with
stone corbels (horizontal detail). The use of stone and stucco, arched and
rectangular fenestration and soft colors that include taupe and white break up the
mass of the building.
The front entry porch is 50 feet fi:om the front setback. Other elements of the front
elevation increase in setback from 62, 64 and to 83 feet fi:om the front property [me.
As a point of reference the existing residence that would be demolished is 32 to 43
feet fi:om the front setback, with the majority of the building line at 43 feet.
The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and
height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the
immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural
environment; and shall not (i) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent
properties; nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize
solar energy in that the structure's design incorporates elements and materials
which minimize the perception of bulk and integrate the residence into the
surrounding environment. Ihe neighborhood is an eclectic mix of "statement'
architecture and ranch style homes. The proposed project fits with the eclectic
nature of the neighborhood. It does however depart fi:om the ranch style
architecture. The project setbacks provide sunlight and air corridors.
P:\Planning~Design Rev~ew~200X~DR-0X-00Ldoc 00o O12
File No. DR-OI-OO7Z&
.-01-011; 197.52 Versailles Way
The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and
erosion control standards used by the City in the construction requires-a City-
issued building permit. Appropriate grading and erosion control methods vdll be
required as a part of that permit.
The proposed residence will conform to each of the applicable design policies and
techniques set forth in the Residential Design Guidelines and as required by Section 15-
45.055. In particular the project conforms to Policy 1 "Minimize the Perception of
Bulk", Technique /~1, "Mimmize Changes to Natural Topography"; Policy 1,
Technique #3, "Use Materials and Color to Reduce Bulk"; Policy 1 Technique/~4
"Minimize Budding Height"; Policy 1, Technique/~6 "Use of Architectural Features
to Break Up Massing"; Policy 1, Technique /~5, "Design Structure to Fit with
Existing Neighborhood"; Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment,"
Technique//3, "Use Landscaping to Blend Structure with the Environment", Policy
3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy", Technique/~3 "Use Landscaping to Enhance
Privacy" and Policy 3, Technique /~4 "Reduce Noise Impacts on Adjacent
Dwellings".
Now, THER~FORZ, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby
resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans
and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of LEE
CHEN for Design Review approval be and the same is hereby granted subject to the
following conditions:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A~,
incorporated by reference.
The basement shall not be converted to a secondary dwelling unit as defined by the
City's Municipal Code in absence of abiding by the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit
process and obtaining the requisite building permits. The deed to the property shall
include a statement to such. The deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of Community Development and shown on the Tide Report prior to
issuance of building permits.
Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the
Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page and containing the following revisions:
i. Two fieplaces are included on the plans and only one may be wood
burning. The other fireplace shall be gas as burning. One wood burning
P:~PlanningkDesign Reviewk2001~DR-01-007.doc
File No. DR-OI-OO7/L
· -01-011; 1,0752 Versailles Way
fireplace with a gas starter and one gas-burning fireplace shall be noted on
the drawings. Both chinmeys shall be indicated on the plans.
fi. All the recommendations of the City Arborist shall be followed and
incorporated into the plans.
iii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or
Licensed Land Surveyor.
iv.
The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to
foundation inspection by the City; the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a
written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans."
4. No Ordinance-size tree, with the exception of tree/~'s 4,7 and 18, shall be removed
without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
5. No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located xvithm
any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height.
6. No structure shall be permitted in any easement.
A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-
site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction - Best Management
Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or
other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan.
CITY ARBORIST
All recommendations in the City Arborist's Report dated 04/23/01 shall be followed
and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to:
The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the
Construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted
on the site and grading plans.
Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as
recommended by the Arborist with a note "to' remain in place throughout
construction.' The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a
Building Permit.
A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment
or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance
protected crees on the site.
d. A platform buffer shall be placed between the construction of the house and the
protective fence for root protection of tree/~'s 3,5,6 and 8.
VAPlanning~Desigh Review52001~DR.01.00/.doc NNNN~i
File No. DR-OI-O0?/t,.
-01-011; 1~752 Versailles Wa)'
10.
11.
12.
Tree #'s 3, 5 and 8 (a 25-inch Canary Island Pine, a 12-inch Coast Redwood and
a B-inch Coast Live Oak) shall only be pruned by an International Society of
Arboricultural certified arborist.
Four 36- inch box Coast Redwood and two 24-inch box Coast Live Oak trees
shall be planted as shown on Sheet C-1 of Exhibit A. The plantings are also
required to provide year-round privacy screening.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form
acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of
$22,353pursuant to the report and recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee
the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site.
Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verif3,
compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the
Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released.
Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the
Arborist's recommendations.
A project arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture shall be
retained to (1) provide on site supervision during key aspects of construction of the
residence and driveway for the purpose of preventing or mimmizing damage to tree # 1;
and (2) provid~ regular written progress reports to the City of these supervision
functions as they occur.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
13.
15.
16.
17.
The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared
or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga
Code 16-20:210).
Automatic sprinklers shall be installed 'in the newly constructed garage (2 heads'
per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable
space. To insure proper sprmlder operation, the garage shall have a smooth, fiat,
horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water
Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire
suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.090 [I]).
All driveways shall have a 14-foot minimum width plus one-foot shoulders.
Plans shall be checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility.
Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained in accordance
with the provisions of City of Saratoga Code Article 16-60. (Alternative
requirements, sprinkler systems 16-60-E).
PSPlanning~Design ReviewL2001~DR-01-007.doc
File No. DR-OI-OO7/Z,
-01-011; 1.0752 Versailles Way
18.
Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the
proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval."
19.
Automatic sprmlders are required for the residential dwelling (including the square
footage of the basement). Documentation of the-proposed installation and all
calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head
calculated sprinkler system is required. The sprinkler system shall be installed by a
licensed contractor.
CITY ATTORNEY
20.
Applicant agrees to hold City harmless Dom all costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, incurred by the City or hdd to be the liability of City in connection
with City's defense of its actions in any Proceeding brought in any State or Federal
Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
21.
Noncomphance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation
of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due
to the violation, hquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each
day of the violation.
Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will
expire.
Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the
Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of
adoption.
PSPlanning~Design Review~2001~DR-01-0OT.doc
File No. DR-OI-OOTA_
-01-011; 1.9752 Vet'sMiles Way
PASSED AND ADOPTD by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California,
this llth day of July 2001 by the following roll call vote:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
P:\Planmng~Design Review~200i~DR-01-007.doc
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
BARRIE D." JATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408-353-1052
Fax 408-353-1238
23535 Summit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95033
Attachment
TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT
Title CHEN PROPERTY
17752 VERSAHJI,F~S WAY
SARATOGA
Prepared at the Request oF
Community Planning Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fmitvale Ave.
Saratoga,'CA 95070
Site Visit by:
Michael L. Bench
Consulting Arborist
March 8, 2001
Job # 03-01-056
Plan Received: 3/1/01
Plan Due: 4/3/01
APR ~ 3 2001
CITY OF SARA'fv,,:~
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TREE SURVEY AND PRESER ION RECOMMENDATIONS AT
THE CHEN PROPERTY, 17752, ~RSAILLES WAY
3
2. The dumping of construction materials, especially waste materials, such as
painting products, mortar, concrete, etc.) under the canopies.
3. The construction traffic, including foot traffic across the root systems, and the
parking of vehicles or construction equipmem under the canopies.
4. Demolition of the existing buildings, driveway, and pathways adjacent to trees
resulting in bark injuries, broken branches, or root loss.
5. The trenching across root zones for new utilities or for landscape irrigation.
6. The grading of the surface soil resulting in the removal of quantities of absorbing
root tips.
7. Broken branches or bark injuries as a result of construction equipment passing too
close.
8. Landscaping, including incompatible plant species, trenching across tree root
zones for irrigation, excessive soil disturbance of tree root zones, grading to create
contours, etc. Virtually any landscape feature inside a tree's root zone results in a
percentage of root damage. If the percentage is significant the affected trees will
decline or die.
Recommendations
The following mitigation suggestions are intended to reduce the extent of construction
damage to acceptable levels, so that retained trees can reasonably be assured of survival
without decline. If any changes to these plans occur during construction, the following
may require alteration.
I suggest that construction period fencing! be provided and located as noted on the
attached map. Fencing must be ofchainlink a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on
steel posts driven 18-inches into the ground. Fencing must be in place prior to the
arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all
construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not
be temporarily moved during eoustmction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown
on the attached map.
A platform buffer2 must be placed between construction'of the house and the
protective fence for root protection of trees #3, 5, 6, and 8. A platform buffer, which
consists of 4 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for
this propose due to its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must
immediately be covered by 1-inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to
prevent slippage. This platform is sufficiem for workers on foot using hand carried
tools. This platform must cover the entire exposed root zone area adjacent to
construction.
I suggest that grading on the west side of the proposed addition be revised as noted on
the attached map concerning contour 470, or eliminated.
c~ns~ruction period fencing
platform buffer
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBOR1ST MARCH 8, 2001
TREE SURVEY AND PRESE$ /ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT
THE CHEN PROPERTY, 17752 v£RSAILLES WAY
In order to retain tree #14, the proposed driveway turnaround must be revised so that
the west edge ofthe new driveway is no closer than 10 feet fi.om the trunk oftree
#14.
There must be no grading, trenching, or surhce scraping beneath the driplines
of retained trees, (either before or after the construction period fencing is
installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or' other
requirements our office must be consulted.
Trenches for any utilities (gas, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside
the driplines of retained trees unless specifically indicated on the enclosed plan. For
any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest a project arborist be retained to
determine acceptable locations. A 2-foot section of each trench adjacent to any tree
must be left exposed for inspections by our office.
Supplemental irrigation must be provided to retained trees #3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16 and 17 during the dry months (any month receiving less than
1-inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two
weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by installation ora
simple soaker hose in a circle at least 3 feet from the trunk for each tree.
Spread a full 3-inch layer of coarse wood chips over the entire root. zone exposed to
construction activity to trees #3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, (on this property) and trees #14, 15,
16, and 17. Spreading must be done by hand.
9. Excavated soil may not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of
trees.
10. Trenches for a drainage system must be located within 1 foot of the proposed
foundation footing. Where this cannot be achieved our office must be consulted.
.11. Any priming must be done by an Imemational Society of Arboricultural certified
arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards.
12. Landscape pathways and other amenities that are constructed under the canopies of
trees must be constructed completely on-grade without excavation.
13.
Landscape irrigation trenches, which cross a root zone, and/or excavations for any
other landscape features must be no closer to a trunk than 15 times the trunk diameter
fi.om tree trunks. However, radial trenches3 may he made if the trenches reach no
closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to any tree's trunk, and if the spokes of such a
design are no closer than 10 feet apart at the perimeter of the canopy.
14. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed so that it does not strike the minks of trees.
Only drip or soaker hose irrigation is allowed beneath the canopies of oak trees.
radial wenches
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 8, 2001
TREE SURVEY AND PRESEI~ ION RECOMMENDATIONS AT
THE CHF. N PROPERTY, 17752 VERSAILLES WAY
5
15.
Lawn or other plants that require frequent irrigation must be limited to a maximum of
20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of seven times the trunk
diameter from the trunk of oak trees.
16.
Bender board or similar edging material must not be used beneath the canopies of
existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may
result in significant root damage.
17.
If landscape plants are to be installed within the root zone of an oak tree it should be
planted only with co~. ~ible plants. A publication about compatible plants can be
obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland
94612.
18. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be
directly in contact with the bark of a tree due to the risk of disease.
19.
Materials or equipmem must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped under the driplines of
trees, or buffed on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint
products, etc.) must be removed fi;om site.
The value of the trees are addressed according to ISA Standards, Seventh Edition, 1988.
The following 3 trees are expected to be removed by implememation of this plan. Their
values are as follows:
Tree #4 - $716
Tree #7 - $4,478
Tree #18 - $1,035
This total value ($6,230) is equivalent to four 36-inch boxed and two 24-inch boxed
native specimens. Replacements are suggested.
Acceptable native tree replacements are:
Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia
Valley oak - Quercus lobata
Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum
California buckeye- Aesculus californica
Coast Redwood - Sequoia sempervirens
However, 36-inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24-inch boxed specimens may not be
available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset
of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within
60 days of the issuance of permits.
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL 1~ BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 8, 2001
TREE SURVEY AND PRESElt . ION RF_~2OMMENDATIONS AT
THE CHEN PROPERTY, 17752 VERSAILLES WAY
6
The combined value of all of the other retained trees is $89,411. I suggest a bond equal to
25% ($22,353) of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure protection.
Respeetfu!ly:
Michael L. Bench, Associate
MLB/sl
Enclosures:
Glossary of Terms
Tree Dam Accumulation Charts
Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction
Protective Fencing (1)
Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies (3)
Platform Buffer (2)
Map
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST
MARCH 8, 2001
0O0023
Job Job Address: 19752Qsailles Way Job
~[ ~[ v.~
Measurements Condition Prunln41Ceblln;t Needs Pest/Disease Problems
Recommend.
' andassOcl^teS "'I , Ii " '- '
.
sq. In 452 X $27/sq. in. = $ 12,208 X sp. cla~ 70% = $8,546 X cond. 60% = $ 5,127 X I~. 75% = $ 3,~6
T~al Value
2 C~st R~w~ 1 34.0~ 37 80 40 1 1
~. In 907 X $27/sq. in. = $ 24,501 X sp. class 90% = $22,051 Xcond. 100% = $ 22,051 Xl~. 75% = $ 16,538
T~al Value
sq. In 491 X $27/sq. in. = $ 13,247 X sp. cla~ 90% = $11,922 Xcond. 7~% = $ 8,942 Xl~. 70% = $ 6,259
T~al Value
4S~;tu~d:;ber~'ci~uaI'"°1~1~'°1 '= ~l'°l''l'l Ii III II II
~.in 101 X$27/sq. ln.= $ 2,727 Xsp. class 50% = $1,384 Xcond. 75% = $ 1,023 XI~. 70% = $ 716
T~al Value
sq. In 113 X$271sq. in. = $ 3,052 Xsp. cla~ 90% = $2,747 Xcond. 90% = $ 2,472 Xl~. 70% = $ 1,731
T~I Value
~.ln 4~ X$2~/~q. in.~ $ ~,0¢~ - X~.cla~, 00% ~ $0,087 Xcond. ~5% ~ $ ~,400 X1~.70% = $
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120
24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320
48"box = $,~000 52"box = $7,000
?2"box = $15,000
1 = BEST, 5 = WORST
Page 1 of 3
Job Title: Chen Job Address: 19752 Versailles Way Job #03-01-056
Meseurements Condition PruninqlCabllnq Needs . Peet/Disease Problems
Recommend.
' andASSOCIAT[S,,z,I I ! ' i -i ; ! i ~'
Key. Plant Name ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g
, I , , ! ~ ....
~. in 351 X $27/~. in. = $ 9,477 X sp. cla~ 90% = $8,529 X cond. 75% = $ 6~397 X I~. 70% = $ 4,478
T~al Value
I' '°lxl '* i,' ill i
~.in 200 X$27l~q. in. ~ $ 5,400 X~.cla~ ~00% ~ $5~400 Xeond. 00% ~ $ ~,240 Xl~. 70~ = $ 2,208
T~al Value
~q. In ~7~ X $2~/~. ln. ~ $ 4,~00 X ~p. ela~ ~0% ~ $4~ X cond. 00% ~ $ 280 X I~.
T~al Value
10 Sa~ent Che~ 9.0 x 8~7 4.0 12 15 15 1 4 5
~.ln ~5 X$27/~q. in.~ $ a,~05 X~p. ela,~ 70% = $2,~7~ Xeond. 00% ~ $ ~,304
~.0 x 8.0 5.0 ~3 ~5 25 ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~
~. In 78.5 X $2~1~q. In. ~ $ 2,~20 X ~. cla** ~00% = $2,~20 X cond. ~00% = $ 2,~20 X
T~al ~Value
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120
24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320
48"box = $Sl~[iI 52"box = $7,000
72"!box = $1~Jl~
1 = BEST, 5 = WORST
Pa
Job Title: Chen Job Address: 19752 Versailles Way Job #03-01-056
Measurements Condition Prunln~llCabllng Needs .
Pest/Disease Probleme Recommend.
and AssOCIATes ~! I II !,i i-i,~, ~l !' ,, ~ ,,,, i.. ,~ ~ ,
I ~ ~ ~ I~ O ~ O ~ O O O
~ O __ ~ ~ Z Z
sq. in 351 X $27/~. in. = $ 9,477 X sp, cla~ 90% = $8,529 Xcond. 75% = $ 6~397 X I~. 70% = $ 4,478
T~al Value
~ c~::;~%;,, I'~'°~,xl'*'°i '~1~1''i~i~ ili ill iii
~.in 200 X$27l~q. in. ~ $ 5,400 X~.ela~ ~00% ~ $5~400 Xcond. 00% ~ $ ~,240 XI~ 70~ ~ $ 2,208
' *=;;,- I"°l i i I."i~*!~* ' 'i* iii I III
sq. in ~77 X $271~. in. = $ 4,769 X ap. class ~0% = $477 X cond. 60% = $ 286 X I~. 65%
T~al Value
]0 Sa~ent Che~ 9.0 x 8~7 4.0 ~2 ~5 15 ~ 4
~. In 115 X $27/sq. in. = $ 3,105 X sp. class 70% = $2,174 X cond. 60% = $ 1,304 X I~. 60%
782
T~al Value
~q. in ~0 X$2W~q. in. ~ $ 3,5~0 X~¢.cla~ 70% ~ $2,~57 Xeond. 75% ~ $ L843 XI~. 00% ~ $ ~00
T~al ~Value
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
S-gal = $36 15-gal = $120
24"box ,= $420 36"box -- $1,320
48"box = 52"box = $7,000
72"box ,,
1 = BEST, 5 = WORST
Pa 3
Job Job Address: 19752ersailles Way Job
3/8/01
I Measurements I Chndition I PrHnlnnlC~hllnn Uoo~. I p~tlni,~t)~.= Drr~hlDm~ I D ....... fi
I
BARmE D, COATE ~ I I ~ I ~. I ~ i ~ I ~ ~ a -
~ and ASSOCIATES ~ " ! i ~ ' 1~ o~
0 0 I0 I ~ Im
Key~ Plant Name ~ ~ ~ ~ ] = ~ ~ O = O ~ ~ ~
m m
o j o j ~ Jo
~ -- ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
Oedms deodam . I I j i j
6q. In 452 X $271sq. in. ~ $ 12,208 X sp. class 70% = S8,546 Xcond. 60% = $ 5,~27 X I~. 75% = $ 3,846
T~al Value
2 O~st R~w~ J 34.0j 37 40 1
sq. In g07 X $271sq. in. = ~ 24,501 X sp. class 90% = $22,051 Xcond. 100% = $ 22,051 X I~. 75% = $ 16,538
Total Value
sq. In 491 X $211sq. in. = $ 13,247 X sp. cla~ 90% = $11,922 X cond. 7~% ~ $ 8,942 X I~. 70% - $ 6,259
T~al Value
4 Sw~t Gum I11.oj x 4.0 12 35 20 1 3 J 4
~.ln ~0~ X$27/~q. ln. ~ $ 2,727 X~p. ela~ 50% ~ $~,g~4 Xcond. ~o/, = $ L02~ Xl~. ~0% ~ $
T~al Value
I, .oI 'i i i, , ,!1, !iil, , , i
~q. ln ~ X$27l,q. in. ~ $ ~,052 X~.ela~ ~0% ~ $2,747 Xcond. 00% ~ $ 2,~2 XI~. ~0~ ~ $ ~,~
T~al Value
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
5-gal = $36 15-gal -- $120
24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320
48"box = $5~000 52"box = $7,000
72"box = $15,000
I -- BEST, 5 -- WORST
Page 1 of 3
Job ten Job Address: 19752~rsailles Way Job $
Measurements Condition PrunlnqlCab Inq Needs Pest/Disease Problems
Recommend.
~. tn 1520 X $27/~. In. = $ 41,034 X sp. cla~ 90% = $36,930 X cond. 100% = $ 36,930 X I~. 80% = $ 29,~4
T~al Value
~ c.~.v.o.~ I,.ol ! ~!~ ~o ,i,i~i Ii Iiii I111 I
T~al Value
lot~l V~lu~
'~ ~"- I'~'°1 ~i'~'°I'"°i~;;~i~* '~*I~i I i i i~ Ii '1
sq. In 332 X $27/~. in. = $ 8,964 X sp. cla~ 90% = $8,068 X cond. 75% = $ 6~051 Xl~. 60% = $ 3,630
Total Value
~. tn 605 X $27/~. in. = $ 16,335 X sp. class 90% = $14,702 Xcond. 60% = $ 8,821 X I~. 60% = $ 5,293
18 Holl~ Junip~ 7.0 x 7.0 3x4 9~8 15 15 1 2 3
~q. In 87 X $271~. in. ~ $ 2,3a0 X ~. ela~ 70% ~ $~,~4~ X cond. 00% ~ $ ~,480 X I~.
l~al Valu~
REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES
5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120
24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320
48"box = $5,000 52"box = $7,000
72"box =
1 = BEST, 5 = WORST
Page 3 of 3
TREE SURVEY AND PRESE$ ION RECOMMENDATIONS AT
THE CHEN PROPERTY, IT?5~. ~RSAILLES WAY
Assignment
At the request of the Community Planning Department, City of Saratoga this report
reviews the proposal to demolish a one-story residence and to construct a new one-story
residence in the context of potential damage to orthe removal of existing trees. This
report further provides information about the health and structure of the trees on site, and
makes recommendations by which damage to the restricted trees can be controlled to
prevent significant decline.
Commems and suggestions contained in this report presume that the locations of trees in
relation to proposed construction are accurately presented on the plans provided.
Summary
This proposal exposes eighteen trees to some level of risk by proposed construction.
Two trees (g4 and gl8) would be removed by implementation of this design. In addition,
tree #7 would be severely damaged and will not likely survive. Replaeemems, which
equal their values are suggested.
Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected.
A bond equal to 25% the value of the retained trees is suggested in accordance with the
levels of the expected risks.
Observations
There are eighteen trees on this site that are at risk of damage by proposed construction.
The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy
dimensions. Each tree has been tagged with a metallic label with an assigned number.
The eighteen trees are classified as follows:
Tree gl
Trees # 2, 5, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, 17
.Tree g3
Tree ~4
Tree g8, 12, 14
Tree gl0
Tree gl 1
Tree #18
Deodar cedar ( Cedrus deodara)
Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
canary island pine (Pinus canariensis)
sweet gum (Liquidarnber styraciflua)
coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
sargent cherry (Prunus sargenth)
Prunus species
Hollywood juniper (Juniperus chinensis ~Cmizuka~
The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of I to 5 (Excellent -Poor)
on the data sheets that follow thi.q text. This information is converted to a single
descriptive rating indicating overall condition. This is intended to aid with planning.
Exceptional Fine Fair Marginal Poor
Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens
2, 13, 14 3-7, 11, 12, 15, 1, 8, 9, 10, 17
16, 18
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 8, 2001
TREE SURVEY AND PRESE! ]ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT
THE C-'HEN PROPERTY, 177fi2 v £RSA]LLES WAY
2
Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are-needed
to retain them in their currem condition must be used.
Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions.
Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted
horticultural standards in order to prevent decline.
Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation
must prevem further decline.
Trees #2 and 13 are located on adjacem properties in addition to being in Exceptional
condition.
Impacts of Construction
Trees #1, 2, 9, 10, and 11 would suffer minor root damage ii?protected by construction
period fencing.
Trees #3, 5, 6, and 8 would suffer significant root damage by Wenching for the foundation
footing and by soil compaction from construction activity on the east side of the proposed
new addition. As a result of the same construction, tree #7 would suffer more severe root
damage than the other four and would not be expected to survive. Trees #3, 5, 6, and 8
would likely survive in good condition if recommended mitigation procedures are
implemented as suggested. Trees #3, 5 and 8 will require pruning to provide access for
construction of the new addition. Thi.~ pnming appears feasible.
Trees g4 and #18 are in conflict with the proposed location ofthe house and with the
proposed driveway respectively. These trees would be removed by the implememation of
this design.
Trees #12 and #13 would suffer at least moderate root damage by proposed grading to
establish proposed contour 470 on the west side of the property. This proposed grading
combined with the proposed driveway turnaround adjacent to tree #14 would result in
such severe root damage that tree #14 would not be .expected to survive. HoweVer, tree
#14 is an Exceptional 17-inch diameter coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). It will be
essential to mitigate the grading and the driveway plan as proposed in order to retain tree
#14, which in my opinion must be done.
Trees #15, 16 and 17 would suffer significant root damage by construction of the
driveway at the location proposed. However, these trees would survive in good condition
if recommended mitigation procedures are done as suggested.
In addition to the specific risks noted, the retained trees may be subjected to one or more
of the following damaging events that are common to construction sites:
1. The stockpiling of materials or the storage of equipmem under the canopies.
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORJST
MARCH 8, 2001
BARRIE D. ~ ~TE AND ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(~08) 353-1052
Fax (408) 353-1238
23535 Summit Rd. {.os Gatos, CA 95033
GLOSSARY
Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with
either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown.
Crown - The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage.
Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be
produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning.
Decurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central
leader resulting in a round-headed tree.
Excurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to
the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base.
Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots,
which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates.
Included bark - Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems,
branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting
out.
Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability
and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates.
Root collar - The flared, lower portion of the base ora tree where the roots and stem merge.
Also referred to as the "root crown".
Leader - The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree.
Stem - The axis (trunk of a central 'leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached.
Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branch~s retained to
shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and
gradually removed as the trunk develops.
Definition of Woody Parts
Trunk - The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch.
Scaffold branches - In decurreni trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown.
Limb - A major structural part.
Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch.
Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch.
Twig - A very small part attached to a branchlet.
Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants.
BARRIE D. ( ~TE AND ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(~O8) 353-1052
Fax (~O8) 353-1238
:23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033
TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION
These are general recommendations
And may be superseded by site-specific instructions
BEFORE
Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cutz beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches
for utilities, imgation lines, cable TV and roof drains.
Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage
beneath tree canopies..
Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup
trucks.
Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require remm of signed
' copies to demonstrate that they have read the document.
Prune any tree par[q, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for
pines which may be pruned between October-January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using
ISA pruning inr~ructions may be used for his work. If limbs are in conflict with the
construction equipment before the certified arborizt is on-site, carpenters may cut off
offending partz of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re-cut later
by the arbori~t.
Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% ora trees foliage, or prune so
that an unbalanced canopy is created.
DURING
Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies.
.Maintain fences 'at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and
subcontractors, including painter~ are gone.
Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5-6 buttress rootz bases visible at 12" from
the trunk.
Irrigate trees adjacent to conduction activity during hot months (June-October). Apply l0
gallons of water per l" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 ~') {>nee per 2 week period by
· soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the think.
Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any
organic material which is non toxic may be used.
AFTER
Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just
inside the dripline. Continue until 8" of rain has fallen.
Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies.
Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which
absorb water.
Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies.
A 1-inch F ~ood and Wood Chips Pia~ rm Buffer
fo~ Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy
which Must Be Used for
Foot Traffic
Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate & Associates
Horticultural Consultants
(~08) 353-1052
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the
BARRIE D, COATE i Chert Property, l??S: Versailles Way
and ASSOCIATES
~om 3sa. sos2 Prepared for:
235'35 ,~mmil I,=ad
La c~.~,c.A )~o I City of S~ratoga, Planning Department
HORTICULTLrR-M~ CONSULTANT I Date: March S, 2001
CONSULTING ARBORIST I Job # 03-01-056
Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts.
AI~ dimensions and tree locations
are approximate
BARRIE D. COATE AND ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
(t+08) 353-1052
Fax (408) 353-1238
23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033
Lel~end
Drip Line of Tree Canopy
.............. Protective Fencing
REMOVE EXIST
Protective Fencing
During Demolition
of Shed
~1113
Relocate
Fence To
Here Immediately
After Demolition
of Shed '-
)VE EXIST .: .
SHED '"
i'"/
L~end
-- Drip Line of Tree Canopy.
.............. Prole~twe Fencin~
Platform Buffer
~Aem[ O. COATi
' ;
~L~ BASEMENT
FF' 459.0
'; fT' 470.5
: l~elocate
- -,.~,..~'..,. Edge of
Driveway
Here
Grading
.Here 13
16
Saratoga Planning Commiss~
Minutes of August 8, 2001
Page 2
pURL,lC HEARING - ITEM NO. 5
DR-01-01%~ BSE-01-022 (517-14-027) - N~OR~ 15330 Kittridge Road: Request for Design
o eV. ie.w ,appr~o~alx~o' ,construct. a 2,301 square footX~ond.story addition to an existing 2,308 square
ot s~ng~e-sto_ry residence. 'Ire proposed addition inclil~s 60 square feet on the first floor and a new
2,241 square foot sec&t~, story. The maximum height ofthXo,~esidence would be 25.5 feet. The site is
466'086 square feel .and i~ed in the HR (Hillside Residen~al~oning district.' (SULLIVAN)
Chair Barry °P~ed the P~blic/~N°' 5 at 7:04 p'm' ~ ' .
Motion: Upon motion of Comhxissioner Jackman, seconded by C&missioner Zutshi, the
% ~C0mm. iss!on co.n!!n, ued c~iderat!on .of'DR-01-016' .a-B i-022 toallow a
· ~ second .story addition to an~xisting home at 15330 Kittridge~oad to a date
~ u.n..c_.er~ta_in. _ _
~ ~akani, 'Jackman~n~ Zutshi.
% .N~O~E~S~,_ _N_one __ _ %. .
X~BSENT'. Hunter, Kurasch and RoupXe, x -
A~BxS TAIN: None
Director Sullivan adv}be.d that this item would be renoticed for public heating once the project is ready
for Commission review ~d approval.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011 (397-17-034) - CHEN~ 19752 Versailles Way: Request for Design
Review approval to construct a new 5,917 square foot single-story home and demolish an existing
3,822 square foot home. The proposed height is 26 feet. The lot is 40,000 square feet in area and is
located within the R-1-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP)
Ms. Allison Knapp, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that this application is for a Design. Review approval to allow the construction of a 5,9'i 7
square foot, single-story residence with basement and the demolition of an existing 3,822 square
foot residence.
· Said that the neighborhood consists of a mixture of older ranch-style homes as well as newer
designer-style homes with approximately 50 percent of each type.
. Added that this proposal is for more of a designer style architecture.
Pointed out that the project has articulation and nice fenestration.
Said that a letter of concern was received about the proposed height of the project.
Added that the architect has prepared a packet of information.
Recommended approval of this project.
·
·
·
·
·
Chair Barry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:10 p.m.
Mr. Greg Kawahara, Project Architect, 5466 Molly Circle, Livermore:
· · Stated that the proposed architecture is of a Mediterranean style, somewhat Italianate.
Saratoga Planning Commissx
Minutes of August 8, 2001
Page 3
· Added that the project will include cast stone moldings and that the massing and elevation steps
down.
Explained that the tallest portion of the home is a 10-foot length at 26 feet in height.
· Pointed out that there is one chimney for the single woodbuming fireplace. Two additional gas
fireplaces will also be included in the home but will not incorporate any chimneys.
· Acknowledged the comments from the neighbor regarding view concerns.
· Said that the proposed structure will be further setback from the street, which will decrease the
perceived bulk of the home.
· Advised that the 26-foot height will exist in just one point and that this highest ridge is just 6 feet, 9
inches higher than the existing ridge on the current home.
· Added that the existing mature vegetation in the area will help obscure any impacts and that views
will not be impacted.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Kawahara whether story poles have been requested.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no and restated the fact that only a 10-foot ridge will run at 26 feet in
height, running from front to back in order to have minimal impact.
Chair Barry asked if there is any functional use of the 26 foot height.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no.
Chair Barry asked why that height should not be reduced.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that the design concept is for an elegant architectural porch entry feature that
is more unique and traditional. Added that there is a low pitch to the roof and that the massing steps
down so that the project feels vertical being horizontally stretched out.
Chair Barry asked Mr. Kawahara if he would honor a Commission request to lower the height if doing
so is possible.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said. that he prefers to have the design approved as presented.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, 3083 East River Hills Drive, Saratoga:
· Cautioned that lowering the ridge risks impacting building drainage and use of materials.
· Reminded that while this is a small section, it is an important element in.order to tie in the roof
design..
· Suggested the possibility of moving the house back another five feet.
Chair Barry mentioned that this Architect and Builder will be working on another similar home on this
street and asked what similarities and differences are proposed.
Mr. Greg Kawahara advised that the second home will utilize wood corbels. Both homes will have
stucco siding and tile roofs. The next home will not include as wide a front porch.
Commissioner Jackman asked Mr. Kawahara if the next home would utilize the same arch features as
does this one.
Saratoga Planning Commiss,
Minutes of August 8, 2001
Page 4
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied no, adding that there will be just a single arch and that gable roof elements
will be included on the next project. Asked the Commission members if they were comfortable with
the proposed materials. ...
Chair Barry replied no. She stated that the Commission looks to see as much as wood and stone as
possible as opposed to use of stucco. Added that they do not want to see two homes directly across the
street from one another that are basically the same.
Commissioner Zutshi asked whether the elimination of arches on the sides could result in a loWer roof
height.
Mr. Kawahara replied yes but that the appeal is the proVision of the wider porch element.
Commissioner Jackman stated that she likes the way the home steps back and asked how far it steps
back.
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied that there is a significant step back of between 13 and 14 feet.
Chair Barry asked if Mr. Greg Kawahara has any further comments about proposed materials for th:is
house and the next one he will propose on the same street.
Director Sullivan advised the Commission that he has invited the architect to bring material samples
for the next house into the Planning DePartment Offices tomorrow.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that they would welcome as much input on the next project as possible from
staff and the Commission.
Mr. Hari Pillai, Neighboring Property Owner:
· Advised that he is the neighbor to the right comer.
· Declared that past wrongs do not justify new wrongs.
· Said that he had a number of issues, including the fact that this home is out of tune with the
neighborhood of mostly ranch style homes over stucco palaces.
· Said' that the roof height is an issue and that the 26-foot height achieves nothing but is Purely
cosmetic.
· Pointed out that the proposed materials are out of line with the neighborhood.
· Opined that this is a loud, cookie-cutter design that represents a "house on steroids" and that this
home is a Trojan horse that sets a bad'precedent for the neighborhood.
· Stated his opposition to the outdoor shower.
· · Said that there has been zero consultations with the neighbors.
'· Asked the Commission to instruct staff not to accept similar designs in the future and to encourage
more community involvement.
· Added that they don't want to see their neighborhood become another Cupertino or Las Vegas but
rather would like to retain the rural atmosphere and preserve the taste of the neighborhood.
· Expressed strong opposition to the design.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai whether additional trees might obscure this home from view
from his rear yard.
Saratoga Planning Commiss,
Minutes of August 8, 2001
Page 5
Mr. Haft Pillai replied that trees would not screen this home from view from their home's rear yard.
The existing screening trees will obscure from the front of the house and not from the back.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai if extra screening at the rear would help him accept this
project. -.
Mr. Hah Pillai pointed out that it would take a long time for this new screening material to mature.
Reiterated his belief that the home can be lowered without adversely impacting the owners' use of their
new home.
Commissioner Garakani asked Mr. Pillai how he would change this project.
Mr. Hari Pillai said that the project should change to a ranch-style architecture and change its
materials.
Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the ranch style is no .longer prevalent in this area.
Mr. Hah Pillai said that the fact that wrong decisions were made 10 years ago does not mean that other
wrongs should be propagated on top of that. Added that he went to a lot of trouble to add to his
property and to the area.
Mr. Raj Kumar, 19805 Versailles Way, Saratoga:
· Stated that he likes this proposal, finding it quite elegant and believes that it will be well built.
· Pointed out that there is a variety of architectural styles in the area anql that not a lot of brick is
used.
· Stated that "an argument of consistency due to existing inconsistency is not consistent."
Chair Barry asked to see the project material board.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder:
· Reminded that there is but a small area at the 26-foot height and that this height is permitted under
Code.
· Suggested that full-grown trees (as large as 110-inch box, 25-foot high) could be brought in
without a problem.
Assured that they are willing to plant trees necessary to help make the neighbor happy.
Stated that this will be a very beautiful house and that communities want variation in architecture.
Said that the materials proposed are very expensive and elegant. The stone is glass reinforced
concrete. Additionally they can utilize a custom stucco texture.
Said that in his business they build homes to compliment communities, for different clients that
need to be made happy as well as for different City Planning Departments, who must also be made
happy.
Commissioner Garakani asked if it would be possible to utilize stone on the arches.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that core or natural stone would be appropriate for use on the arches.
Commissioner Zutshi asked for the width of the arched area.
Saratoga Planning Commiss.
Minutes of August 8, 2001
Page 6
Mr. Greg Kawahara replied approximately 40 feet.
Chair Barry said that she does not oppose the roofing material but wants to be sure that the colors
blend as much as possible.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that he was willing to work with staff to select'a brown-toned roof tile.
Chair Barry pointed out that using a Spanish tile roof suggests that this is not strictly a Mediterranean-
style house.
Mr. Greg Kawahara said that they can get a blended roof.
Chair Barry suggested something that blends with the color of the stone.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder, assured that the roof color can be custom blended to be a more earth
tone.
Chair Barry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:45 p.m.
Commissioner Jackman:
· Said that while she could sympathize with the Pillais about the changing neighborhood, it is
already a 50 percent mixture of ranch and designer homes.
· Added that it is possible to have a tasteful architectural mix since these are large one-acre lots and
as long as the architecture is well done.
· Stated that she liked the style of this home and believes it can fit in well.
Commissioner Zutshi expressed doubts about the size of the architectural porch feature, saying that the
40-foot width is rather large and will appear massive.
CommissiOner Garakani:
· Agreed with .the comments
of Commissioner Jackman regarding the existing changes in tlhe
neighborhood, saying that this is not a neighborhood just beginning to change. Rather. it is a
neighborhood that has changed so much that it can't be stopped at this point.
· Suggested that the arches should be proportionate to the overall length of the house and upon
learning that the home is 122 feet long, declared that the proposed 40 foot wide porch would be
proportionate.
· Supported the further setback fi.om the front property line by another five feet as proposed by the
builder.
· Suggested that good screening landscaping be installed to meet any concerns of the neighbors.
· With the added use of stone around the arches, stated that he has no objections to this project being
approved.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m.
Mr. Hari Pillai declared that the entire lot is but 164 feet wide (having misheard the size of the home's
width of 162 feet instead of the actual 122 feet).
Saratoga Planning Commiss,
Minutes of August 8, 2001
Page 7
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:50 p.m.
Chair Barry:
·
·
Stated that it is clear this is a changing neighborhood.
Agreed that previous Planning Commissions and Councils have had different approaches.
Pointed out that the current view of the Planning Commissionis to preserve as much as possible of
an areas architectural style.
· Expressed a problem with the proposed fagade.
· Supported the increased front setback.
· Said that she liked the added stone to the pillars and suggested that it be added to the base as well.
· Said that she supports the roof color that will blend with the stone color.
· Suggested additional changes to the front landscaping so that the front entry will not appear as
prominent.
· Said that the first floor footprint is huge.
· Asked if there is any City policy concerning installation of outdoor showers.
Planner Alison Knapp replied no. Added that this outside shower is located off of a cabana and will be
for use with the spa.
Chair Barry wondered if perhaps it could be eliminated if not particularly needed.
Commissioner Garakani asked for a overview of the pending added Conditions for this project.
Director Sullivan stated:
· Addition of mature redwood trees to serve as screening between this project site and neighboring
properties.
· Use of a tile roof material in a color that closely matches the stone.
· Increase the use of stone around the arches and walls and wrapped around the windows.
· Move the house back by approximately five feet.
· Reduce the porch entry in size and mass.
Commissioner Garakani said that it would be nice to reduce the porch width to 20 feet.
Chair Barry reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:58 p.m.
Mr. Paul Doble, Project Builder:
· Agreed that the front setback could be moved to 55 feet.
· Suggested the inclusion of 48-inch box olive trees at the front so that the porch feature would not
be as visible.
Chair Barry reclosed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2 at 7:59 p.m.
Commissioner Jackman said that she is comfortable with less formal landscaping.
Commissioner Zutshi said that this would be good.
Saratoga Planning Commiss.
Minutes of August 8, 2001
Page 8
Chair Barry expressed support for added mature olive trees to the front yard landscaping and asked, if
the Commissioners had any disagreement with the proposed added Conditions as overviewed by
Director Sullivan.
Commissioner Jackman asked how far the outdoor shower is located from the neighboring property.
Planner Alison Knapp replied 26 feet.
Chair Barry suggested that the shower could be screened with landscaping.
Commissioner Garakani said that this should not be an issue but that perhaps the applicant can screen
as a neighborly gesture.
Chair Barry pointed out that there is potential for noise with the use of this outdoor shower.
Commissioner Garakani disagreed and pointed out that people could get the same effect of having an
outdoor shower simply by using garden hoses.
Chair Barry said that it appears the Commission is prepared to leave the outside shower in this
approval.
Commissioner Garakani said that he has no problem accepting this outdoor shower.
Chair Barry reiterated that the Commission is prepared to accept this application with the addition of
mature olive trees at the front of the house as well as the added Conditions overviewed by Direc~cor
Sullivan.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Jackm~.tn,
the Planning Commission approved DR-01-007 & BSE-01-011 to allow the
construction of a new single-story 5,917 square foot home on proper~ located at
19752 Versailles Way with the added Conditions outlined by Director Sullivan and
Chair Barry.
AYES:Barry, Garakani, Jackman and Zutshi
NOES: None -
ABSENT: Hunter, Kurasch and Roupe
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Barry advised that there is a 15 day appeal period before this action is final.
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3
DR-01-015 & BSE-01-o21 (503-29-038) - CHENAULT~ 21345 Saratoga Hills Road: Request for
Design Review approval to construct a new 5,837 square foot two-story residence and demolish an
existing 3,153 square foot residence. Maximum height will be 26 feet. The 53,403 new square foot
parcel is located in the R-I-40,000 zoning district. (KNAPP)
Lee Chen
12056 Ingrid Court
Saratoga, CA 95070
September 19, 2001
Allison Knapp
Planning Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruit-vale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: DR-01-007/BSE-01-011,19752 Versailles Way
Dear Allison:
I have discussed with my neighbors, Had Pillai, along with Marvin and Joan Fox my
application for a new residence at 19752 Versailles Way. I agree to the following
conditions as discussed with them:
Move the "new" 36" box Coast Live Oak from the east property line to the
south side of the lot.
Remove three 6" trees along the west property line and move the three
"new" 36" box Coast Redwoods to the west property where the three 6"
trees are currently located.
Move the house 7' towards the street.
'Record on the deed that the new trees conditioned with the approval of
the house, are not to be removed without obtaining the approval from the
adjacent neighbors and the City of Saratoga.
Sincerely,
Lee Chen
Owner
SEP Z 0 2001
CITY OF SARATOGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
$EP-23-2001 0?:34
19800 Versailles VVay -
Saratoga, CA 95070
Sep~mber23,2001
Ms. Cathleen Boyer,
The City Clerk,
City of Saratoga,
CA 95070
Re ' DR-01-007 & BSE-010011 (397-17-O34) CHEN, 19751 Versailles Way
Dear Ms. Boyer:
Since the planning commission meeting at which the above was discussed and
our subsequent appeal, we have met with the architects and builders of the
'proposed development as well as other concerned neighbors and have reached
what we believe is an acceptable compromise.
The elements of the compromise agreements are as follows;-
1)
The building be moved forwards (north) towards the front of the lot by 7'
(seven feet) to reduce the impact of the 26' high roof line on neighbors on
both sides. ,
2)
No new trees be added along the east .side of the property tine (the left hand
property line when facing the property from Versailles Way) in order to allow
unobstructed sun-light to enter the neighbor's residence/yard.
3)
Three new 36" Redwood trees replace three existing 6" trees on the west side
property line (the right hand property line when facing the property from
Versailles Way) in order to provide improved privacy for the immediate
neighbor.
4)
Pool equipment be located per the current permit conditions (on the north-
south center-line of the property) but in addition be housed in a small roofed
shed that is no more than five (5) feet high to reduce the noise impact to all
'neighbors.
5)
That two 54" trees be added at the front of the property to reduce the visual
impact of the front arches. These trees are to be of a variety to be agreed with
the immediate neighbors prior to their being planted.
6)
Aesthetic improvements that have already been proposed for the property at
or after the planning commission meeting such as
i) the use of a stone-like material for the fa{:ade
ii) roof tiles colors that are more earthen
also become explicit permit conditions.
P,02
~EP-23-200]
07:35 PR
P, 03
7)
Finalty that the agreements here will survive any change of ownership or the
passage of time. They will be explicitly made a part of the permit approval, be
reflected in the drawings etc. that become part of the permit package, and,
will be reflected in the property deeds.
If these points are acceptable to the City, I am willing to drop my objections to
this development. Clearly, if one or more of these points are not-acceptable to
the city, I would like to reserve the dght to continue with the appeal.
I however have discussed these points with Ms. Allison Knapp and believe that
these points are acceptable to the City and so expect that there should be no
further obstacles to the proposed development.
Yo~rely,
Ha~ri Piilai
CC · Ms Allison Knapp, Planning Department, City of Saratoga Mr. & Mrs. M. Fox, 19680 Versailles Way, Saratoga, CA 95070
Mr. Gregg Kawahara, Architect.
Mr. Paul Doble, Doble & Son Custom Homes, Inc.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works
PREPARED BY: ~
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Pony League Baseball Field - Inclusion at Congress Springs Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
1. Approve Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget.
2. Approve an increase to the existing contract with Greg G. Ing& Associates in the amount of
$11,000 for additional scope of work and authorize City Manager to execute same.
3. Approve an increase to the existing contract with Perma-Green Hydroseeding, Inc. in the amount
of $27,500 for additional scope of work and authorize City Manager to execute same.
4. Approve change order authority in the amount $10,000 in connection with Recommended
Actions 2 and 3.
REPORT SUMMARY:
During the past few Weeks staff and representatives from Pony League and Little League
Baseball have been exploring the possibility of incorporating a dual use Pony/Little League
baseball field into the renovation project at Congress Springs Park.
As you are aware, over the past year, staff has conducted a comprehensive search for a Pony
League Baseball field. Unfortunately, the search has been unsuccessful to date. Currently, there is
great concern that a field will not be located in time for Pony's upcoming 2002 season. This
realism has forced everyone involved to look again at Congress Springs Park.
The two main issues to overcome in order to incorporate a Pony League size field at Congress
Springs Park are safety and use. The following is a brief discussion on ways to overcome these
issues:
Safety: Staff and both Pony and Little League believe that a combination of deepening the
outfield depth from 250 fi to 290 fi and raising the existing net height from 35 fi to 42 fi will
provide the safety requirements needed. Calculations show that a batted baseball with a speed of
75mph leaving a bat at an optimum angle of 35 degrees will hit a point 37 ft above the ground at
a distance of 290 feet. According to Pony League, players in their league (ages 12-14) bat
baseballs at a maximum of 70 mph, which corresponds to a point 12 fi above the ground at a
distance of 290 feet. In contrast Major League Baseball player Barry Bonds bats baseballs at 110
mph.
Field Use: In order to maximize the usage of the field, the proposal is to build concentric
diamonds so both Pony and Little Leagues can utilize the field. This will require wider infield
and base runs. Both Leagues have indicated that they can accommodate the logistical and
physical irregularities.
The above safety and field modifications are estimated to cost the following:
1. Modification to the existing netting (the existing net can be extended a maximum of
7fi): $27,850.
2. Modifications to the Field #1 (requires encroachment into the parking lot area
eliminating six parking spaces): $27,500.
3. Modifications to the existing plans and field engineering: $11,000.
4. Construction ,Contingency: $10,000.
Total Estimated Cost: $76,350.
The cost to increase the safety net height to 50 feet is $53,350 and to 60 feet is $74,550. Both of
these options require that new poles be erected.
Pony and Little League Baseball is willing to provide funds for these modifications. The amount of
this funding is unknown at this time. An amount will be reported to the Council prior to the
October 3 meeting.
If the above-recommended actions are approved, staff will negotiate a contract with the safety net
contractor. A contract will be brought before the Council at a future date for approval.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Unkown at this time.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Modifications will not be made to Field #1 at Congress Springs Park and staff will continue to look
for a Pony League baseball field.
2 of 3
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW LIP ACTION(S):
staffwill move forward with the implementation of the modifications to Congress Springs Park.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposals from Greg G. lng & Associates and Perma-Green Hydroseeding.
2. Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget.
3 of 3
GREG G. ING & ASSOCIATES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE #2444
1585 The Alameda, Suite 201
San Jose, California 95126
408 947-7090
September 26, 2001
Mr. John' Cherbone
Public Works Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Congress Springs Park, Pony Field revisions, Saratoga, California
Dear Mr. Cherbone:
In response to your request yesterday we are submitting our landscape architectural and
engineering proposal for revising the little league baseball field #1 at Congress Springs Park to
be a pony league field. The following is a description of services that will be necessary to
convert the ballfield.
1. Redesign field and park to accommodate the larger pony league field. The new field will
affect the plaza area, parking lot, walks, landscape areas, etc. Revise construction documents,
layout & staking, irrigation, planting, and construction details.
TOTAL FEE:
$ 6,500.00
TOTAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL FEES: $ 6,500.00
Services and fees for Allied Engineering to revise grading plan and provide construction staking.
Office calculations of controls and grades for the items listed below.
Provide one (1) set rough grade stakes for baseball field, plaza area and parking lot.
Provide one (1) set final alignment and grade stakes for baseball field, backstop,
dugout, fencing and plaza pavement.
Provide one (1) set alignment and grade stakes for storm sewer.
Provide one (1) set of final alignment and grade stakes for parking lot curbs.
TOTAL FEE:
$ 4,500.00
TOTAL ENGINEERING FEES
$ 4,500.00
GRAND TOTAL OF FEES (Not to Exceed) $11,000.00
ADDITIONAL SERVICES:
Any services beyond the scope of this agreement and any revisions to the final drawings,
calculations or specification proposed by others, will be billed on a time and material basis in
accordance with our 2001 hourly rate schedule.
In addition to above fees, direct expenses such as plotting, printing, special deliveries, etc. are
reimbursable items at cost plus 30%. '
We are available to begin work within 10 working days of Notice to Proceed.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. Should you have any questions regarding
the content of this proposal please do not hesitate to give me a call. We are looking forward to
continue our professional relationship with you and the City of Saratoga.
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg G. Ing& Associates
Steven J. Kikuchi
Project Manager
PERMA-GREEN H'~DROSEEDING, INC.
LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION
September 27. 2001
C~ of saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
Attn: Iohn Cherbone
RE: Prices for Po~ League Field
Dear Iohn,
Enclosed areyour prices for the Pony League Field at the Congress Springs Park. Th~ are as
follows:
%
150 Ton of additional Infield Fine Mix.and Grading - $8.500.00
lrri~atlon Work -
$2,200.00
Move Storm Drain's -
S3,500.00
Install New Dugout Posts -
$6,500.00
AC Parkin§ Lot Demo and Drivewa~ Approach -
Grand Total-
$6.800.00
$27.500.0O
If.you have any further Questions please feel free to contact us at 408-848-3310.
Thankyou.
President
License #664209
7096 Holsclaw Road · Gilroy, California 95020 · (408) 848-3310
RESOLUTION NO. 01-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE 2001-2002 BUDGET
FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF $76,350 FOR DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AT CONGRESS SPRINGS
PARK TO CONSTRUCT A PONY LEAGUE BASEBALL
FIELD AND TO ESTABLISH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT #0111 "PONY LEAGUE BASEBALL FIELD
IMPROVEMENTS"
WHEREAS, the City Council directed City staff to design and construct a Pony League Baseball
Field at Congress Springs Park in advance of approving the Five-Year Capital Improvement
Program, and;
WHEREAS; estimates for completing the design and construction of a Pony League Baseball
Field is $76,350;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
To establish a new capital improvement project #0111 "Pony League Baseball
Improvements",
Field
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to adjust the City of Saratoga's Fiscal. Year 2001-2002
budget for the appropriation of $76,350 for this project according to the following entries:
310-9010-622-40.10 0111
310-0000-330-20.00
General Contracts/Pony League Field Impr.
Park Develop Undesignated Fund Balance
Increase Decrease
$76,350
$76,350
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the
Saratoga City Council held on the 3rd day of October 2001 by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Ann Waltonsmith,
'Vice-Mayor Nick Streit, Mayor John Mehaffey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
John Mehaffey, Mayor
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
MEETING DATE:
ORIGINATING DEPT:
PREPARED BY:
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
October 3, 2001
Community Development
Thomas Sullivan, AICP
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR KEY CITY OFFICIALS
REPORT SUMMARY:
Staff was directed to research other Bay Area cities for programs that provide assistance to
employees to enable them to live in their city. Barbara Kautz, Assistant City Manager for the
City of San Mateo had recently conducted a similar survey. This memo summarizes the
information gained from surveying 25-Bay Area Cities. The full summary table is attached.
The programs vary greatly from city to city. Some are for Police Officers only, while several are
for all city employees. Managers and department heads combinations are very common. Of the
25 cities surveyed, five do not have a program and San Ramon did not respond. Some cities have
very active programs while most do not. Many of the programs have tax implications. The
higher end programs seem to be equity sharing.
In approving any housing subsidy program, the City Council must find that there is a legitimate
public purpose in having City employees live in the City. For example, Cities which provide
assistance to police officers use the benefit to public safety as the public purpose, and cities
which provide assistance to department directors and city managers generally justify the
assistance based on the need to recruit and retain quality employees.
Below are some examples of what could be emphasized in defining a public purpose.
Employees who live in the City can be readily available in emergencies as the Emergency
Operations Center is in City Hall.
Employees who live in the City have stake in City and, therefore, take their job duties
more personally.
Employees who live in the City get to know the City more intimately and can, therefore,
provide better service.
Employees who live in the City reside in various neighborhoods and get to know their
neighbors (i.e., the general public), thereby gaining an understanding of how the general
public in their neighborhood view the City's services and priorities; thus, enabling the
City to be more responsive to citizen needs.
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Provide':~ection to staff on how to proceed.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
This is unknown.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
As directed by Council.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Table listing numerous programs offered in other communities.
2 of 3
City Contact / Offer hsg. Pgm. For City Mg'r. When How much How many How
much $ is Financing Details Does it work? If not,
Phone Asr. Pgm. used as ! DH ! All pgm demand? ! participants? available
for pgm? why not?
for existing recruit Staff? start? What
are $
employees? tool? Info from sources?
(Gert
last 5 Fund,
RDA?)
)/ears.
1. Belmont Craig Ewing Police /es PO's only about 3 interest right 3 or 4 within RDA
up to $100,000 (which Special program for
(650) 595-7908 Officers only years ago away...all the first year
all borrowers maxed) PO's. City was initially
loans made until program
only considering the
upon initial got corrected
loan is forgiven at 10% individual PO's salary.
demand
per year; upon Law requires
separation, balance is household salary.
cost estimated and With correction of
due; City will absorb program, only new
property depreciation recruits with families
costs stayed under 120%
limits...the typical
problem. Have tax
implications for
officers. Restricted
locations for police
officers - where crime
rate is above 10%
county rate.
2. Berkeley Nancy Adler Not a direct Not really all existing 1988 about 2 not closely It's
not a budget For home purchase, for what it is, it works
510-981-6815 loan pgm. employee's requests per tracked item.
Similar to they have up to 15 yrs
It's a loan month PERS,
people are to pay back. they can
through borrowing
from borrow up to 50% of
SRIP - their their
retirement their fund, with a rain
retirement lund.
fund balance of $2,000
pgm. Similar
to PERS
pgm.
3. Cupertino Maria Jimenez Yes yes City Mgr. / DH 1999 a good 3 General
fund Payroll deduction Been great for the out
- HR / Atty. amount Loans
so for up to Loans can be split 75 of state folks.
408-777-3201 considering $1.6
million % City / 25% EE or Considering newness
Jennifer Chang level of
50/50 of pgm and level of ee
- Fin. existing
it's been successful
408-777-3285 employee's
4. Fremont NO
5. Hayward NO
p:\Planning\Tom\Council Reporls\Cities.doc
City Contact ! Offer hsg. Pgm. For City Mgr. When How much How many How
much $ is FinanCing Details Does it work? If not,
Phone Ast. Pgm. used as / DH / All pgm demand? ! participants? available
for pgm? why not?
for existing recruit Staff? start? What
are $
employees? tool? Info from sources?
(Gen
last 5 Fund,
RDA?)
years.
6. Half Moon Terri - Finance Yes Yes City Mgr. only more than 1 GF
from investment $100,000- but amount Yes. City is searching
Bay Dottle Robbins 6 years portfolio
tied to is negotiable for new City Manager
- Clerk LAIF
interest only and the $$ will
726-8271
payroll deduction probably to up to help
Christine West
payable upon lyr after with recruitment.
- Fin.
termination
726-8281
7. Menlo Park Gretchen "New Police Yes Police ~ Planning RDA
$150,000 max Have tax implications
Hilliard recruits" Officers Sept. 01
forgiven over 10 yrs. for officers. Restricted
RDA
Determining a locations for police
graduated officers - where crime
forgiveness levels / rate is above 10%
pro rata county rate.
Due upon
termination
8. Milpitas 408-586-3090 NO
--
Sharon Marr
left msg.
9. Mtn. View Sharon Aoichi Yes Yes CC 5+ not really 2
from City's maximum $600,000 it works, but t.here's
will ask finance appointments
investment per person just not been much
to call back & DH
portfolio, no demand
Susie - Finance
designated amount
10. Novato 415-897-4311 Not a Not Have helped 3
unknown specifics, 2''" DOT up to $50,000, yes, for what we can
Susan generally specifically Police Chief,
believe it to be from minimum 10% owner offer
will fax info offered pgm., police Capt.,
general fund on as equity required at all
but they and City Mgr.
needed basis times, payroll
have
deductions, 30yr loan
assisted 3
or no Ionge. r than term
existing
of first, payable upon
employee's
sale or 180 days after
final da~ of emp_l?~v. _ ......................
11. Pacifica - NO
P:\Planning\Tom\Council
Oities.doc
City Contact/ Offer hsg. Pgm. For. City Mg~. When How much How many
How much $ is Financing Details Does it work? If not,
Phone Asr. Pgm. used as ! DH / All pgm demand? / participants?
available for pgm? why not?
for existing recruit Staff? start?
What are $
employees? tool? Info from
sources? (Gen
last 5
Fund, RDA?)
),ears.
12. Palo Alto Trina Glanville Yes Yes Mgmt unit has 5+ enough 2
General Fund, ARM, Shared it sure seems to be, it
329-2574 relocation new City Mgr
notes receivable Appreciation direct helped our new city
expenses loan made 1mo
loans available manager
Amy - Finance only, ago; City Atty.
also have short term
329-2238 purchase has loan for
interest buy-down
assistance for over 5yrs;
4x annual salary cap
CM/DH/CC previous City
within 20 mile radius
appointed Mgr also used
of Civic Center
personnel
payable within
6mos. of termination
ARM: 1st or 2"u DOT,
fully amortized or
interest only, rate
.25% above City's
investment earning,
no longer than 15
years
SA: (differences
only) 5% rate, must
pay deferred interest
equal on portion of
future appreciation
13. Redwood City Debbie Jones- Yes Yes All existing since 1
$100,000 max loan 5 yr deferred @ 0% Not really, most
Thomas employee's 1/01
RDA Funds interest employees over RDA
780-7295
total $1.5 mil fund amortize over 25 yr restricted incomes
Walter Z.
@ 4% interest
declining
appreciation share
14. San Bruno Marie Fri Yes Yes All existing less than Most inquiries 1
not a budgeted $80,000. max or 20% Since it only started in
616-7009 - Im employee's 1 year from current
item, made on of purchase price t 1/2000, it's going
Jim O'Leary, existing
request, GF fund 5 yr deferral okay. Several
Fin. Dir. employee's,
reserve not to amortized to 30 yr inquiries. Anticipates
616-7080 expect more
exceed 10% of loan due at 15 yrs several loans to be
from
city's investment 100 % LTV allowed made within the next
recruitment
podfolio - approx. LAIF rate year.
as word gets
loans cap of $2.5 payroll deduction
out
million ~W it~hin_S__B~
P:\Planning~Tom\Council Reports\Cities.doc
City Contact / Offer hsg. Pgm. For City Mgm'. When How much How many
How much $ is Financing Details Does it work? If not,
Phone Asr. Pgm. used as - ! DH / All pgm demand? ! participants?
available for pgm? why not?
for existing recruit Staff? start?
What are $
employees? tool? Info from
sources? (Gen
last 5
Fund, RDA?)
)tears.
15. San Carlos Laura Yes Yes Has a priority 1999 - quite a bit 3
changed from Changed from $50,000 1 loan was made
Snideman system updated
$175,000 to new to $100,000 max; LAIF original $50K was
outlined in in 2000
total of $275,000 rate; payroll deduct; 5 quickly limited by
policy, but in
General Fund line yr prin. deferred; 8 year home price increases
reality, just
item loan; due 3mo after It's going much better
about anyone
term. Or upon sale or now that the limit was
can get it.
transfer, raised.
16. San Jose Mark Brogan
408-277-8486
LM for return
call to Sandy
17. San Leandro Assist. City. Yes Yes Management 1999 not a lot, 2
NTE 5% of -"Bridge" loan Yes, for management
Manager Ed only most mgrs
investment portfolio -must payoff in 6mo-lyr new hires.
Schilling already own
- LAIF rate
510-577-3390 in SL
. max loan $250,000
Referred to
Margaret
McCluckie -Fin.
510-577-3309
18. San Ramon
LM
19. Santa Clara Terri - Public Yes Not For tenured, Dec. healthy About 4 since
Bond investment $500 per mo equity Yes!
Unified Info. directly certificated 2000 start of
revenue. Intel share payment directly
St
408-423-2084 staff - program in last
bought $10 million to 1 lender for 5year
generally year.
school district bond for up to $30,000. Paid
employed 5
at 4% over 5 years, back in 5 years or upon
years > Can purchase
District reinvested separation. Borrower
in Santa Clara,
into bond market at assumes equity share
Alameda, San
7.36%. Difference payments starting year
Mateo or Santa
in revenue and 6.
Cruz counties
payments finances
the program.
·
Linear Technology
helps pay up to
$5,000 ea for
closing_ costs.
20. Saratoga NO
P:\Planning\Tom\Council
City Contact / Offer hsg. Pgm. For City Mg'r. When How much How many How
much $ is Financing Details Does it work? If not,
Phone Ast. Pgm. used as / DH / All pgm demand? / participants? available
for pgm? why not?
for existing recruit Staff? start? What
are $
employees? tool? Info from sources?
(Gen
last 5 Fund,
RDA?)
}/ears.
21. Sunnyvale Tammy Yes Yes Executive since "enough" 4 General
Fund - Up to 5x ann. salary Yes. There have been
Parkhurst Mgmt. - City 1981 balance
sheet item, - max 45 year loan 3 new hires at this
** Miriam Mgr not
budgeted ~ Monthly payments - level within the last
Casteneda DH Return
on this not payroll deduct, year or so and all have
408-730-7503 Atty. investment
is often -interest lower than used the program.
higher
than other prime Been especially
City
investment -existing employee must helpful for out-of-state
tools,
so it's a win- have min 10% down folks.
win
for existing 11th Dist. COF
employee
& City (currently 4.98%)
P:\Planning\Tom\Council Reports\Cities.doc
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: October 3, 2001
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works
PREPARED BY: ~
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Authorization to purchase City vehicles.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Move to authorize the purchase of three 2002 Ford Fl50 CNG Building Division
inspection vehicles and one 2002 Ford Crown Victoria CNG pool vehicle fi:om Folsom
Lake Ford in the amount of $90,141.12. '
2. Move to authorize the purchase of four extended warranty contracts for the new vehicles
fi:om Folsom Lake Ford in the amount of $2,200.
REPORT SUMMARY:
The adopted budget contains sufficient funds in Activity 1035 (Vehicle/Rolling Stock) for the
purchase of the above-mentioned vehicles.
Staff solicited quotations from several dealerships and the following table contains a summary of
the quotes received:
Qty Vehicle Vendor Vehicle Cost Warranty Cost Total Cost
3 Ford Fl50 Folsom Ford $21,760.92 $550 $66,932.76
3 Ford Fl50 Senator Ford $22,102.99 $445 $67,643.97
3 FordF150 . Mission Ford $21,957.08 $765 $68,166.24
1 Ford Crown FolsomFord $24,858.36 $550 $25,408.36
Victoria
1 FordCrown Senator Ford $26,468.59 $445 $26,913.59
Victoria
1 Ford Crown Mission Ford No Bid No Bid No Bid
Victoria
The quotes above reflect those dealership's fleet prices. The extended warranty contracts are for
5 years/60,000 miles while the base warranty contracts, which are included in the vehicle price,
are for 3 years/36,000 miles.
Staff recommends the purchase of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles because they are
environmentally cleaner operating vehicles and the cost of CNG can be as much as 40% less than
gasoline (please see attached information from the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition). Additionally,
the City has its own CNG station and logistically can operate a fleet with CNG vehicles. The City
currently operates two CNG vehicles.
In addition to the above-mentioned'benefits of CNG, staff has applied for and has received a
clean air voucher from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in the amount of $16,500
as an incentive to purchase CNG vehicles (see attached voucher).
The following table contains additional information regarding the use of the new and the existing
vehicles they replace:
New Vehicle Proposed User Vehicle Replaced Proposed User Age Mileage
Ford F150 Building #83 - GMC Recreation 5 yrs 48,400
Inspector Sonoma Department
Ford Fl50 Building #84 - GMC New Parks 5 yrs 37,130
Inspector Sonoma Leadworker
Ford Fl50 New Building None N/A N/A N/A
Inspector
Ford Crown Pool Vehicle None N/A N/A N/A
Victoria
The two existing GMC Sonoma vehicles are scheduled for replacement per the City's rolling
stock/equipment replacement schedule. However, staff recommends keeping these vehicles for
use'in the City's fleet. The vehicles have relatively few miles and are in good condition.
Additionally, the new. Parks Maintenance Leadworker is in need of a vehicle and the Recreation
Department is in need of a small truck for their recreation programs.
The purchase of the Crown Victoria pool vehicle will supplement the heavily utilized Olds Ciera,
which is the City's only pool vehicle besides the Dodge CNG Van.
.FISCAL IMPACTS:
As noted, there are sufficient funds in the adopted budget to cover the recommended purchases.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
The purchases would not be authorized and the City would be short of staff vehicles. In addition,
the City could lose its vehicle incentive voucher.
2 of 3
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
A Purchase order for the vehicles in the amount of $92,341.12 will be issued to Folsom Lake Ford.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
None additional.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Folsom Lake Ford Vehicle Quotes.
2. Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition Information.
3. Clean Air Vehicle Voucher.
3 of 3
SEP.~O.~001 ~:O~RM HO.~4 P.4 ~
I::I, IEEI' I IVISION
FOL$OM BOULEVARD
85630 · (918} ;3~3-2000
Fl7
YZ
C
T
502A
99M
44E
153
5?2
62?
B4A
RETAIL
F150 4X2 SS R/C
OXFORD WHITE CC
CLOTH BENCH
DARK GRAPHITE
PREF EQUIP PK8
,Xl SERIES
· ~LK AERO MIRRS NC
· AM/FM STER CASS
5.4L NGV SULEV
ELEC 4-SP AUTO 1095
CAL. BOARD FEES NC
CR FOR NBV-99M
FAT LI~ BRACKET NC
7650#. GVWR
OALIF EMISSIONS NC
AIR CONDITIONER NC
??00# PAYLOAD 1~95
.LT245 BSW A-S
.139" WHE~LBAS~
· HD ELE~/~OOLNG
.ARGENT STL 7LUG
FLT ~UEL DELETE NC
~P DLR ACCT ADJ
SP FLT ACOT CR
US GAL
NET INV ~LT OPT NC
· * FLT MKTG OR
DEST AND DELIV 715
TOTAL BASE AND OPTIONS 26710
TOTAL ~6710
Flee~/Corr~nerciaJl
127S5 R3~OM ~LV~,
FOI.SOM. CA ~5~30
(91e) ~3.2~n, Ex[, 376
Ton Flee
~ SEP.~O.D001 9:04RM R0.334
I IVISION
127S5 FOL~OM BOULEVARD
FOLSOM, CA g5630 · (916) 3S3-2000
RETAIL
~755
NC
P73 4-DOOR SEDAN
WT VIBRANT WHITE
Q CLOTH S/B SEATS
W ,DARK CHARCOAL
10OA ORDER CODE
.PWR HTD MIR/CLR
.MANUAL AIR COND
· PWR LOCK GROUP
· ~PEED CONTROL
.ILLUM ENTRY
· PWR DRIVER SEAT
999 4.6L NAT GAS VB 6165
4~U .ELEC ADD TRANS NC
T~3 P~5/60VR16 BSW NC
CAL. BOARD FEES NC
4~2 CALIF EMISSIONS NC
FLT FUEL DELETE NC
153 FRT LIC BRACKET NC
SP DLR ACCT ADJ
SP FLT ACCT CR
0 US GAL GAS
B4A NET INV FLT OPT NC
· * FLT MKTG CR
DEBT AND DELIV'
TOTAL BABE AND OPTIONS ~96OO
ALTERNATE FUEL INEENTI (15OO)
TOTAL ~8100
DANIEl. A, EAIMONDI
flee~Comme~/
127&~ FOIJOM aLVD.
R~OM. CA 9S630
[916). 353-2aon. ExL 376
get '
Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
http://www.ngvc.or~enviro.html"
N
E/venm Whats Mc¢li~ Cont~Cr~
New Cen~cr
NATURAL GAS VEHICLES:
The Environmental Solution Now
For the Record
Natural gas is the cleanest burning alternative transportation fuel available
today. Long recognized as an excellent fuel when used to generate
electricity, heat homes, and fuel industrial facilities, the true ability of
natural gas as a transportation fuel only recently has been exploited. In the
last several years, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have
produced an impressive array of natural gas vehicles (NGVs), including
passenger cars, pickup trucks, school and transit buses, refuse haulers,
and heavy-duty trucks. Many of these vehicles operate using the cleanest
internal combustion .engines ever manufactured. Without exception,
wherever manufacturers have sought to optimize their engines to take
advantage of the unique properties of natural gas (e.g., high octane),
NGVs have surpassed all other competitors in delivering superior
emissions performance. Moreover, NGVs have been certified to the most
demanding environmental emission standards. Chrysler Corporation, with
its dedicated, natural gas Ram Van, was the first automaker in the world to
certify a vehicle to California's Iow-emission vehicle (LEV) standard.
Chrysler also was first to certify a vehicle to California's ultra-low emission
vehicle (ULEV) standard. In both cases, the vehicle used by Chrysler was
an assembly-line, production NGV. More recently, Ford Motor Corporation
· has certified its dedicated NGV' vans and pickup trucks to California's
newly created'super-low emission vehicle (SULEV) standard. Chrysler's
two model year 1999 NGV vans also will meet SULEV standards. And just
last year, Honda unveiled the cleanest internal combustion engine vehicle
ever commercially produced - the natural gas Civic GX. For this
achievement, engineers from Honda were awarded a 1997 Discover
Technology Award. The Civic GX - with emissions at one-tenth the ULEV
standard -- actually emits air cleaner than the ambient air in some cities;
thus, the emissions initially were "nearly unmeasurable." It should be noted
that Honda was able to achieve all this without sacrificing horsepower or
performance. All of these vehicles are now in use on America's highways
and can be ordered by customers almost anywhere. On the heavy-duty
side, nearly every available natural gas engine is now certified to the EPA's
or California's Iow-emission or ultra-low emission standards. These
engines are available from such well-known companies as Caterpillar,
Cummins, Deere Power Systems, Detroit Diesel and Mack Trucks.
Understanding The Attributes of Natural Gas
There are three primary reasons that natural gas is an environmentally
friendly fuel. First, natural gas typically consists of about 90 percent
Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
http://www.ngvc.org/en viro.html
methane (CH4). The emissions from natural gas vehicles also are primarily
unburned methane. Methane is not a volatile organic compound (VOC).
This is important because unburned and evaporative VOCs combine with
oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight to form ground level
ozone. Although methane is a greenhouse gas (and, in fact, is a more
intense greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide), natural gas vehicles on the
whole contribute less to greenhouse gas formation because natural gas
has less carbon than gasoline and other petroleum motor fuels. Other
hydrocarbons that may be found in small amounts in natural gas include
ethane, propane and butane. These remaining compounds are much less
reactive (i.e., less likely to form ozone) than VOCs found in gasoline.
Natural gas also contains almost no toxic components. Gasoline and
diesel fuels and their exhaust contain numerous harmful chemical agents.
The gaseous components of diesel exhaust, for example, contain
benzene, 1,3-butadiene, arsenic, and nickel, which are known to cause
cancer in humans. Moreover, diesel exhaust includes over 40 substances
that are listed by the U.S. EPA as hazardous air pollutants and by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) as toxic air contaminants.
Gasoline exhaust contains many similar components.
Secondly, the fuel cycle emissions of natural gas are much less than other
transportation fuels. Fuel cycle emissions include emissions that occur
during energy extraction, processing, conversion, transportation and
distribution. Because it generally is hot refined or transported by truck or
barge, natural gas does not pose nearly the transportation related
environmental and safety hazards associated with gasoline and diesel.
Thirdly, as a motor fuel, natural gas provides superior emissions
performance relative to gasoline and diesel. Among the reasons for this
are that NGVs: have virtually no evaporative and running loss emissions
due to their sealed fuel systems and negligible refueling emissions; have
inherently lower non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions since the
fuel is 85-99 percent methane; emit significantly less toxic air contaminants
such as benzene and 1,3 butadiene since these chemicals and their
precursors are not found in natural gas; have lower "off cycle" emissions;
have lower cold-start emissions; and have better emission durability due to
the reduced complexity of their emission control systems. Furthermore, the
benefits of NGVs in reducing "real world" pollutant emissions from vehicles
in-use is expected to be even greater than measured by today's tailpipe
standards which do not test for many common driving conditions.
Natural Gas: A Key Component to Solving Our Nation's
Growing Pollution Problem
Policy makers and air quality officials recognize that cars, vans, trucks and
buses using traditional fuels play a critical role in the nation's air pollution
problems. On-road vehicles contribute more than 60 percent of all carbon
monoxide (CO) pollution and are the second largest source of
hydrocarbons (29 percent), and NOx (31 percent), the major ingredients of
ground-level ozone. In many urban areas, vehicles are the single largest
source of these key criteria pollutants. Motor vehicles also emit more than
50 percent of all hazardous air pollutants and are a major source of
greenhouse gases, contributing nearly 30 percent of carbon-based
emissions in the United States.
Controlling emissions from automobiles and trucks continues to be a
significant priority despite substantial improvements in engine technology,
fuel efficiency and highway planning. The EPA estimates that newly
introduced measures to control emissions from motor vehicles will result in
a decline in on-road vehicle emissions over the next several years. But,
even with these reductions, many regions of the country will not come into
attainment for national air quality standards. Moreover, if the United States
Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition http://www.ngvc.org/enviro.html
continues to be primarily dependent on petroleum fuels, sometime around
the middle of the next decade, emissions from mobile sources are again
expected to start increasing as the population of vehicles and vehicle miles
traveled continues to grow. The current trend away from smaller, less
polluting vehicles toward sport utility vehicles and light-duty trucks also is
exacerbating efforts to reduce mobile source pollution. EPA estimates that
in 2010, on-road vehicles will account for 54 percent of all CO emissions,
30 percent of all NOx emissions, and 23 percent of VOCs. EPA's forecasts
already take into account introduction of measures such as the National
Low-Emission Vehicle (NLEV) Program and new controls on heavy-duty
trucks.
Compared with most gasoline powered vehicles, dedicated NGVs typically
reduce exhaust emissions CO by approximately 70 percent, non-methane
organic gas (NMOG) by 89 percent, and NOx by 87 percent. NGVs also
emit virtually no particulate matter emissions, a pollutant that increasingly
has come under scrutiny from health officials and air quality officials.
Research by the Gas Research Institute (GRI) shows that NGVs have the
potential to provide substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,
as well. This benefit exists even when factoring in a weighted impact from
tailpipe methane emissions. GRI concluded that, on an energy-equivalent
basis (pounds of carbon per million BTUs or Ib/MMBTU), natural gas can
produce at least 20 percent less tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions than
gasoline or diesel fuel (depending on vehicle efficiency). Additional
reductions should be realized as a result of the reduced greenhouse gas
emissions of the natural gas fuel supply chain relative to the gasoline or
diesel fuel supply chain.
Many gasoline vehicles are now being certified to more demanding
emission standards. For example, in the next several years, nearly all the
light-duty vehicles sold in the Country will meet the Iow-emission vehicle
standards as a result of the NLEV Program. Tighter controls on heavy-duty
engines and trucks also are proposed for 2004. NGVs, however, already
meet these standards and provide even greater emission reductions. In
fact, as noted earlier, today's NGVs have been certified to the most
demanding emission standards in the world. The natural gas Ford Crown
Victoria, rated at ULEV, produces 52 percent less VOCs, 67 percent less
NOx, and 86 percent less CO than the NLEV standard. The natural gas
Honda Civic GX emits 98 percent less VOCs, 97 percent less CO, and 94
percent less NOx than the NLEV standard. In addition, many heavy-duty,
natural gas engines also have been certified to very demanding emission
levels. The entire line of Cummins' natural gas engine products have now
been certified to EPA's LEV or ULEV standards. These engines produce at
least 50 percent less NOx emissions than the 1998 standard for diesel
engines and already satisfy the proposed 2004 emission standards.
Recognizing these benefits, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use
Management (NESCAUM) has recommended switching from diesel to
natural gas in order to reduce NOx and particulate matter emissions. At
the same time, political and legal developments are raising concerns about
the ability of diesel engines to cost-effectively meet the proposed 2004
emission standards.
.Conclusions
NGVs are here today and have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to
surpass even the most demanding new emission requirements. These
vehicles are not prototype vehicles; rather they are production line vehicles
ready for delivery now. NGVs come in a variety of makes and models,
including passenger cars, pickup trucks, school and urban buses, and
heavy-duty trucks. Since natural gas is available in every major urban
market in the U.S., refueling networks could easily be built to supply NGVs.
A!ready, there are 1,300 natural gas stations throughout the country.
~qatural Gas Vehicle Coalition http://www.ngvc.org/enviro.html
Looking to the future as transportation technologies cOntinue to evolve,
natural gas can be used as a source of energy for fuel cells, and already is
being used in hybrid vehicle applications. If the U.S. is to effectively solve
its complex and multifaceted transportation pollution problems, natural gas
must play a critical and growing role.
About the NGVC i About NGVs ] Events What's New I Media Center [ Contacts & Resom'ces
NGVCommunications { NGVC Marketing i Legislative Update ! Regulatm7 Update i Legislative Alert
Credits
Reeister
Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition
http://www.ngvc.org/bulletin3.html
NGVC Bulletin
1515 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1030, Arlington, VA 22209
703/527-3022; 703/527-3025 (fax)
The NGVC Bulletin informs -fleet owners and operators,
government officials and fuel providers about developments of
interest in the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel.
NATURAL GAS VEHICLES PRODUCE MAJOR SAVINGS
Fleet owners cite lower fuel, maintenance costs
Dramatic savings are being reported by fleets that have switched
from gasoline or diesel to natural gas for environmental reasons.
They include savings on fuel of up to 40 percent and savings on
maintenance of up to 15 percent. Examples include:
Sun Metro in E1 Paso, Texas operates 144 natural gas trolleys,
buses, pickup trucks and vans. They estimate their savings at 47
cents per gallon compared to diesel, for a total savings of $300,000
in 1996 and $750,000 in 1997.
SuperShuttle in Los Angeles saves $500,000 a year in fuel costs by
running its 120 vans on natural gas instrad of gasoline.
With more than 7,000 NGVs, the U.S. Postal Service is the largest
NGV fleet owner in the country. Its Dallas fleet saved $2,500 in fuel
costs in just one month by using natural gas instead of gasoline.
That figure is expected to climb to $10,000 when the fleet becomes
fully operational.
The Evansville (Ind.) Vanderburg School District estimates it saves
$100,000 a year on fuel costs alone by using natural gas for its
school buses.
SunLine Transit Agency in Southem Califomia reports that it is
saving local taxpayers $250,000 a year by operating its entire fleet
of 40 buses on natural gas instead of diesel.
l~atural Gas Vehicle Coalition
http://www.ngvc.org/bulletin3.html
Compared with vehicles that mn on gasoline or diesel, vehicles that
mn on natural gas emit no particulates and have significantly lower
emissions of carbon monoxide, reactive hydrocarbons and other
harmful pollutants.
About the NGVC About NGVs ! Events i What's New [ Media Center [ Contacts & Resources
NGVCommunications [ NGVC Marketim~ i Legislative U'pdate I Regulatory Update Legislative Alert
Credits
Register
Q IO "I !('I1 "~. 0 7 P ,¥1
BAY ARIA
Am O~ALITY
~ANA~£MENT
DISTRICT'
September 20, 2001
Cary Bloomquist
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Clean Air Vehicle Incentives: VIP Voucher #01VIP02
VIPS: $16,500
Dear Mr. Bloomquist:
Your agency recently submitted an application requesting incentives for alternative fuel
clean air vehicles fi.om the Air District's Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP). The incentives
that you have requested are approved, as specified on the enclosed VIP Voucher Form.
Please note that in order to confirm your incentive, you must submit a copy of the
vehicle purchase or lease order to the Air District by the voucher confirmation date
listed on the attached form. Failure to submit a Copy of the pUrchase or lease order by
the confirmation date will result in automatic cancellation of the incentive. No extensions
to the confirmation date will be granted.
pleaSe refer to the above voucher number when submitting your purchase or lease order.
The incentive payment will be forwarded to your agency after you have taken delivery of
all the vehicles and submitted a VIP payment request form to the Air District.
Thank you for your interest in clean air vehicles. If you have any questions, please contact
David Burch at (415) 749-4641.
Sincerely,
Transportation Fund for' Clean Air
Enclosure
cc: Vice Mayor Randy Attaway
Councilperson Julia Miller
Councilperson Dena Mossar
Supervisor Liz Kniss
File: g\VIP\voucher
939 ELLIS STREET · SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94109 - 415.771.6000 · www. baaq:md, gov
Vehicle Incentive Program (VIP) Voucher Form
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has reserved VIP incentives for clean air vehicles for the public
agency and the vehicles described below.
Agency Name: City of Saratoga
Contact Person: Cary Bloomquist Administrative Analyst, Dept. of Public Works
VIP Voucher Number #01VIP02
Voucher Issue Date: September 20, 2001
Voucher Confirmation Date: December 20, 2001
Total FY 2001102 VIP $$ Reserved: $16,500
(Please use this number when you request payment.)
Clean Air Vehicles
Emission Category Fuel Type .# Vehicles $ Subsidy per Total $$$
(ULEV,SULEV,ZEV) Vehicle
ULEV CNG 1 $3,000 $3,000
SULEV CNG 3 $4,500 $13,500
Total 4 $ ~ $16,500
Applicant must submit a copy of the purchase/lease order(s) for the above vehicle(s), with a copy of
this form, by the confirmation date above. The purchase/lease order must be received by Air District,
or postmarked, by the confirmation date above. No extensions will be granted. Failure to submit a
purchase/lease order bythe confirmation date above will result in revocation of the voucher.
Submit a copy of vehicle purchase/lease order(s) along with copy of this form' to:
David Burch
BAAQMD
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Questions should be directed to David Burch at dburch~,BAAQMD.gov or 415-749-4641.