Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-1984 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: April 23, 1984 (May 2, 1984) DEPARTMENT: Community Development gar• Final Building Site Approval - SDR -1329, Joseph Krajeska, Vista Regina (2 lots) Initial: Dept. Hd C. Atty C. Mgr. Issue Summery 1. The SDR -1329 is ready for .Final Approval. 2. All Bonds and Agreements have been submitted to the City. 3. All requirements for City departments and other agencies have been met. 4. All fees have been paid. Recommendation Adopt Resolution 1329 -02 attached, approving the Final Map of SDR -1329, and authorize executional Building Site Approval Agreement and Deferred Improvement Agreement. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /AttacYmnts 1. Resolution No. 1329 -02 2. Report to Land Development Committee 3. Status Report for Building Site Approval 4. Location Map Council Action 5/2: Approved 4 -0. i City of Saratoga ( ( APPROVED 6Y: CITY OF SARATOGA DATE:_ /01�� "�% September 19, 1977 // `` i INII)ALS: A_ STAFF REPORT *(Amended) SDR -1329 - Joe Krajeska (Dan Apker), Vista Regina, Tentative Building Site Approval for two (2) lots PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Proposed is the division of an existing 2.3 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 40,000 and 50,000 sq. ft. respectively. An existing residence is to remain on the larger lot (lot "A ") while a new 3,000 sq. ft.+ single - family residence is to be constructed on lot "B ". The property is locate3 in the R -1- 40,000 (single- : family residential, very low density) zoning district. The site is located on Vista Regina, a long dead -end private road which connects to Pierce Road. Existing developed lots bound the subject property on the east, south and west; to the north is an existing agricultural preserve. A relatively level shelf exists adjacent to Vista Regina on both lots, extending some 100 to 150 feet into the property. The rear of both lots drops off into a deep drainage Swale which feeds Calabazas Creek. The proposed building site on lot "B" is adjacent to Vista Regina on the level shelf, where grading is expected to be minimal. STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the 1974 General Plan, and all require- ments of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. A Negative Declaration was prepared and will be filed with the County of Santa Clara Recorder's Office relative to the environmental impact of this project, if approved under this application. Said determination date: The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map /Site Development Plan for MR-1329 (Exhibit "A" filed 8/17/77), subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record of Survey or Parcel Map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as established by Ordinance in effect at the time of tentative approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulations and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby required and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT A.- Construct driveway approaches 16 -feet wide at property line flared to 24 -feet at existing street paving (access road). Use double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch base rock. B. Convey drainage water to street, storm sewer or watercourse as approved by the Director of Public Works. C. Widen paving on access road (Vista Regina) to Pierce Road to 18 -feet using double seal oil and screening on 6 -inch A.B. for entire length. D. Dedicate and improve street along frontage to provide for a 25 -foot half - street with 13 -feet between centerline and face of curb and S -feet on north- eastly side of centerline. E. Install R -36 curb and gutter on street along frontage for entire width of property. F. Widen bridge over Calabazas Creek to 18 -feet width and comply with load requirements of the Fire Department. STAFF REPORT t RE: SDR -1329, Joe Krajeska(Dan Apker) CSeptember 19, 1977 Page 2 G. Bond and inspection fee to be determined from Engineering Improvement Plans. H. Conditions II -D, II -E, II -F, and II -G shall be placed under a Deferred Improvement Agreement, without bond, until twelve (12) building sites are served off the access road. Dedication of right -of -way (Condition II -D) shall be required prior to final approval. * I. Bond and inspection fee for access road improvements (Condition II -C) to be determined from Engineered Improvement Plans. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS = BUILDING DEPARTTvE TI' AND GEOLOGIST i A. Excavation and grading permit required. Plans to show cuts, fills, j slopes and estimated yardage on lot "B ", as approved by Building Dept. B. Prior to issuance of permits, the applicant's soil engineer, JCP Geologists, shall review and approve the proposed grading and founda -' tion plans to assure satisfactory compliance with the recommendations as forth in the Geologic and Soil Investigation Study dated July, 1977. Said soil engineer shall notify the City in writing when this review has been completed. C. The applicant's soil engineer shall supervise and approve all grading and inspect and approve all foundation excavations, prior to placement of steel and concrete, and shall notify the City in writing when the inspections have been satisfactorily completed. D. Surface drainage pattern to be shown on plans, as approved by Building Dept. E. A drainage plan shall be prepared prior to final map approval. This plan shall address all waters reaching, created by, and leaving the site. Storm drain easements (private or public) maybe provided: ** F. Prior to final map approval, all existing structures shall be inspected by a licensed architect or engineer for code compliance. The report of findings is to be submitted to the city. Deficiencies are to be l corrected. Bond to guaranty correction is to be posted. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT A. Sanitary sewers to be provided in accordance with requirements of Sanitation District No. 4 as outlined in letter dated August 26, 1977 (NOTE: Annexation of both lots to the Cupertino Sanitary District required prior to Final Map Approval). V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT A. Property is located in a potentially- hazardous fire area. prior. to I issuance of building permit, remove combustive vegetation as specified. Fire- retardant roof covering and chimney spark arrestor details shall be shown on the building plans. (City Ordinance 38.58 and Uniform Fire Code, Appendix E). B. Construct driveway 14 -feet minimum width, plus one -foot shoulders using double seal coat oil and screening or better on 6 -inch aggregate base from public street or access road to proposed dwelling. Slope driveway shall not exceed 12'j% without adhering to the following: - Driveways having slopes between 12?% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2'" of A.C. on 6 -inch aggregate base. - Driveways having slopes between 15% to 17'x% shall be surfaced using 4" of P.C.C. concrete rough surfaced on 4 -inch aggregate base and shall not exceed 50 feet in length. - Driveways with greater slopes or longer length will not be accepted. C. Provide 15 -foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. V ° ; .4 1 i ISTAFF REPORT //� Se tember 19, 1977 RE: SDR -1329, Joe Kt ;ka (Dan Apker) Page 3 , VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal for both lots to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Cupertino Sanitary District. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure comple- tion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. 'C. The existing septic tank on lot "A" is to be pumped an backfilled to County standards. A bond in the amount of $300 shall be posted with the City to insure completion of work. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and approval: VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CU NNITY SERVICES DEPT. A. Dedicate an easement 20' by 28' for trail purposes (pedestrian/equestrian access) at northerly corner of lot "A ", as shown on Exhibit "A ". Said • easement is intended to facilitate a connection between two ends of the Quary Road to Mt. Eden Road trail as described in Section F =II of the Trails and Pathways Report. IX. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PLANNING DEPARTMENT A. Building and grading plans to be approved by Planning Department prior to issuance of permits. Individual house designs to be evaluated on the basis of compatibility with the physical environment.and compliance with site development plan. Complete plans for all on -site grading to be in- cluded in evaluation. Grading to be in accordance with Exhibit "B ", filed 8/16/77. All grading to be contoured so as to form smooth transitions between natural and man -made slopes. (NOTE:) 1. This project lies within a viewshed area. 2. Project determinations are appealable through the Design Review process.) X. CQKIENT'S A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. B. NOTE: As these proposed lots fall within a designated hazardous fire area, site approval is automatically subject to compliance with Section 14.4 -2 of Ordinance No. 60 (Relative to Fire Hydrants and Flow Capacities). LDC AGENDA: 10/6/77 Richar w e, anner *As amended by LDC at Meeting of October 6, 1977 ** As amended by LDC at meeting of April 19, 1979 per request for 1 -year extension. MEMORArNDUM CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1329, Joseph Krazeska (have) ( ) been met as approved by the Land Development Committee on 8 -5 -82. Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for,,-all required items: Offer of Dedication Yes Date Submitted 3 -13 -84 Rb1XabXXt?XX�?� Parcel Map Yes Date Submitted 3 -13 -84 Storm Drainage Fee $2200 Date Submitted 3726 -79 Receipt # 48621 All Required Improvement Bonds $6000. Date Submitted 4 -9 -79 Receipt# - -- All Required Inspection Fees Date Submitted 3-26-79— Receipt# 48621 Building Site Approval Agreement Yes Date Signed 4 -20 -84 Park and Recreation Fee $2600 Date Submitted 4 -9 -79 Receipt# 48621 3 -13 -84 48720 4668 It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that (XxiXi?8?XX)WX ) (Final) Building Site Approval for Joseph Kraj eska SDR- 1329 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development i I / 1rltLl.►ANt�+J LcT � s I HC -RD L- ocaTloN MAP SDR 1309 i4 �x z 0 �< \, I i-_ 5 Wti��v i i HC" RD 401 CITY OF SARATOGA Initial AGENDA BILL NO. j 9 Dept. H DATE: April 23, 1984 (May 2, 1994) C. Att Y DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUB,TECT: Final Building Site Approval - SDR -1556, Victor Tinsley, Saratoga -Los Gatos Road (1 lot) Issue Summary 1. The SDR -1556 is ready for.Final Map Approval. 2. All requirements for City departments and other agencies have been met. 3. All fees have been paid. Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 1556 -02 attached, approving the Final Map of SDR -1556. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachments 1. Resolution No. 1556 -02 2. Report to Planning Commission 3. Status Report for Building Site Approval 4. Location Map Council Action 5/2: Approved 4-0. �M C REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION r,_ �- _.cc — *Revised: 12/14/83 DAii. :��� ( —0 DATE: 12/7/83 lAl� t ikiS: — Commission Meeting: 12/14/83 SUBJECTI SDR -1556, A -923, Victor & Maxine Tinsley, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Tentative Building Site Approval and Design --------- Review- Approval- __ 1 Lot ------------------------------------------- - - - - -- REQUEST: Tentative building site approval for a lot of record and Design Review Approval for a single story residence. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final map approval and building permit PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 43,743 sq. ft. (gross) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: R -1- 40,000 Residential - Very Low Density Single Family SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Story Residences SITE SLOPE: 7% NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The site is covered with an old orchard of walnut trees, two of which are over 12" in diameter. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: HISTORY: The applicants received tentative map approval for the subject site in 1977 (SDR- 1322). One of the conditions required that the lot be connected to the sanitary sewer. The applicants worked on this condition and the map expired. GRADING REQUIRED: None SETBACKS: Front: 145' (to new dedication) Rear: 50' Right Side: 20' Left Side: 14' 1" (10% of non - conforming site width) C REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION r,_ �- _.cc — *Revised: 12/14/83 DAii. :��� ( —0 DATE: 12/7/83 lAl� t ikiS: — Commission Meeting: 12/14/83 SUBJECTI SDR -1556, A -923, Victor & Maxine Tinsley, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd., Tentative Building Site Approval and Design --------- Review- Approval- __ 1 Lot ------------------------------------------- - - - - -- REQUEST: Tentative building site approval for a lot of record and Design Review Approval for a single story residence. OTHER APPROVALS REQUIRED: Final map approval and building permit PLANNING DATA: PARCEL SIZE: 43,743 sq. ft. (gross) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING: R -1- 40,000 Residential - Very Low Density Single Family SITE DATA: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Single Story Residences SITE SLOPE: 7% NATURAL FEATURES & VEGETATION: The site is covered with an old orchard of walnut trees, two of which are over 12" in diameter. PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS: HISTORY: The applicants received tentative map approval for the subject site in 1977 (SDR- 1322). One of the conditions required that the lot be connected to the sanitary sewer. The applicants worked on this condition and the map expired. GRADING REQUIRED: None SETBACKS: Front: 145' (to new dedication) Rear: 50' Right Side: 20' Left Side: 14' 1" (10% of non - conforming site width) f Report to Planning Cu��mission 12/7/83 SDR -1556, A -923, Tinsley, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Page Two HEIGHT: 15 ft. SIZE OF STRUCTURE: Total Floor Area: 3,450 sq. ft. (6,200 sq. ft. Design Review Standard) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 20% (35% maximum allowed) COLORS & MATERIALS: The residence will have an earthtone finish with shake roofing. RELATIONSHIP WITH ADJACENT STRUCTURES: There are single story homes to the right and to the rear of the subject site, and a two -story residence to the left of the site. The topography in this area is generally level. DRIVEWAY & CIRCULATION: The lot takes access from Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. An encroachment permit from Cal Trans will be required for this access prior to issuance of a building permit. SDR -1556 BUILDING SITE APPROVAL PROJECT STATUS: Said project complies with all objectives of the General Plan, and all requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Saratoga. The housing needs of the region have been considered and have been balanced against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. A categorical Exemption was prepared relative to the environmental impact of this project. Said determination date: December 2, 1983. The Staff Report recommends approval of the tentative map for SDR -1556 (Exhibit "B ", filed November 10, 1983 subject to the following conditions: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 60, including without limitation, the submission of a Record or Survey or par- cel map; payment of storm drainage fee and park and recreation fee as estab- lished by Ordinance in effect at the time of final approval; submission of engineered improvement plans for any street work; and compliance with applicable Health Department regulations and applicable Flood Control regulation's and requirements of the Fire Department. Reference is hereby made to said Ordinance for further particulars. Site approval in no way excuses compliance with Saratoga's Zoning and Building Ordinances, nor with any other Ordinance of the City. In addition thereto, applicant shall comply with the following Specific Conditions which are hereby re- quired and set forth in accord with Section 23.1 of Ordinance No. 60. II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPFIENT � A. Pay Storm Drainage Fee in effect at the time of obtaining Final Approval! Report to Planning C(imission 12/7/83 SDR -1556, A -923, Tinsley, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Page Three II. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - continued B. Submit "Parcel Map" to City for Checking and Recordation (Pay required Checking & Recordation Fees). (If Parcel is shown on existing map of record, submit three (3) to -scale prints). C. Submit "Irrevocable Offer of Dedication" to Provide for additional 70 ft. on Saratoga /Los Gatos Rd. D. Construct Storm Drainage System and as directed by the City Engineer, as needed to convey storm runoff to Street, Storm Sewer or Watercourse. E. Construct turnaround having 32 ft. radius or approved equal using double seal coat oil and screenings or better on 6 in. aggregate base within 100 ft. of proposed dwelling. F. Construct Driveway Approach 16 ft. wide at property line flared to 24 ft. at street paving. Use double seal coat oil and screenings or bet- ter on 6 in. Aggregate Base. G. Provide adequate sight distance and remove obstructions of view as re- quired at driveway and access road intersections. H. Watercourses must be kept free of obstacles which will change, retard or prevent flow. I. Obtain Encroachment Permit from Cal -Trans for work to be done within State Right -of -Way. NOTE: Grading and drainage plans to be submitted to Cal -Trans prior to issuance of permits for review and comment. Effects of said opera- tions on State highway drainage conditions to be evaluated. III. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - DIVISION OF INSPECTION SERVICES A. Geotechnical investigation and report by licensed professional of Foundation. B. Detailed on -site improvement plans showing: 1) Drainage details (conduit type, slope, butfall, location, etc.) 2) Retaining structures including design by A.I.A. or R.C.E. for walls 3 feet or higher. 3) Standard information to include titleblock, plot plan using record data, location map, north arrow, sheet nos., owner's name, etc. IV. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 4 A. Sanitary sewer service has.been provided to this project. Connection permit fees will be required prior to issuance of building permit. Report to Planning Commission 12/7/83 SDR -1556, A -923, Tinsley, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Page Four V. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT A. Construct a turnaround at the proposed dwelling site having a 32 foot inside radius.within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first floor. Other approved type turnaround must meet requirements of the Fire Chief. Details shall be shown on building plans. Turnaround may not be used for required off - street parking. B. Extension of existing water system adjacent to site is required for fire protection. Plans to show location of water mains and fire hydrants. Remit $10.00 fee for spotting one (1) hydrant. C. Provide 15 foot clearance over the road or driveway (vertical) to building site. Remove all limbs, wires or other obstacles. D. Developer to install one hydrant that meets Central Fire District's specifications at northwestern property line and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road. Hydrant to be installed and accepted prior to issuance of building permits. VI. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A. Sewage disposal to be provided by sanitary sewers installed and connected by the developer to one of the existing trunk sewers of the Sanitation District No. 4. Prior to final approval, an adequate bond shall be posted with said district to assure completion of sewers as planned. B. Domestic water to be provided by San Jose Water Works. C. Any old septic tanks or seepage pits on property to be destroyed to Health Department standards. D. Any old agricultural wells to be sealed to Water District and Health Department Standards. VII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT A. Applicant shall, prior to Final Map Approval, submit plans showing the location and intended use of any existing wells to the SCVWD for review and certification. VIII. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS - PERMIT REVIEW DIVISION A. Design Review Approval required on project prior to issuance of permits. B. Prior to issuance of building permits individual structures shall be reviewed by the Planning Department to evaluate the potential for solar accessibility. The developer shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportuni- ties on /in.the subdivision /building site. r C Report to Planning Commission 12/7/83 SDR -1556, A -923, Tinsley, Saratoga -Los Gatos Rd. Page Five IX. COMMENTS A. Tree removal prohibited unless in accord with applicable City Ordinances. B. Site is subject to the following General Plan policy: "CI 4.3: The City shall require increased setbacks of up to 100 feet for structures, walls or fences to be located on lots adja- cent to officially designated scenic highways where it is deter- mined by the City that such increased setbacks are necessary to preserve the scenic qualities of the highway." MEMORANDUM CITY'OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: Status Report for Building Site Approval All conditions for Building Site Approval SDR- 1356., Victor Tinsley (have) (hAiX (XX(X1K) been met as approved by the Planning Commission on 12 -14 -83 Listed below are the amounts, dates and City receipt numbers for;all required items: Offer of Dedication Yes Date Submitted 4 -20 -84 Record of Survey or Parcel Map Yes Date Submitted 4 -20 -84 Storm Drainage Fee $1100 Date Submitted 4 -20 -84 Receipt #5045 All Required Improvement Bonds N.A. Date Submitted - -- Receipt# - -- All Required Inspection Fees $200 Date Submitted 4 -17 -84 Receipt #5021 Building Site Approval Agreement N.A. Date Signed - -- Park and Recreation Fee $1300 Date Submitted 4 -20 -84 Receipt #5045 It is, therefore, the Community Development Department recommendation that ( (Z0UXjj(-Kj(cxiX,;X) (Final) Building Site Approval for Victor Tinsley , SDR -1556 be granted. If Conditional Building Site Approval is recommended, it shall become un- conditional upon compliance with the following conditions: Condition(s) Reason for Non - Compliance Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development CITY OF SARATOGA �• ! - Initial: ;4.GENDA BILL NO. Dept. Hd. DATE: April 23, 1984 (May 2, 1984) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr SUBJECT. SDR -1259, Joseph E. Politi, Pike Road, Request for Extension of Building Site Approval Agreement Issue Summary Mr. Joseph E. Politi is requesting that his Building Site Approval Agree- ment be extended for one year, in order to complete the improvements for a private access road. Mr. Politi received Building Site Approval on February 14, 1979. At that time he was required to construct a new road to connect the existing road. However, in the meantime he is negotiating with the owners of the Pike Estate to acquire an easement over an existing road, which would eliminate the need of construction of a new road. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council approve the one -year extension. Fiscal Impacts None Exhibits /Attachimnts 1. Letter of Request for One -Year Extension Council Action 5/2: Approved 4- -0. .S v' April 5, 1984 Robert S. Shook Director of Community Development City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Shook: The purpose of this letter is to request a one year extension to the Improvement Agreement for SDR -1259, Pike Road, 1 lot. We are presently negotiating with the owners of the Pike estate to acquire an easement over an existing private road which would ogviate the need for most of the work specified in the Improvement Agreement. Thanking you in advance for your consideration, we are, JP /pc With Re g a- rds.,, Sandra and Joe Politi CITY OF SARATOGA • Initial: �--� AGENDA BILL NO: Dept. Head: DATE: April 23, 1984 City Atty DEPARTMENT: Maintenance City Mgr ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- SUBJECT: Notice of Completion - Apply Paint Coat to City Hall, Civic Auditorium, Community Center and Corporation Yard Issue Summary City Council at their regular meeting of February 15, 1984 awarded the contract to "Apply Paint Coat to City Hall, Civic Auditorium, Community Center and Corporation Yard" to Joseph's Painting and Decorating, Inc. The work has now been satisfactorily completed. Recommendation It is recommended that the work be accepted and that the City Council authorize filing of the "Notice of Completion ". Fiscal Impacts This project was approved in the 1983 -84 budget. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Notice of Completion 2. Progress Payment #2 Council Action 5/2: Approved 4 -0. PROGRESS PAY ESTI-"QATE PROJECT: APPLY PAINT COAT TO CITY BUILDINGS City of Saratoga ~V� 13777 Fruitvale Avenue DATE: April 23, 1984 EST. NO._ 2 Saratoga, CA. 95070 FROM: March 21, 1984 TO: April 23, 1984 CONTRACTOR: Joseph's Painting and Decorating ADDRESS: 533 Santa Ana San Jose, CA PHONE: ( 408 ) 286 -6038 UNIT WORK. DONE WORK DONE TOTAL ° WORK ITEM DESCRIPTION UANTITY'. UNIT -PRICE TOTAL - PREVIOUS ES9 THIS EST. WORK DONE TOTAL DUE- DONE REMARKS 1 Apply Paint Coat to City Buildings L.S. L.S. 26,110 26 110.00 50% 50% 100% 26,110.00 100% 2 Seal Floor Area 1894 S.F. 0.75 1,420.00 0% 0% 0% 0.00 0% 3 Install Wallpaper 50 Each 40.0 2,000.00 100% ,/ 0%/ 100% 2,000.00 1000% Extra Work 556.90 Extra Work (Net) L.S. L.S. 139.90 139.90 ° 0/ 100% 100% 139.90 100% Credit 417.00 Extra Work Net$139.9C TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: RECORD OF PREVIOUS PAYMENT TOTAL DUE: 28,249.90 p.0.# 17447 EST. NO. DATE AMOUNT 1 4/04/84 $ 13,549.50 MADE CHECKED BY: BY DATE 4 L 3 DATE LESS loo RETENTION: TOTAL PAYMENT: 2824.99 ' 25,424.91 FUND # ACCT. # 30 AP OV D B irector of Main nance' ' all—Tle-f � to LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS: PAYMENT DUE THIS EST.: 13,549.50 11,875.41 PROGRAM # DIVISION # 967 72 TOTAL: SHEET OF CITY OF SARATOGA -7 Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. (pvc Dept. Hd. DATE: April 24, 1984 (May 2, 19.84) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT. and Lighting District LLA -1 (Annexation) Issue Summary At your April 18, 1984 meeting you adopted Resolution No. , a resolution describing the improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for fiscal year 1984 -85 for the continuation of the Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1. Additional Council action is required for this district to proceed. Recommendation Adopt the following: Resolution "Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineer's Report" Resolution "Resolution of Intention to order the Annexation of Territory to an Existing Assessment District and the Levy and Collection of Assessments within said Territory Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" This Resolution also sets the time and place for the public hearing for said district at June 6, 1984. Fiscal Impacts The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing, and lighting costs are charged to the various zones within the District based on benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's Office will collect the amounts through the taxes and, in turn, send to the City. Exhibits /Attachments Engineer's Report to be presented Wednesday night. Resolution No. Resolution No. Council Action 5/2: Adopted Resolutions 2137 B and C 5 -0. CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. DATE: April 24, 1984 (May 2, 19.84) DEPARTMENT: Community Development Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1 (Existing) Issue Summary At your April 18, 1984 meeting, you adopted Resolution No. 2138, a resolution describing the improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer's Report for fiscal year 1984 -85 for the continuation of the Landscaping and Lighting District LLA -1. Additional Council action is required for this district to proceed. Recommendation Adopt the following: Resolution "A Resolution of Preliminary Approval of Engineers's Resolution Report" "A Resolution of Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" This Resolution also sets the time and Place of Fiscal Impacts the public hearing for said district at June 6, 1984. The costs for the administration, maintenance and servicing and lighting costs are charged to the various zones within the District based on benefit received. The Santa Clara County Assessor's office will collect the amounts through the taxes and, in turn, send to the City. Exhibits /Attachments Engineer's Report to be presented Wednesday night Resolution No. Resolution No. Council Action 5/2: Adopted Resolutions 2138 B and C, 5 -0., AGENDA BILL NO. 6,c 4 DATE: April 24, 1984 DEPARTMENT: Maintenance CITY OF SARATOGA SUBJECT: Award of Contract - Striping Certain City Streets Issue Summary Initial: Dept. Hd. C. Atty. C. MqC 1 The City received bids on April 23,,1984 for Striping Certain City Streets. Four bids were received. The lowest bid was Riley Striping of Martinez with a bid of $6,940.22. The Engineer's Estimate for the work was $12,249.78. Recommendation Award the Contract for Striping Certain City Streets to, Riley Striping of Martinez for the bid amount of $6,940.22. Fiscal Impacts This project was approved in the 1983 -84 Capital Improvement budget utilizing gas tax. Exhibits /Attachments 1. Bid Summary Council Action 5/2: Approved 5 -0. _City of Saratoga Community Development Department DATE: A_ P� 2 3 0 19 8 4 ----�� BID SUMMARY TIME: 2: 00 P.M. Sheet l of) PROJECT r' - STRIPING CERTAIN CITY STREETS _ Engineer's Est. nit ice Amount 0.38 1574.66 RAILEY STRIPING d Amount CRISP COMPANY Unit Amount .20 1881.40 HORIGAN Unit Pi1C P Amount CENTRAL ST. to Descri' tion p Quantity it �t Amount 1 '4" Double Yellow 9,407 L.F. .10 940.70 .24 2257.68 .24 2257.68 2 4" White Dash 14" 10,160 'L. F. 0.10 1,016.00 .05 508.00 .08 812.80 .13 1320.80 .12 1219.20 3 Solid White Edge 6,171 L.F. 0.12 740.52 .065 401.12 .10 617.10 .15 925.65 .12 740.52 4 6" White Solid Bike 4,446 L. F.. 0.20 889.20 .10 444.60 .14 622.44 .181 800.28 .18 800.28 .5--8" White Solid 1,545 L. F1 0.22 339,90 .10 154.50 .20 309.00 .20 309.00 .20 309.00 6 Install Type "D" Marker 594 Each 3.50 2,079.00 .80 1663.20 3.30 1960.20 3.31 1966.14 5.0 2970.00 7 Install Type "C" Marker 219 Each 3.50 766.50 2.90 635.10 3.30 722.70 3.43 751.17 5.0 1095.00 8 Install Type "A" Marker 22 Each 2.00 44.00 1.50 33.00 3.00 66.00 2.00 44.00 3.0 66.00 9 Paint Pavement Marking L.S. L.S. 1,800.00 1760 1760.00 1100 1100.00 2200 2200.00 L.S. 2515.00 10 Paint Cross Walk 5 Eachl 200.. 1,000..00 80 400.00 90 450.00 35 175.00 120 600.00 - TOTAL $12,249.78 $6940.22 $8541.64 $10749.72 $12572.86 CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. (p Dept. Hd. DATE: April 26, 1984 (May 2, 1984) C. Atty. DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: QUITO ROAD BIKE PATH Issue Summary On Wednesday, April 25, 1984, four (4) bids were received on the Quito Road Bike Path project. The bids ranged from a low of .$29,647 to- -a high 6.f'$56,236 (see attached bid summary). .The low bid of $29,647 was.sub- mitted by Saldivar Construction, Inc. of Mountain;View -, California. The Engineer's Estimate for this project was $26,480. Reconmendation Award the contract for the Quito Road Bike Path project to Saldivar Construction, Inc. for the low bid amount of $29,647.00. Fiscal Impacts This is a TDA project, which we will be reimbursed for Costs incurred. We have approvals of $20,00 for Phase I (Allendale to Yorkton -money has to be spent by June 30, 1984) and $21,000 for Phase II ( Yorkton to Baylor money has to be spent by June 30, 1985). Exhibits /Attachments 1. Bid Summary 2. Location Map (cover sheet of Plans) 3. TDA authorizations. Council Action 5/2: Approved 5 -0. City of Saratoga Community Development Department DATE APRIL 25,1984. S IT) M M A R Y TIME: 2 : 00 P.M. , _Sheet. l of 1 PROJECT ©U /TO ROAD B /KE PATN • Engineer's Esfii ofe ,Sa/divar Conan. Burguen`o Sans Norman .8.Wou9e 1i(lQl-fiS 6n-51. terr Description Quantity Unit nit Price Amount it Amount Unit price Amount Lirlit Amount it Amount C1eor479 € Grubbir7 LuM,o Svrn [. s. 02,000.00 07,700.00 2 753.98 000.00 / i5 /4500 00 / S9 15, 900.0 / 1-2 17 900. 3 .�f 31 3OO,Qo 3. lk A.C. Over /a /2,000 5.F O-=o 6,00CL 05.-6 6,720. 0675 8,10000 D69 8,280, Q$O 6,000.00 4, 6 "' Soli Da-s-he Whi �e 534J-40e 11,000 L.F 040 44�, Q/9 Z 090. 032 3,5'20, D�9 2,090. OL 1,870,00 5- PQ /h /1/yGJ9Q9GJ Arrow s �Lc/11P SU/1! L. S. /,/00.00-1 350.00 p 72.00 350. 520.00 ^�� . 6. R Bp�QCC9ns - Co,np /e 18 Ea. l /D ° —° 1,9M.00 7/ 5i /,287. 68 ° —" 1, 2 Z4. OC 75-- 1,350,60 97 °— 1,74 GYM TOTAL. AMOUAIr OF' B1.,05 a 02,6480-00 � 29 647. 032 !69.98 90 36-4 � Jj-6,2 36;Oo • v. A -Ex -Q 9401 df.way- CUrb A. C. &?-M 7 = -z'- r -ed :Ea i icing ro -6,= --Re fi) a veq, zOa42-10hr -117 .4 )YO 7' 7D ,4PPROVSPBY.' :---* ---- RQBZRi' -!P -5W00,K- -CITr FJVSINEER .SAAA-ro-,G A �4ZALENIDALH..�.AVSMU,E., TO B,4Y'l-,Z)R1XFE V1jE-, 97EM-RAL NOTES:.. 'Cox LAII work i.T 7'o he done e ;n ivi//r 1hese e -ivhlle as -y-V sholl re1nal,-7-acc---v5-i7,bAe al, ff, PROJECT he R8/ a{ /he_bepiningef a" ',cke "a' 10IeSll� fimes. 411 11-ay rri, lwey4hools ands/g".5 shallCOIVrOrl?7 ;'0 561CH,011S 7 4wa' Z-;' oil' ' - major chop PJ /n dree Eion, of col/yrorn/a spec;ycico Mile Sto fe of.Lo/iforn/a Traffic' Manual. The Cif Ar,: shall ievlew all sl0t, p /ocC/ilent'anb traffic . nrP-764L BIKE LAMr STMV5 rneModx prior to . Ao I h., V44LEY 3-Th e C onY4e#6r /j Arrnoivjbie yot necessary inspection may be C,2&5'C -Ex -Q 9401 df.way- CUrb A. C. &?-M 7 = -z'- r -ed :Ea i icing ro -6,= --Re fi) a veq, zOa42-10hr -117 .4 )YO 7' 7D ,4PPROVSPBY.' :---* ---- RQBZRi' -!P -5W00,K- -CITr FJVSINEER To: Auditor Instruction Number County: Santa Clara C C Uate: June 30, 1981 82 - 971 - 060 Metropolitan Transportation Commission TDA ALLOCATION INSTRUCTION Transportation Development Act Funds Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 99235 and 21 Cal. Admin. Code Section 6659 Fiscal Year 1981 -82 X —Original..Instruction Revised - Instruction No. Disbursement - Authorization No. _ X Reserve Authorization Claimant City of Saratoga __- -Address City Hall, 13777 Frui tval e Saratoga, CA-95070 Attention: Robert S. Shook, Public Works Director Authorization: - -PUC - -- 99234 Total Allocation: $ 20,000 Purpose: Article 3, Pedestrian /Bicycle Projects Project Description: Quito Road Pathway Project - Allendale Drive to railroad tracks. Terms and Conditions:::---These funds are reserved in the: Loca.1_Transportation Fund (LTF) of--Santa—Clara--- County for a period of 3- years. Eligible costs - must -be -incurred on or before June 30, 1984., Funds:. not -drawn by September,309-1984, -- .cease_to__b-e-al1ocate-d_ and on- that- date-_r-evert- to= the unal l ocated bal ance of the LTF. MTC will issue disbursement authorization upon receipt from claimant of invoices or other documentation substantiating actual expenditure of financial obligation. X Disbursement is not authorized Allocation Instruction reviewed by �A1 Disbursement is authorized in the amount of (Balance not authorized for disbursement $ Single payment (to meet actual financial obligation) Quarterly (in advance) Other: Signed Lawrence D. Dahms Executive Director cc: Claimant /John Bean r• .�� Date: May 27, 1981 �_ W.I .: 1002 -20 -01 W.A.: 2249D Referred By: GR &AC ABSTRACT Resolution No. 971 This resolution allocates 3548,600 in FY 1981 -82 TDA Article 3 funds (pedestrian /bicycle facilities) to the cities and the county of Santa Clara. Attachment A lists the twenty -five projects being funded. I Date: May 27, 1981 W.I.: 1002 -20 -01 W.A.: 2249D Referred By: GR &AC Attachment A to MTC Resolution.No. 971 Santa Clara County Transportation Development Act - Article 3 Pedestrian /Bicycle Projects FY 1981 -82 Allocations (Authorization PUC 99234) (2111D/0486D) NEW FY 1981 -82 PROJECTSI) Total FY 1981 -82 Code Claimant Project Name Allocation 010 1. Gilroy Uvas Park Drive Pathways - Santa Teresa Blvd. 11,000 to 10th St., Phase III 030 2. Milp.itas Improvement of bikeways and pedestrian walkways 279800 in Milpitas _ 070 3. Sunnyvale Bikeway Route (North- South) utilizing Sunnyvale- 71,000 Saratoga Road, Remington Drive, Fair Oaks Avenue, Old San Francisco Road and Wolfe Road 050 4. San Jose Kooser Road shoulder /path - Camden Avenue to Dent 19,000 Avenue 051 5. San Jose Coyote Creek Bike /Pedestrian Path - Hellyer Park 10,000 to the north; Preliminary Engineering & Planning 071 6.- Sunnyvale Fremont Avenue Bridge over Stevens Creek 40,000 (peds & bikes) 052 7. San Jose Curb ramps at various locations 20,000 053 8. San Jose Bicycle Lockers at various locations 12,500 054 9. San Jose Bicycle Racks at various locations 3,500 )040 10. Palo Alto Bike Locker for-three--locations in the 10,000 Palo Alto business district 060 11. Saratoga Quito Road Pathway Project - Allendale Drive to 20,0002) R/R tracks 080 12. County of Coyote Creek Pathway Project - Southerly extension 30,000 Santa Clara of existing Path south.of Metcalf Road Parks & Rec. 055 13. San Jose Pearl Avenue Shoulder /Path; Thornwood Drive to R/R 80,000 tracks (2111D/0486D) J Attachment A to MTC Resolution No. 971 Page 2 056 14. San Jose Lucretia Avenue Pedestrian Path - Story Road to $ 19,000 Phelan Avenue 057 15. San Jose Penitencia Creek Road Pedestrian Path - Noble 21,500 Road to Dorel Drive 061 16. Saratoga Fruitvale Avenue safety improvements and bikeway 32,800 modifications; improvements between Alondra Lane and Saratoga Avenue 058 17. San Jose Morrill Avenue Shoulder /Path - Cropley Avenue to 23,000 Hostetter Road 031 18. Milpitas Abel St. Walkways (additional funds) - Serra Way 13,400 to Calaveras Blvd. and eliminate bottleneck near Weller Lane 059 19. San Jose Snell Avenue Pedestrian Path - Skyway Drive to 7,500 Adragra Street 059.1 20. San Jose Bicycle Fleet - City Hall 8,000 059.2 21. San Jose Quito Road shoulder - Yorktown Way to Westmont Ave. 12,000 081 22. County of Quito Road Improvement Project: Santa Clara a. Widen SPRR to Westmont Ave. 9,000 b. Widen as part of Park & Ride Lot 4,000 020 23. Los Gatos Bicycle Racks and /or Bike Lockers 10,000 in Los Gatos 032 24.-Milpitas - Main Street at Weller Lane - Widening contiguous 11,800 to travel lane 033 25. Milpitas Capitol Avenue Pedestrian Walkway - -Abel Street to 21,800 Main Street TOTAL $548,600 _ Listed in order of county priority. 2) County recommended funding - -in amount -of $14,400; subsequently increased with concurrence of county staff to $20,000 to cover revised project estimate. (2111D/0486D) To: Auditor Instruction Number County: Santa Clara Date: June 23, 1982 83 _ 1078 _ 080 Metropolitan Transportation Commission TDA ALLOCATION INSTRUCTION Transportation Development Act Funds Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 99235 and 21 Cal. Admin. Code Section 6659 Fiscal Year 1982 -83 X Original Instruction Revised Instruction No. Disbursement Authorization No. _ —T(— Reserve Authorization Claimant City of Saratoga Address City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 Attention: Robert S. Shook, Public Works Director Authorization: PUC 99234 Total Allocation: $ 21,000 Purpose: Article 3, Pedestrian /Bicycle Projects Project Description:Quito Road Path - Yorktown Drive to Baylor Avenue. Terms and Conditions: These funds are reserved in the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) of Santa Clara County for a period of 3 years. Eligible costs must be incurred on or before June 30, 1985. Funds not drawn by September 30, 1985 cease to be allocated and on that date revert to the unallocated balance of the LTF. MTC will issue disbursement authorization upon receipt from claimant of invoices or other documentation substantiating actual expenditure of financial obligation. X Disbursement is not authorized Allocation Instruction reviewed by i,�- �,�_ c Disbursement is authorized in the amo�ht of Z ,, $ (Balance not authorized for disbursement $ Single payment (to meet actual financial obligation) Quarterly (in advance) Other: Signed Lawrence D. Da ms Executive Director cc: Claimant ■/ ABSTRACT Resolution No. 1078 Date: June 23, 1982 W.I.: 902.70.01 W.A.: 4511D Referred By: GR &AC Subject The MTC has been requested by the cities and county within Santa Clara County to make allocations of TDA funds for bicycle and pedestrian facilities (Article 3) in FY 1982 -83 based on the County's recommended Article 3 priority listing. Summary of Actions Authorized /Directed by the Subject Resolution This resolution allocates a total of $546,520 to eligible claimants in Santa Clara County for bicycle and pedestrian projects in FY 1982 -83. This resolution commits a total of $27,000 to eligible claimants in Santa Clara County for bicycle and pedestrian projects in FY 1982 -83. Further discussion and evaluation of the TDA allocation is contained in the MTC "Staff Evaluation" dated June 10, 1982. _ E I: Date: W. I. W.A. Referred By: Attachment Resolution Page 1 of 2 June 23, 1982 902.70.01 4511D GR &AC A No. 1078 SANTA CLARA COUNTY Transportation Development Act - Article 3 FY 1982 -83 Allocations (Authorization PUC 99234) Code Claimant Project Name Total FY 1982 -83 Allocation Campbell Los Gatos Creek Trail - Phase I North of Camden Avenue Gilroy Uvas Park Drive Pathways - Phase IV Santa Teresa Blvd. to Santa Barbara Milpitas Calaveras Road Pedestrian Walkway Safety Improvement - Piedmont Rd. to Ed Levin Park Milpitas North Milpitas Blvd. Pedestrian Walkway and Widening for Bike Lane - Dixon Rd. and Firethon Street Monte Sereno Daves Avenue Walkway - Westerly of Via Caballero San Jose Hicks Road Pedestrian Path - Camden Ave. to 1,100 Ft. Westerly San Jose Blossom Avenue Shoulder /Path - North of Sierra Road San Jose Piedmont Road /Shoulder Path - North of Sierra Road San Jose Curb Ramps at Various Locations San Jose Railroad Crossings to Test New Materials $ 45,000 25,000 55,800 17,400 2,700 65,000 35,000 21,000 20,000 12,000 Attachment A Resolution No. 1078 �. Page 2 of 2 Code Claimant Project Name Total FY 1982 -83 Allocation San Jose Coyote Creek Bike /Pedestrian Path - North at Hellyer Park 33,000 Santa Clara Curb Ramp Construction for Wheelchairs at Warranted Locations in City 60,000 County Murphy Avenue Improvements - Surface Shoulders East of Old Oakland Road to Lundy Avenue b 20,000 County Parks Los Gatos Creek Trail - Lark Avenue to Dell Avenue 20,000 Saratoga Quito Road Path - Yorktown Drive to Baylor Avenue 21,000 Los Gatos Los Gatos Creek Trail - Blossom Hill Bridge to Roberts Road Bridge County Bicycle Lockers at Various Bus Stops & Park and Ride Lots Palo Alto Palo Alto Avenue /E1 Camino Real - Signal Modification for Pedestrians 16,000 20,000 57,620 $546,520 CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO: s DATE: April 25, 1984 DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Initial: Dept. Head. City Atty : Ci ty Mgr : SUBJECT: Supplement Number Five to the Local Agency - State Agreement for Federal Aid.'Pr6jects (Landslide Repair on Pierce Road near Via Regina) ----------- - - - - -- I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Issue Summary The repair of the damage and landslide and the installation of retaining wall on Pierce Road near Via Regina caused by last winter's storms is being funded under the Federal Aid for Emergency Relief Act. In order to complete our application for funds, a supplement to the City's Master Agreement for Federal Aid Projects dated August 17, 1977 must be formally approved by the City Council. The accompanying Resolution approves: Supplement Number Five. Recommendation Adopt the Resolution approving the program and authorize its execution. Fiscal Impact This supplement will make $106,060 of Federal Aid Funds available to the City. Attachments /Exhibits 1. Resolution No. 2. Supplement Number Five with Exhibit B Council Action 5/2: Approved 5 -0. CITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO. &RI Dept. Hd. �JZsS DATE: April 27, 1984 (May 2, 1984) DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Atty. C. Mgr. SUBJECT: GPA 83 -1 -A, City of Saratoga, Draft Housing Element and E.I.R. Issue Sutnnary 1. The City Council and Planning Commission have worked on a Revised Housing Element since January 24, 1984 in response to comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. 2. After considerable input from the public, council, commission and staff, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Housing Element at its meeting of April 25, 1984. 3. The Housing Element was dealt with in conjunction with Commission con- sideration of an ordinance precluding second units which is addressed in a separate agenda bill. Recommendation 1. Conduct the final public hearing on the Revised Housing Element /E.I.R. 2. If the City Council wishes to approve the Housing Element it must: A) Adopt a resolution certifying the final E.I.R. for the Housing Element. B) Approve a resolution adopting the Housing Element/E. I.R. as part of the General Plan making the necessary findings. Fiscal Impacts Unknown but not expected to be significant since State Law does not require the City to expend funds to implement the Housing Element. Exhibits /Attachments Exhibit A - Resolution certifying the E.I.R. Exhibit B - Resolution adopting the Houisng Element /E.I.R. Exhibit C - Text and appendices of the Housing Element /E. I. R. Exhibit D - Planning Commission minutes dated 3/14/84, 3/28/84, 4/11/84 and 4/25/84 Council Action 5/2: Continued to meeting of 5/16. 5/16: Resolution 2147 certifying EIR adopted 5 -0; Resolution 430.3 adopting Housing Element adopted 5 -0. k RESOLUTION NO. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Saratoga Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Revised Housing Element of the General Plan WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accord with all applicable State and City Guidelines, and WHEREAS, said DEIR was noticed in a paper of General Circulation, and WHEREAS, said DEIR was circulated for a period of thirty (30) days in accord with State and City EIR guidelines, and WHEREAS, said document was made available to the public, and WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings on February 1, 1984 and May 2, 1984, and WHEREAS, appropriate written responses were prepared for all comments: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does: (1) Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report as a complete and adequate document, and (2) That if the project were completed as proposed, said project would have an impact on the environment. Passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council on the day of , 1984, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: G. Cory Deputy City Clerk David Moyles Mayor t!�Kti orr A dnPAr gas -r st i GtPA e3 -1 A RESOLUTION N0. -- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA ADOPTING THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of this City has caused to be prepared a revised Housing Element of the General Plan which addresses the long -term housing need, and strategies for meeting that need, for the City of Saratoga pursuant to Article 10.6 of Chapter 3 of Title 7 of the Government Code of this State and pursuant to Article 6 of said Chapter and Title, said Planning Commission has considered said Housing Element and held noticed public hearings thereon and has heretofore adopted a resolution approving said Element and recommending the same to the City Council, and has transmitted said approved Element to this City Council, and WHEREAS, thereafter this Council has held noticed public hearings on said Element as required by law, and has suggested certain modifications and changes to certain portions of the Housing Element that.had been con- sidered by the Planning Commission during the course of its deliberations on the Housing Element, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act of 1970 the pro- visions of Chapter 3, Title 14, Division 6 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution Series 653 of this City, a draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and completed and a notice of completion thereof filed with the Secretary of the Resources Agency of the State of California, and more than forty -five (45) days expiring from the date of said filing, on or about the 18th day of April, 1983, this Council having held a public hearing on the proposed final Environmental Impact Report, and thereafter said report having been certified by this Council as final, and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that adoption of the proposed revised Housing Element of the General Plan will have significant effects upon the environment, as identified in the final environmental impact report, and hereby makes the following findings: (a) Goals.and Policies have been incorporated into the General Plan to mitigate to an acceptable level or avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR, including the following: -2- (1) Loss of agricultural lands and open spaces -- the Goals and Policies of the General Plan to be acted upon with appropriate ordinances and actions, will en- courage renewal and discourage cancellation of Williamson Act contracts, encourage the use of school sites for recrea- tion, and require exactions from development to maintain and preserve open space. (2) Energy and natural resource use -- the goals and policies of the General Plan, particularly the conservation element, will encourage: the use of alternate forms of renewable energy sources, building designs that conserve energy, use of natural passive heating and cooling systems, tree preservation, minimize water use and degradation, and minimize disruption to soil and topo- graphy. These impacts will be further reduced by implementation of existing codes and ordinances. (3) 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 trans- portation modes. There are policies to plan means of reducing traffic impacts and addressing cumulative impacts of certain heavily traveled roads. (b) The General Plan contains goals and policies and land use desig- nations for land within the sphere of influence of the City of Sara- toga designed to mitigate adverse environmental effects of develop- ment in that area. However, such lands are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara which, at the present time, has adopted regulations consistent with the General Plan. Other mitigation measures as contained in the General Plan should also be adopted by the County of Santa Clara with respect to these lands. (c) To the extent that significant environmental effects identified in the final EIR have not been fully mitigated or avoided by the Goals and Policies of the General Plan, such effects are unavoidable since the mitigation of the cumulative impacts identified in the final EIR depend on the actions of other agencies and jurisdictions in regu- lating or requiring future development, particularly traffic congestion. -3- Thus, no feasible mitigation measures can be incorporated by the General Plan for these impacts since Saratoga's contribution to these impacts is relatively small and such mitigation measures are beyond the scope of the General Plan, and WHEREAS, after said public hearings hereinabove referred to, this Council considered the final Environmental Impact Report in conjunction with said Housing Element, and in evaluating said Housing Element and each element of the General Plan, and deeming it in the best interests of this City that said Housing Element be adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Section 1: This Council hereby finds that due and legal notice of public hearings on the hereinafter set forth Housing Element of the General Plan and the hereinabove referred to Environmental Impact Report, have been given as required by law and said public hearings on said Housing Element of the General Plan both at the Planning Commission level and at this Council level have been held according to law. Section 2: The revised Housing Element of the General Plan consists of the document noted as Exhibit "B" including: (a) Final EIR incorporated as part of the General Plan (b) Goals, Policies and Implementation Measures (c) Text of the Housing Element in compliance with Article 10.6 of Chapter 3 of Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California. (d) Appendices (1) Initial Environmental Assessment. (2) Comments and responses to the Draft General Plan /EIR. Said Housing Element of the General Plan as above outlined be and the same is hereby adopted as part of the General Plan of this City and all previous Housing Elements and amendments and additions thereto, are de- clared to be superseded by the within adopted Element. The above and foregoing resultion was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of 1984, and thereafter was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY CLERK -4- MAYOR a r; DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Saratoga, California qtr -1-4-,- -1-943 March 28, 1984 Sx *tlg17' G �iPA 53 -1 -A RESOLUTION NO. GPA 83 -1 (a) RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHEREAS, State law requires each local government to have a Housing Element as part of that local government's General Plan; and WHEREAS, Article 10.6 of the Government Code specifies the contents required in a Housing Element and the Planning Commission has drafted a Revised Housing Element considering these requirements and the economic, environmental, and fiscal factors affecting the City of Saratoga as well as the goals expressed in the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, noticed public hearings were conducted by the Planning Commission on March 23, 1983, April 13, 1983, May 25, 1983, June 22, 1983, March 14, 1984, March 28, .1984.and April 11, 1984, at which time any person desiring to comment upon the proposed revised Housing Element was given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after carful consideration of the proposed Draft Housing Element and Environmental Impact Report, the Planning Commission has approved various modifi- cations and amendments thereto, and is of the opinion that the Draft Housing Ele- ment and Environmental Impact Report as amended, should be recommended to the City Council for adoption. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, that the Housing Element of the General Plan of the City of Saratoga, as modified and amended by the Planning Commission, be and the same hereby is affirmatively recommended to the City Council of the City of Saratoga for adoption; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of the Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to send a copy of this resolution, together with a copy of the Draft Housing Element and Environmental Impact Report as amended, to the City Council for further action in accordance with State law. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga held on the 11th day of April , 1984 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Hlava, Harris, McGoldrick, Schaefer and Siegfried NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Crowther and Peterson ABSTAINED: None (Za,g44.' Chairman, Planning Co ion ATTEST: �L_6 6�1, �_gw_ ri::;1Z Secretary/ IrR IV, C HOUSING ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT . . . . . . . . . . HOUSING ELEMENT AND STATE LAW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CITIZEN PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXISTING AND PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . Population Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Housing Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . IncomeDeficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Housing Stock Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Share of Regional Housing Needs - ABAG . . . . . . . Distribution of Housing Needs by Income . . . . . . . Sunland Park Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Housing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 5 11 15 18 21 22 23 25 W:3 Vacant and Partially Developed Land . . . . . . . . . 28 Available Public Facilities & Services . . . . . . . 32 Governmental Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Non - Governmental Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 OPPORTUNIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION . . . . . . . . . . . 43 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . 44 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 ACTION PROGRAM 1984 -1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Current Housing Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . 49 Five Year Implementation Program 1984 -1989 . . . . . 49 1. Identify Adequate Housing Sites . . . . . . 50 2. Assisting Low and Moderate Income . . . . . 50 Households 3. Mitigation of Government Constraints . . . . 50 4. Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock 51 5. Equal Opportunity in Housing . . . . . . . . 51 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4 M♦ u TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE Significant Effects of the Proposed Housing Element . 52 Unavoidable Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Alternatives to the Proposed Housing Element . . . . 54 Short Term Uses vs Long Term Productivity . 54 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes . . . 55 Growth Inducing Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Discussion of Effects Not Considered Significant . . 56 END NOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 APPENDICES APPENDIX l: Initial Study APPENDIX 2:. Responses to the Notice of Preparation and Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Responses INTRODUCTION In 1956, the City of Saratoga incorporated as a minimum service community made up primarily of low intensity residential uses with a minimum of commercial - industrial development. Even as the community has grown this philosophy has continued to be important in guiding the City's future. The community character created by this philosophy and its preservation are a major component of the General Plan and the Housing Element. = During neighborhood meetings and public hearings on the 1983 General Plan revision, residents of Saratoga expressed their desire to maintain and preserve the existing single family res- idential character of Saratoga. The General Plan Citizens Advi- sory Committee (GPAC), considering these public comments, suggested revised goals and policies for the Housing Element. In 1980, changes in the State law under AB -2853 required more information in the Housing Element and mandated some provi- sions which were - previously advisory. Although the legislative changes were intended to promote Statewide housing goals, the, City has limited resources to meet such goals. These limits are described in this element as well as the City's strategies for encouraging housing production. Housing needs are changing in Saratoga as they are through- out the State. Households are becoming smaller and older and housing costs continue to rise. This document should not be viewed as static since it must be aisle may need to change as changes in housing needs are identified. Housing strategies shall be adopted that are compatible with Saratoga's resources. 1 SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Upon completion of an initial study (Appendix 1), as re- quired by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it was determined that the proposed Housing Element might have a signi- ficant effect on the environment Any pro�eet that Might have a signi€ieant effeet on the environment and thus must have an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared. Sinee many of the impacts and issues addressed in the EIR for the Housing Element are also addressed in the General Plan EIR, that which EIR is incorporated by reference. Combining the EIR with the Housing Element allows the Hous- ing Element, and thus the General Plan, to be modified as enviro- nmental impacts are identified and mitigation measures are devel- oped. The public also eas Make made comments on the EIR through the Housing Element public hearing process. Section 15148 of the State EIR Guidelines requires a com- bined EIR /General Plan (Housing Element) to address all the points required by Article 9 of the EIR Guidelines and to identify where in the document these points are covered. The description of the environmental setting of the City is contained in the Basic Data and Background Appendix of the General Plan. The project description, for the purposes of CEQA, consists of the goals and policies of the Housing Element as well as the Implementing Action Program section. mitigation measures, and alternatives ronmental Assessment section of this Plan. 2 Environmental impacts, are discussed in the Envi- element and the General HOUSING ELEMENT AND STATE LAW Since 1971, the Government Code has required each city and county to have a Housing Element as a component of its General Plan. The 1971 legislation required that this mandatory element include standards and plans for the improvement of housing, for the provision of adequate sites for housing and provision for all economic segments of the community. The first Housing Element guidelines were broad in their direction and were intended and used by local communities as a suggested approach. Housing Elements prepared under those guidelines were not specifically reviewed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). In November 1977, new Housing Element guidelines were adopt- ed by the State. These guidelines were considered by HCD to be binding and not advisory as were the first guidelines. Many local governments disagreed with this interpretation but the arguments become moot when AB 2.853 (Sections 65580 -65589 of the Government Code) was adopted by the legislature in 1980. This mandated specific contents for all local Housing Elements consistent with the State's goal of "...decent housing and a suitable living environment for every California family ....." The most important changes require each locality to specifically address regional housing needs and the housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) was given the mandate of determining the existing and projected housing need for the communities within the region. Although certain contents of the Housing Element have been mandated by the State, the City must determine what "efforts are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the State housing goal" as long as the determination is compatible with that goal and regional housing needs. Cities also need not expend local revenues to construct housing, subsidize housing or acquire land for housing. Therefore, the City has considerable flexibility in developing strategies to meet identified housing needs consistent with other goals of the General Plan and the "economic, environmental and fiscal factors" the City must consider. 3 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Citizen involvement with the Housing Element actually began during the General Plan revision early in 1981. There were neighborhood meetings where citizens commented on the whole General Plan and responded to a questionnaire. The General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee used those comments to prepare revised goals and policies for the plan, including the Housing Element. However, the contents of the Housing Element were not reviewed. Thus, a new round of public hearings and exposure has been required for this rather extensive revision of the Housing Ele- ment. Public involvement has been encouraged through advertising in the local newspaper and by extensive mailings. There are two phases of noticing, one for the Planning Commission public hear- ings and one for the City Council public hearings. Notices have been sent to the following people: 1. Planning area representatives of the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee. 2. Presidents of local homeowners associations. 3. Senior citizens organizations. 4. Those people who indicated an interest in participating in the last General Plan review. 5. Other interested community groups. 6. Former participants in the last Housing Element workshops. This provides a cross section of community interests in the review of the Housing Element. 4 EXISTING AND PROJECTED HOUSING NEEDS Population Characteristics In 1980, Saratoga had a population of 29,261. This represented an increase of 111 persons since 1975. However, between 1975 and 1980 Saratoga added 1,016 dwelling units to its housing stock. In 1970 the mean household size was 3.76 and in 1980 that was reduced to 3.1. The age composition of the City changed considerably between 1975 and 1980. The 65 year and over age group increased from 6.2% of the population to 8.2 %. The 35 -64 year age group made up 45.2% of Saratoga's 1980 population. Saratoga continues to become a community of adults in their middle years when earnings are at their peak and families are maturing. However, as the population ages, households become smaller. There were 1,080 single person households in Saratoga in 1980. Of these 554 were made up of people over 60 years in age or 51.3% of all single person households. Nearly 2/3 of all single person households were made up of women. Four elementary schools have been closed in Saratoga since the early 1970's because of decreases in the school age and the potential school -age population (0 -4) may eentinue. Since 1975, the 0 -4 age group has decreased from 4% to 3.5% of the total population and the 5 -19 age group decreased from 35.9% to 29.2 %. From 1975 to 1980, the average size of a County household declined 5.4% ( 2.92 reduced to 2.76). Saratoga's decline in household size was twice as rapid in the same time period -- 10.95% (3.76 reduced to 3.1). In 1980, there were 7,941 families out of a total of 9,295 households or 85% of all households were family households. This may change significantly as both the City and County populations age. Population growth is expected to be limited in Saratoga for the next 20 -25 years, which is the expected time of buildout. In 1982, the population of Saratoga was estimated by the Planning Department to be about 30,000. Approximately 1,020 to 1,200 households or 3,200 to 4,200 people could be added to this total by the projected time of City buildout. With a median income of $47,700 estimated for Saratoga in 1981 (up from $41,143 in 1979) by the Santa Clara County Planning Department, it appears likely that the residents of Saratoga are more financially secure than other residents of the County. The 1981 median income is an increase of 80% over the 1974 median income of $26,455. In 1979, 22.6% of the City's households earned less than the County's median of $23,369 and 8.3% earned less than 50% of the County median income. Employment growth is not expected to be great with only 9 0 Source: ABAG - Census 180 Data Profile - 6 - TABLE 1 POPULATION AND HOUSING SANTA CLARA COUNTY AND SARATOGA C 0 -U N T Y S A R A T O G A 1970 1975 1980 1970 1975 1980 Total Population 1,065,313 1,169,006 1,295.1071 26,810 29,150 29,261 Pop. in Households 1,041,.899 1,144,324 1,267,671 26,370 28,775 28,793 Pop. in Group Qtrs. 23,414 24,682 27,400 440 395 468 Tot. Housing Units 336,873 411,480 473,523 7,140 8,515 9,531 Occupied Housing Untis 322,870 392,401 458,519 7,090 8,270 9,295 Persons /Household 3.23 2.92 2.76 3.76 3.48 3.1 % of County Pop. 100% 1000 1000 2.5% 2.5% 2.30 % Change in Pop. - -- +9.7% +10.8% - +8.7% +0.4% Source: ABAG - Census 180 Data Profile - 6 - TABLE 2.. TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE GROUPS MALE /FEMALE, 1980 Source: ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile - 7 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA Age Groups Male Female Total Male Female Total % 0 All Groups 641,443 653,628 1,295,071 100.0 14,340 14,921 29,261 100.0 0 -4 45,525 43,751 89,276 6.9 525 508 1,033 3.5 5 -9 46,009 44,050 90,059 7.0 908 831 1,739 5.9 10 -14 54,047 51,555 105,602 8.2 1,589 1,538 3,127 10.7 15 -19 63,277 61,252 124,529 9.6 1,912 1,775 3,687 12.6 20 -24 68,142 65,030 133,172 10.3 912 723 1,635 5.6 25 -29 64,513 61,893 126,406 9.8 492 492 984 3.4 30 -34 58,487 58,657 117,144 9.0 638 798 1,436 4.9 35 -44 86•,177 86,817 172,994 13.3 2,328 2,782 5,110 17.5 45 -54 66,48.8 67,131 133,6.19 10.3 2,471 2,422 4,893 16.7 55 -59 29,544 31,346 60,890 4.7 1,018 950 1,968 6.7 60 -64 21,250 23,497 44,747 3.4 662 584 1,246 4.3 65+ 37,984 58,649 96,633 7.5 885 1,518 2,403 8.2 Source: ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile - 7 - TABLE 3 HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD, 1980 .. SANTA CLARA No. Households COUNTY Per Cent ---- -- SARATOGA No. Households Per Cent Total 458,519 100.0 9,295 100.0 1.Person 99,917 2+ Persons 358,602 21.8 78.2 1,080 8,215 11.6 88.4 Source: ABAG - Census 180 Data Profile 8 - Total Pop. 16+ Years Armed Forces: Male Female Civilian Labor Force: Male Female Employed: Male Female Unemployed: Male Female Not in Labor Force: Male Female TABLE 4 PERSONS 16 AND OVER BY SEX AND LABOR FORCE STATUS, 1980 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA 981,642 22,545 5,185 20 394 '0 391,967 8,856: 300,385: 5,6.64 375,357 8,650 285,706 5,469 16,610 206 14,679 195 86,289 2,046 203,001 5,979 Source: ABAG - Census 180 Data Profile 9 TABLE .5 HOUSEHOLDS BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1979 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA Total No. Households Per Cent No. Households Per Cent 458,914 100.0 9,343 100.0 Less than $2,500 11,527 $2,500 - 4,999 20,400 2.5 109 1.2 $5,000 - 7,499 21,026 4.4 172 1.8 $7,500 - 9,999 - 23,584 4.6 154 1.6 $10,000- 12,499 29,375 5.2 214 2.3 $12,500 - 14,999 25,382 6.4 262 2.8 $15,000 - 17,499 29,125 5.5 240 2.6 $17,500 - 19,999 27,775 6.3 238 2.5 $20,000- 22,499 31,637 6.1 241 2.6 $22 500 -24, 999 27,660 6.9 370 4.0 $25,000- 27,499 29,281 6.0 335 3.6 $27,500- 29,999 23,651 6.4 319 3.4 $30,000- 34,999 43,785 5.2 291_ 3.1 $35,000 -39 ,999 33,190 9.5 790 8.5 $40,000- 49,999 40,830 7.2 711 7.6 $50,000 - 74,999 30,745 8.9 1,526 16.3 $75,000+ 6'7 2,160 23.'1 9,941 2.2 1,211 13.0 Median $23,370 $41,143 Mean $26,593 $46,846 Source: ABAG - 1980 Census Area Profile Data based on sample questionnaires used in 1980 census so total households in this chart may vary slightly from totals on other charts. - 10 - acres of light industrial land and about 30 acres of commercial land left to be developed. The Planning Department projects that about 210 basic industry jobs and 908 service industry jobs could be created between 1982 and 2005. This is based on the amount of available industrial and commercial lands, the maximum building coverage allowed, and the median square footage per employee generated by existing commercial enterprises (600 square feet per employee) and industrial uses (560 square feet per employee). This estimated employment growth is greater than that projected in ABAG's Projections -83 which anticipated the creation of a total of 711 jobs between 1980 and 2000. The City's job estimates will change if some commercial lands are used residentially. The great majority (93.9 %) of Saratoga residents in 1980 were classified as White. Minority groups include Chinese (1.7$), Japanese (1.7%), Black (0.3%), Filipino (0.3%), and Amer- ican Indian (0.2%), and 805 people (2.8 %) identified as of Span- ish origin are spread throughout the White, Black and other racial categories. The community's racial composition has been stable since 1970 and is not likely to change since population growth is expected to be slow. Housing Characteristics In 1982, approximately 90.3% of Saratoga's housing stock was in single - family units. Seven per cent of the housing stock was in multi - family condominium units. Multi - family rental units made up only 2.7% of the housing stock. Multi- family units including condominiums increased from about 7% of the housing stock in 1978 to almost 10% of the housing stock in 1982. In the same time period, the number of multi - family units available for rent increased 185% from 92 units to about 263 units. There are an additional 24 units rented to senior citizens in the Saratoga Parkside condominium project which are bound by use permit to remain as rentals until 1991. This reflects the City's effort to bring more balance to its housing stock. Saratoga had about 9,740 dwelling units in 1982, 56% of which were built before 1965. In 1970, the percentage of units built before 1965 was 78 %. this means that, in an overall sense, the City's housing stock is getting "newer ". In 1979, it was estimated that 1,045 units were over 30 years old. The 1980 census measured Saratoga's vacancy rate at about 2.5 %. The vacancy rate among all rental units, including single family dwellings, was about 3.2% and was about l% for all owner occupied units. In March 1982, a City survey required by the Condominium Conversion Ordinance revealed only a 0.7% vacancy rate among rental apartments. In 1980, 2.3% of the residents of Santa Clara County lived in Saratoga. Saratoga's housing stock was 2.08% of the County's total housing stock which is less than the City's proportion of 11 TABLE 6 HOUSEHOLD POPULATION BY RACE /ETHNICITY, 1980 Source: ABAG - Census 180 Data Profile SARATOGA SANTA CLARA COUNTY Percentage No. People Percentage 27,473 Total 1,295,071 100.0 Caucasian /White 1,017,854 78.6 Black 43,716 3.4: Japanese 21,907 1.7 Chinese 22,891 1.8 Filipino 27,444 2.1 American Indian 8,312 0.6 Other2 129,462 10.0 Source: ABAG - Census 180 Data Profile SARATOGA No. People Percentage 29,261 100.0 27,473 93.9 79 0.3 491 1.7 496 1.7 75 0.3 58 0.2 339 1.1 1Data from ABAG did not use separate categories for Spanish speaking ethnic groups. There are 226,611 (17.50) people of Spanish /Latin origin spread throughout the racial/ ethnic categories listed above in the county and 805 (2.8%) people of Spanish /Latin origin in Saratoga. 2The "Other" category includes Pacific Islanders, Eskimos and Aleuts. 12 - TABLE 7 HOUSING UNITS AT ADDRESS BY TYPE OF STRUCTURE, 1980 Source:. ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile lIncludes some condominium units and mobile homes - 13 - SARATOGA No. Units Percentage 9,531 100.0 9,020 94.6 263 2.8 244 2.6 0 . 0 SANTA CLARA COUNTY No. Units Percentage Total 473,523 100.0 1 Unit' 340,614 71.9 2 -9 Units 55,302 11.7 10+ Units 60.768 12.8 Other 16,839 3.6 Source:. ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile lIncludes some condominium units and mobile homes - 13 - SARATOGA No. Units Percentage 9,531 100.0 9,020 94.6 263 2.8 244 2.6 0 . 0 TABLE 8 HOUSING UNITS BY TENURE AND VACANCY STATUS, 1980 lIncludes units under construction or unknown units 14 - SANTA CLARA COUNTY SARATOGA NO. UNITS PERCENTAGE Total Units 473,523 NO. UNITS PERCENTAGE -- Total Occupied � 458,519 100.0 9,531 Owner 96.8 9'295 100.0 273,561 97.5 .Renter 184,958 8,335 Total Vacant 960 9,965 For Sale 3,739 2.1 116 1.2 For Rent 6,226 85 Otherl 5,039 31 1.1 120 Source: ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile 1.3 lIncludes units under construction or unknown units 14 - the County's population (2.3 %). This reflects the larger family size of households in Saratoga compared with the County. In 1975, 7.4% of the households in the City were single person households. This increased to 11.6% in 1980 which was due in part to an increase in senior citizen housing units. This increase is indicative of the attempts to meet the needs of Saratoga senior citizens. Although household size has been decreasing in Saratoga since 1970, housing costs have been increasing rapidly. The 1970 median value for a detached sing e- family dwelling was $46,400. This rose 399% to about $231,6001 in 1980. Median household income on the other hand rose only 119% from $18,708 in 1970 to $41,143 in 1980. In other words, housing costs increased over three times as fast as income in Saratoga between 1970 and 1980. These increases are particularly significant since Saratoga's 1979 median income was nearly double the County's 1979 median income ($23,370). Land values in Saratoga can range from $250,000 to $500,000 per acre. These high values make it impractical for developers to use this land for low or moderate income housing. Existing houses have experienced a percentage increase in value since 1975 which has surpassed the increase in value of new homes in the same time period. Thus, this source of lower cost housing for first time buyers or those with moderate incomes is no longer available. Data from the 1980 Census indicates that 40.8% of the owner occupied, non - condominium and renter households in Saratoga were overpaying for housing. (Overpaying is defined as paying more than 25% of a household's gross monthly income for housing.) Approximately 28% of all non - condominium homeowners overpaid and approximately 54% of all renters overpaid in Saratoga in 1980. Table 9 describes the number of low income households spending more than 25% of their income on housing. Census data from 1980 indicates that rental costs in Sarato- ga have increased significantly since 1975. Median rent increas- ed 33% from about $284 in 1975 to $378 in 1980. The mean rental cost for vacant rental units was $445 in 1980. About 9.8% of the renter households paid more than $400 /month for housing in 1975 but in 1980 this increased to 42.3 %. Saratoga's median rent was 22.7% higher than the County's and Saratoga's mean rent for vacant units was 33.8% higher than the County's. these numbers, combined with the fact that the mean income of rental households in Saratoga in 1980 was $20,725, indicates that most renters in Saratoga would pay more than 25% of their income to live in one of the available vacant rental units. Income Deficiencies The 1980 Census defined poverty level as an annual income of $3,479 for single persons 65 years old and older, $3,774 for 15 TABLE 9 ESTIMATE OF LOW INCOME 1HOUSEHOLDS SPENDING 25% OR MORE OF THEIR INCOME ON HOUSING COST 1. Estimated from 1980 census data (ABAG - 1980 Census Area Profiles 2. Annual Income _. 3. Percent of Very Low Income Households spending 25% or more of their income on housing. 4. Percent of Low Income Households spending 25% or more of their income on housing. 5. This represents about. 67% of all Very Low and Low Income Households in Saratoga in 1980. 6. ABAG's Census Handbook defines "Total Income" as the ".....sum of amounts reported separately for income from wages and salaries; Non -farm self - employment, Farm self - employment; Interest; Dividends, and Net Rental; Social Security; Public Assistance; and all other sources." - 16 - Very Low Income 2 3 Low Income ($11,685 or less) ( %) ($11,686 - $18,696)2 ( %)4 Total Owner Occupied 310 40% 239 37% 549 Renter Occupied 258 43% - 136 28% 394 568 83% 375 65% 9435 1. Estimated from 1980 census data (ABAG - 1980 Census Area Profiles 2. Annual Income _. 3. Percent of Very Low Income Households spending 25% or more of their income on housing. 4. Percent of Low Income Households spending 25% or more of their income on housing. 5. This represents about. 67% of all Very Low and Low Income Households in Saratoga in 1980. 6. ABAG's Census Handbook defines "Total Income" as the ".....sum of amounts reported separately for income from wages and salaries; Non -farm self - employment, Farm self - employment; Interest; Dividends, and Net Rental; Social Security; Public Assistance; and all other sources." - 16 - TABLE 10 HOUSEHOLDS BY MONTHLY COST OF RENTAL SHELTER, 1975/1980 - SARATOGA 1975 Median Rent $284 + 10 1980 Median Rent $378 - 17.. - No. 1975 Households Per Cent No. 1980 Households Per Cent Less than $100 $100 -149 $150 -199 $200 -249 $250 -299 $300 -399 $400 -499 $500 or more No cash rent Unknown 27 60 70 81 65 109 29 30 17 112 4.5 10.0 11.7 13.5 10.8 18.2 4.8 5.0 2.8 18.7 92 67 72 50 55 125 156 250 59 34 9.6 7.0 7.5 5.2 5.7 13.0 16.3 26.0 6.2 3.5 TOTAL 600 100.0 960 100.0 1975 Median Rent $284 + 10 1980 Median Rent $378 - 17.. - single persons under 65 years old and $7,412 for a family of four. Tables 11 and 12 summarize the data on below poverty households in Saratoga. 172 households were receiving public assistance as a source of income. In 1980 there were 12 Saratoga residents who had been given Section 8 Housing Assistance Certificates which enable them to seek suitable units to rent. There was one Section 8 rent subsi- dy family located in Saratoga. There are now 170 units of Section 8 subsidized housing for the elderly, 20 in Saratoga Court and 150 in Fellowship Plaza (sponsored by the California Odd Fellows Foundation). Both developments have waiting lists. Housing Stock Condition Because of the emphasis placed on the physical conditions of the existing housing stock by Federal agencies dispersing housing grant funds, physical condition has become an important criteria in evaluating a community's housing need. Since Saratoga exper- ienced most of its growth in one or two spurts of development, a close watch should be kept on how this simultaneously -aging stock is standing the test of time and new codes. A windshield housing condition survey evaluating the exter- ior condition of units was completed in May 1979 by the City planning staff. Strictures were categorized based on the extent of visible problems. The survey identified 98 structures with minor structural deficiences, 66 with major structural failures and 6 in a state of extreme dilapidation. .Units with minor and major deficiences are candidates for rehabilitation unless the cost of repair exceeds 50% of the value of the unit. The units are generally clustered within the community as follows: Planning Area Number of Units Area B (Elva -Paul- Springer) 53 Areas F & L (Quito - Kentfield) 46 Area J (The Village) 31 Remainder of City 34 Of the substandard units, 33 percent were judged to be over 50 years old and 61 percent between 25 and-50 years. Just less than half (48.5 percent) of the substandard units were owner - occupied. Census data from 1980 indicates that 19 units (8 rentals) lacked complete plumbing (hot and cold running water, flush toilet, and shower or bathtub) for exclusive use by the house- hold. Forty -nine persons live in these households. Only 2 units (10 people) lacked complete plumbing for exclusive use and had more than 1 person per room (i.e. in an overcrowded state). Head of Household under 65 years old Head of Household 65 years old or over TABLE 11 BELOW POVERTY LEVEL HOUSEHOLDS IN SARATOGA, 1980 1 Single Person. Households Family2 Households 47 73 70 37 117 110 1. ABAG - 1980 Census Area Profiles 2. Includes 61 families with children TABLE 12 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE, 19801 Under 55 years 439 55 to 59 years 10 60 to 64 years 56 65 + years 132 6372 1. ABAG - 1980 Census Area Profiles 2. Racial Breakdown: 95% white, 3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 20 Black - 19 - TABLE 13 HOUSEHOLDS BY MONTHLY COST OF RENTAL SHELTER, 1980- SANTA CLARA COUNTY No. 1980 Households Less than $100 4,168 $100 - 149 5,790 $150 - 199 14,432 $200 - 249 24,827 $250 - 299 35,113 $300 - 399 53,812 $400 - 499 25,962 $500 or more 13,635 No cash rent 2,728 Unknown 4,491 TOTAL 184,958 Median Rent - $308 - 20 - Per Cent 2.3 3.1 7.8 13.4 19.0 29.1 14.0 7.4 1.5 2.4 100.0 Share of Regional Housing Needs - ABAG Section 65584 of the Government Code requires Councils of Governments (C.O.G.) to determine each locality's share of the housing required to meet regional goals for all income groups. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the C.O.G. responsible for determining Saratoga's housing needs. In deter- mining housing needs ABAG had to use available data and consider market demand for housing, employment opportunities, the availa- bility of suitable sites and public facilities, commuting pat- terns, type and tenure of housing need, and the housing needs of farmworkers. In December 1981 ABAG submitted its Housing Needs Determination Report for local government review. They were to indicate by resolution that the numbers determined by ABAG were acceptable or indicate that a revision of the numbers was neces- sary based on more accurate or reliable data. ABAG initially projected that Saratoga would need 469 hous- ing units by 1985. The City suggested that the number be revised based on two points: 1. Projections were made using 1970 census data when more recent 1975 Special Census Data was available. 2. ABAG had assumed the land use policies in effect in 1975 -76 were still in effect in 1980 -81. The adoption a voter initiative known as Measure A and the subsequent Specific Plan reduced density in the western hillsides 40 -45% which impacted ABAG's calculations. City staff discussed these points with ABAG staff and it was agreed that Saratoga's housing need number be reduced from 469 units to 285 units. The City Council approved Resolution No. 1068 revising the housing need number to 285 on March 17, 1982 and forwarded it to ABAG. ABAG's legal counsel reviewed Saratoga's proposed revision and indicated that revisions based on voter - adopted restrictions on growth, such as Measure A, could not be accepted. The reasons given for not accepting the revision were: 1. State law does not specifically include self - imposed limitations on local growth among the criteria for determination of the regional housing need. 2. Consideration of such constraints is required in the Housing Element when it is being adopted by the City. This meant that the housing need number could only be re- duced based on data in the 1975 Special Census done by the Coun- ty. When the 1975 data was used in ABAG's formulas Saratoga's housing need number was reduced by 11 to 458. However, ABAG staff indicated that Saratoga could take credit for the 200 units in Sunland Park, which were annexed to the City in 1981, since 21 the City would be providing urban services to this area rather than San Jose which freed them to build more units. On May 11, 1982, the City Council adopted a Resolution No. 1068.1 which revised the housing need number to 458 and indicated that the 200 units in-Sunland Park should be credited to the City. In July of 1983 ABAG submitted a revised housing need deter- mination report which estimated housing need from 1980 to 1990 to be a total of 1,073 units. The City adopted a resolution (Res. No. 2097) in October 1983 requesting that the total need be revised downward. This proposed revision was based on three major factors: 1. The rate of production required to meet the projected need was unrealistic considering existing rates of production and market factors. 2. ABAG had incorrectly included Williamson Act Lands as lands available for development prior to 1990. 3. Environmental constraints significantly affect the amount of housing that can be produced in Saratoga particularly in the Northwestern Hillsides. After reviewing Saratoga's revision request ABAG rejected it, indicating Williamson Act Land had been correctly considered. About 138 units have been built in Saratoga since 1980 and, as in the previous housing need determination, Saratoga should be credited with the 200 units in Sunland Park which were annexed in 1981. This reduces Saratoga's total housing need as projected by ABAG to 735 units. The City will not be able to accommodate these 735 units of unmet need by 1990 because of economic factors that are beyond the control of the City (i.e., land costs, financing costs, and construction costs). There are also environmental constraints affecting most of the City's vacant land. These factors combined have created a very low rate of housing production. The number of units constructed in 1982 and 1983 were 11 units and 15 units respectively. Thus, Saratoga cannot reasonably commit itself to meeting the housing need projected by ABAG. Distribution of Housing Need 1�y Income ABAG is required by State Law to determine how the total housing need projected should be distributed among income groups within Saratoga. The July 1983 version of the Housing Needs ' Determination Report projected the income distribution of housing need, using annual household income, as follows: FIGURE 1 1980 -1990 VPry Low Moderate Above Total Projected Income 1 Low Income Income Mod. Inccr Housing Need (11,685 or less) (11,686- 18,696) (18,697- 28,044)(28,045 +) 1,073 172 139 193 56,9 In 1980 7% of the households in Saratoga were very low income, 7% were low i.ncome households, and 11% were moderate income households. If all the needed housing units are built by 1990, using the distribution level projected by ABAG, then Saratoga would have 7.9% of its households in the very low income category, 7.6% in the low income category, and 11.7% in the moderate income category. As indicated previously, 138 units have been built in Saratoga since 1980 and 200 units were added to the City's housing stock when Sunland Park was annexed. These units partially met the City's projected need for housing at various income levels. If these units are subtracted from the numbers in Figure 1, the following distribution results (also see the Sunland Park Survey on Page 24): FIGURE 2 1980 -1990 Total Projected Very Low Low Moderate Above Housinq Need Income Income Income Moderate Income 735 142 105 123 365 Rental Units and Demolition About 7.5% of the units in Saratoga were rental units in 1975. The 1980 census indicated that 10.4% of the units in Saratoga were rented. To maintain this percentage about 46 rental units will need to be added to the housing stock by 1985. However, it is also expected that about 20 units (both renter and owner occupied) will be demolished by 1985 and sheuld will be replaced in the housing stock. This is based on an average annual demolition rate of 4 units per year and projecting from 1980. Sunland Park Survey In May 1983, an income and household size survey was conducted by the City of Saratoga with the assistance of the Sunland Park Homeowners Association for the Sunland Park area. The results of that survey was to determine how many low and moderate income households were made part of the City when Sunland Park was annexed. Those households may be counted by the City towards the fulfillment of the housing need determination made by ABAG. Sunland Park has about 19 households, out of the 128 that responded to the survey, which would qualify as very low income households as categorized in Figure 1. Approximately 22 households would fit in the category of low income and 45 households would be considered moderate income. 23 Source: Sunland Park Survey, City of Saratoga, Planning and Policy Analysis Department - 24 - TABLE 14, SUNLAND PARK SURVEY OF ANNUAL INCOME AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE, 1983 ANNUAL INCOME Less than $10,000 $101000- $17,500- $25,000- $35,000- $50,000 $17,499 $24,999 $34 999 $50,000 or more 1 person 2 1 1 2 4 0 2 persons 2 10 9 12 17 6 0 N 3 persons 1 2 1 6 10 10 4 persons - 1 0 12 11 0 5+ persons 0 0 1 3 v 3 1 Total No. of b 0 HH Responding 5 14 12 35. 45 17 0 % of HH Responding 3.9 10.9 9.4 27.3 35.2 13.3 Source: Sunland Park Survey, City of Saratoga, Planning and Policy Analysis Department - 24 - The distribution described in the paragraph above only pertains to the 128 households that responded to the survey. This represents 640 of the total (200) number of housing units in Sunland Park. If the proportions described in the paragraph above were applied to all 200 units, the distribution would be: 30 very low income households, 34 low income households, and 70 moderate income households. In its review of Saratoga's Draft Housing Element dated June 14, 1983, the State indicated that the income distribution for Sunland Park should be recalculated using the current County median income rather than the projected 1985 County median income. The City has chosen to use the projected 1985 County median income (estimated by ABAG in 1981) since that date will be closer to the actual adoption and implementation of this element than the 1981 annexation of Sunland Park. This income distribution seems to reflect the existing situation in Sunland Park. The projected 1985 median income for Santa Clara County is about $34,772. Special Housing Needs Senior citizens were identified as a group with special housing needs in the Senior Citizens Housing Needs Analysis Report (SCHNAR) (a City sponsored report) completed in 1977. That report indicates that by 1980, about 500 senior citizens would need alternative various types of housing based on 1975 census data. The task force report estimated that 9% of the people in Saratoga would be 60+ years of age by 1980. The 1980 census shows that actually 12.5% of the people in Saratoga were 60+ years of age. Saratoga's population has become and is becom- ing significantly older and the housing needs of senior citizens have increased. Since 1977, a 150unit HUD financed senior citizen rental complex has been built on the site of the Saratoga IOOF home. The City adopted a Planned Residential Development Ordinance to encourage more senior citizen housing. A 72 unit senior citizen (defined as 55+ years for that project) complex (including 24 rental units for a period of 10 years) was built. The rental units were filled quickly which indicates that demand for rental units by seniors is high. The SCHNAR identified two different groups of seniors needing some sort of alternative housing: 1) seniors forced to leave Saratoga because of an inadequate supply of affordable housing and increasing economic pressure; 2) seniors who owned homes that were considered "overhoused" and had to remain in that situation since there were no alternative housing types available. The report prioritized the housing types and styles that would meet the housing needs of seniors as follows: 1. Rental - Apartment /Duplexes 25 2. Retirement Inn /Hotel Other alternatives were identified as Senior Citizen Community, Condominium /Townhouse, Residential Care Facility, and single- family residences that are part of a planned community development project. The report estimated that in 1976 from 20 to 50 seniors were in need of less expensive housing (i.e. these people were paying more than 25% of their income toward shelter costs). Another 30- 100 seniors in 1976 were identified as needing some financial assistance, particularly in terms of property taxes;-or lower cost housing. The problem of property taxes may have been alle- viated by the passage of Proposition 13. The report underesti- mated the rise in housing values in Saratoga and that need could have been significantly underestimated. Most of these households are likely to be made up of elderly women on fixed incomes which could have more serious financial problems than their male counterparts. Prior to 1977, 20 units of subsidized housing for senior citizens was already in existe�ce (Saratoga Park). Of 93 rental apartments (non- �subsized) 25% were rented by senior citizens. In 1981, 41% of the City's condominium units were occupied by households where at least one member was 60 years of age or older. The following group quarters have provided housing for seniors: Odd Fellows Home of California - capacity 200, Westmore- land Convalescent Hospital - capacity 17, and our Lady of Fatima - capacity 85. Large Families and the Handicapped When the State reviewed the City's Draft Housing Element it requested an analysis of the special housing needs of large families and the handicapped. There were 52 units in Saratoga which could be considered overcrowded (1.01 person /room). This represents less than 0.6% of all the City's households. Regardless of family size, overcrowding is not a significant problem in Saratoga. A large fam�ly is defined as 5 or more persons. In 1980 there were 1,526 households of 5 or more personsin Saratoga. Of these, 66 units were renter occupied. Since renters, in general, have lower incomes than homeowners, renters with large families may find it difficult to afford the larger housing units they need. Fifteen of the 52 overcrowded units mentioned above were renter occupied. There is no specific data currently available to the City which relates household size to overcrowding so any housing need for large families in Saratoga can only be estimated. Overcrowded households are a very small proportion of all the households in Saratoga, so the needs of large families are being met. It should be noted that the mean number of rooms in units available for year round occupancy is 7.23 units. House sizes in 26 Saratoga are sufficient to meet the needs of large families. No data on households with handicapped persons has been available to the City. 27 RESOURCES AND CONSTRAINTS Vacant and Partially Developed Land Approximately 1,142 acres or about 15% of Saratoga's land area is vacant and another 454 acres are partially developed (i.e., could be more densely developed). These lands are broken down in Tables 15, 16 and 17 by current use and zoning. 427 acres (191 dwelling units) of the City's vacant lands have final subdivision or building site approval. Of the partially devel- oped lands, about 62 acres (29 dwelling units) also have final subdivision or building site approval. A total of about 178 acres of vacant and partially developed land is under Williamson Act contract and will not be available for development in the near future. - -_ -- Total vacant land available for further residential development (not already approved) is 518 acres and total partially developed land available is about 301 acres. 445 acres of this vacant land are contained in hillside areas primarily designated slope conservation in the General Plan. These areas are characterized by steep topography, some drainage problems, limited circulation and have the highest potential for landslides and other geotechnical problems. The remaining 73 vacant acres are located in the flatter portions of the City which are easier to develop and have better access to urban services. About 212 acres of the partially developed lands are in steep hillside areas or are marginal lands with potential flooding problems, poor access, or high development costs. These areas will only be able to support lower density types of development. This leaves about 89 acres of partially developed land that would be easier to develop. If all the existing vacant and partially developed parcels residentially zoned were to be developed, the total number of new dwellings that could be constructed, at present allowed densities, would be about 950. This would increase to about 1,050 units if Williamson Act lands are included. This number could be further supplemented by commercial lands. Saratoga has sufficient vacant or partially developed land designated for residential development to accommodate the City's total housing need as projected by ABAG for 1990. Tables 16 and 17 illustrate how vacant and partially developed lands are broken down by zoning district. These tables show that most of Saratoga's vacant land is in the NHR and HC -RD zoning districts which cover most of the City's hillside areas. These are areas that are environmentally and geologically sensitive, lack urban services, and are generally difficult to develop. The densities allowed in these two.zoning districts are low because of these constraints. IM TABLE. 15 VACANT.AND PARTIALLY DEVELOPED LAND IN SARATOGA, 1982 VACANT LAND I. ACREAGE I. Commercial /Industrial Land II. State Right -of -W y 40 Ac III. Open Space Land 20 Ac IV. Residential Land under Williamson 41- Ac Ac Act Contract Subdivision Approval V. Residential Land with Final Building 96 Ac VI. Site or Subdivision Approval ..427Ac Remaining Residential Land A. Residential Land with significant constraints (:i_.e., hillside lands and Physical Constraints (i.e., hillside lands - 445 Ac flood plains) and flood plains) B. Residential Land with few constraints 73 Ac Total Vacant Land 89 Ac .1142 Ac PARTIALLY DEVELOPED LAND I. Commercial Land - -Park- -a- nd -ia"-n -Spa -cam- -;anal II.III. Residential Land under Williamson Act Contract Ae IIIIV. Residential Land with Final Building Site or 82. 2. Ac Subdivision Approval I•V V. Remaining Residential Land 62 Ac A. Residential Land with_ significant physical constraints (:i_.e., hillside lands and flood plains) B. Residential Land with.few constraints 212.Ac 89 Ac Total Less developed Land 454. Ac 1. Includes future residential.lands designated on teh General Plan Land Use Map. These lands will not be available for development prior to 1994. 29 TABLE 16 VACANT LAND BY ZONING DISTRICT IN SARATOGA1 - 1983 RESIDENTIAL LAND RIGHT -OF -WAY LAND A 8 .2 DU /AC 2 R-1-10,000 7 4. 3 DU /AC 22 R-1-12,500 5 3.5 D U /AC 15 Total 20 39 1Does not include land in County, within City's urban service area. 'T1� -rands- -xre- -L-a� -a-Pc� -{nYe-r-a-17 -mil r c -,11y- X11 s- �.r i°e�si� -r -c�eve rote ice. 2 F-oes not include park lands. Includes future residential lands as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map. These lands will not be available for development Prior to 1994. 30 Max. Pot. Zone Acres Density Yi el. d NHR 704 .1 -.5 DU /AC 311 HC-RD 80 .1 -.5 DU /AC 39 R-1-40,000 115 1.1 DU /AC 93 R -1- 20,000 14 2.2 DU /AC 23 R -1- 15,000 1 2.9 DU /AC 3 R -1-.12, 5 0 0 12 3.5 DU /AC 32 R- 1- 10,000 15 4.3 DU /AC 50 R -M -5000 PC 3 8.7 DU /AC 22 Total 944 573 COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL LAND M 9 N/A N/A P -A 23 14.5 DU /AC 279 -315 C -N 5 If 57 C -V 3 30 -39 Total 40 366 -411 OPEN SPACE LAND3 A i2 2 41 .2 DU /AC 6 NHR 96 .1 - .5 DU /AC 40 Total 137 46 RIGHT -OF -WAY LAND A 8 .2 DU /AC 2 R-1-10,000 7 4. 3 DU /AC 22 R-1-12,500 5 3.5 D U /AC 15 Total 20 39 1Does not include land in County, within City's urban service area. 'T1� -rands- -xre- -L-a� -a-Pc� -{nYe-r-a-17 -mil r c -,11y- X11 s- �.r i°e�si� -r -c�eve rote ice. 2 F-oes not include park lands. Includes future residential lands as designated on the General Plan Land Use Map. These lands will not be available for development Prior to 1994. 30 TABLE 17 PARTIALLY DEVELOPED LAND BY ZONING DISTRICT IN SARATOGA - 1983 RESIDENTIAL LAND Total 445 COMMERCIAL LAND C -N 5.5 - C -V 3.5 - Total 9.0 Additional DU Yield 48 142 56 4 73 98 421 1Includes 82 acres of Williamson Act lands representing about 30 DU.- 31 Max. Zone Acres Density NHR1 120 .1 -.5 DU /AC R -1- 40,000 218 1.1 DU /AC R -1- 20,000 41 2.2 DU /AC R -1- 15,000 4 2.9 DU /AC R -1- 12,500 31 3.5 DU /AC R -1- 10,000 31 4.3 DU /AC Total 445 COMMERCIAL LAND C -N 5.5 - C -V 3.5 - Total 9.0 Additional DU Yield 48 142 56 4 73 98 421 1Includes 82 acres of Williamson Act lands representing about 30 DU.- 31 A key item to be noted in Table 16 is the potential residen- tial yield of the City's commercial lands. Currently, the City allows multi - family residential use in its commercial districts through the conditional use permit process. If these lands were to be used residentially, or in a mixed use combination, a signi- ficant contribution to meeting the City's housing need could be made. The use of these commercial lands will depend on the changing economic situation and the individula decisions of the property owners involved. Available Public Facilities and Services Most of the vacant land in the City is located in hillside areas. These areas tend to be further away from urban services, have limited access, and have geological and other environmental constraints on development. The Northwestern Hillsides Specific Plan (where most of the vacant hillside land is located) calls for the formation of a water assessment district before further development can occur in some of the areas covered by the plan for adequate fire protection. New sewer and storm drainage systems will be required for. development in the hillsides. Control of runoff is especially critical in hillside areas to prevent erosion and flooding. Circulation is also a significant problem in hillside areas. Currently there is only one arterial (Pierce Road) to serve the entire Northwestern Hillsides and few collectors. Even this arterial Pierce Road road is narrow and needs improvements. The Specific Plan for the area calls for a new arterial road to serve a portion of the area as well as other improvements to circula- tion especially for emergency access. Some of these improvements are to be completed in conjunction with approved subdivisions. Public transportation is not available in hillside areas. Only 73 acres of the vacant lands without previous tentative map approvals in the City do not have the urban service con- straints characteristic of the hillside areas. Most of the parcels in that group are already surrounded by existing develop- ment and could be classified as infill lands. Providing services to these parcels would be relatively 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 schools are easier for these parcels than hillside areas since the distances to be covered by emergency or public vehicles is significantly less. These infill parcels are also better served by public transportation since many of them are within walking distance of a bus route. Of the partially developed lands without previous tentative map approval available, about 50 acres are in hillside areas with the same constraints as vacant lands in hillside areas. Another 162 acres could be considered marginal lands that have poor access, difficult topography, are subject. to flooding or are otherwise difficult to develop. The remaining 89 acres are 32 infill parcels which are in the same situation as the vacant infill parcels in terms of the availability of urban services. Governmental Constraints One governmental constraint on producing housing in Saratoga is the low densities that are permitted in the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In particular, when the City adopted the Northwestern Hillsides Specific Plan, as mandated by the voters, the density allowed in that area was reduced from a maximum density of .91 dwelling units /acre to a maximum of .5 dwelling units /acre. Prior to adoption of the Specific Plan, there were two moratoria, each of one year duration, that prevented development in the Northwestern Hillsides until the plan and its implementing ordinances were completed. This played a significant role in reducing the amount of housing Saratoga produced from 1980 -1982. The density reduction and other changes were approved by the residents when they adopted Measure A in April 1980. The Specific Plan addressed the issues in Measure A which indicated that density should be reduced for environmental reasons. These reasons included: actual and potential geological hazards, the traffic impacts on the single arterial in the area (Pierce Road), the cost of providing public services and facilities, and the potential aesthetic impacts. Therefore, lower densities are appropriate based on the environmental constraints in hillside areas. The City's southern hillside areas have similar development constraints. The Sargent - Barrocal fault may act as a constraint on development in the southern hillsides particularly in conjunction with other geological hazards. The Monte Vista fault, which is considered potentially active by the U.S.G.S., could be a constraint on development. This fault has been partially mapped in the northern section of the City. Concern has also been expressed 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 neighbor- hoods." As an example, Quito Road was identified as being at Service Level "E" which means further traffic additions would exceed its capacity without further improvements. Also, Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road and Saratoga -Los Gatos Road may exceed their capacities ' by 1995 unless some alternate transportation systems are used In addition to the impacts on these State Highways, there is citizen concern about the traffic levels on other arterials, particularly the West Valley College and commu- ter traffic on. Saratoga Avenue, Fruitvale Avenue, Allendale Avenue, Prospect Road and Cox Avenue. Additional development along these roads and others should be carefully examined for potential significant traffic impacts Potential aesthetic and 33 noise impacts will also have to be carefully considered. Another vital consideration is the desire to keep densities low to maintain neighborhood character. Allowing higher densities on infill parcels creates incompatible uses when they are substantially surrounded by low density single family development. One of the major reasons Saratoga incorporated in 1956 was to preserve its low density character. Costs, in terms of time and money, attributed to governmental processing of development applications also act to constrain the development of housing. All projects in,-,Saratoga are processing within the time limits set forth by AB -884, CEQA, and the Subdivision Map Act. But even while meeting these deadlines, it generally costs more to build a project from the time it is initially proposed to the time it is approved. Direct development costs due to governmental processes in- clude 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 in the County and the rates were established to cover most of the costs incurred by the*City to process an application. This became necessary when City funds were reduced due to the passage of Proposition 13 and because the City receives a smaller amount of property tax revenues due to the City's very low tax rate that was in effect when Proposition 13 was passed. In order for the City to continue to process applications and not have other City services suffer, those who use the development processing service were required to pay for more of it. City permit and processing fees add about $5,000 to the cost of a detached single family unit (see Table 18). 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 communi- ties. Site improvement requirements and building code requirements of the City are tied to public health, safety, and welfare. The cost of meeting those requirements is necessary. Such requirements could make it more difficult to rehabilitate existing older homes. The Uniform Building Code (1982) the City uses is created by the International Conference of Building Officials (I.C.B.O.) and promulgated by the State. City staff will be encouraged to monitor changes in construction techniques and material to determine if changes to existing building code requirements should be recommended. The City will also investigate the use of the State Historic Building Code in terms of reducing the cost of conserving and rehabilitating older, low cost housing. 34 Non - Governmental Constraints By far the most significant constraint on developing new housing in Saratoga is the overall cost of housing including land costs, construction costs, and financing costs. Construction costs and financing costs also affect the ability of people to maintain or improve their homes. These costs can be traced to the real estate "boom" in the State and especially in the Bay Area during the 19701s. Many residents in Saratoga have indicated that if they had not bought their homes 10 or more years ago, they could not afford to buy them today. The City has no control over these costs. Land and construction costs are reflected in the value of housing. The 1980 census was used to prepare Tables 19 and 20 which indicate that Saratoga contains some of the most expensive housing in the region. Over 60% of Saratoga's detached single family residential housing units are valued at over $200,000+ while only about 10% of the County's units and only 24% of the units in the western Santa Clara County market area, as defined by ABAG, are so valued (See Tables 19 and 20). A scarcity of easily developable land, combined with great demand, indicates that housing costs are likely to remain high in the future. Continued inflation in the cost of building. materials will also contribute to high housing costs. For most potential homebuyers, the most significant con- straint is getting affordable financing once a suitable home has been found. ABAG has indicated that due to the high cost of housing in Saratoga no moderate, low or very low income house- holds (based on a regional median income) can afford homeowner- ship in Saratoga. Early in 1982, ABAG estimated that the median house price in Saratoga was $234,554. Assuming a 15% down pay- ment, and 12% interest rate for a 30 year fixed loan, a family would have to have $2,295 /month available for home purchase. Assuming that ony 25% of a household's income should be devoted to housing costs (i.e., affordable housing), this means annual household income would have to be about $110,160 to afford a house in the median price range. Assuming that in 1985 a very low income household will be making $17,387 or less, and that this household will use 25 -350 of its income for shelter costs (including mortgage payments, insurance, and utilities), the maximum monthly payment for shelter should range from $362 -507 per month. About 70% of this cost would be devoted to mortgage payments (this is based on conversations with several homeowners in the region.) Using these factors and assuming a 15% down payment, a 12% interest rate and a 30 -year fixed loan, then maximum housing prices would range from $29,243 to $40,968. As of 1980, there were only about 33 homes in Saratoga with a value of $40,968 or less. Most of the existing lower valued homes are occupied by low income households which are not likely to make room for other lower 35 TABLE 18 PERMIT PROCESSING COSTS SARATOGA, 1982 SUBDIVISION FEES* Tentative Map Fee Environmental Assessment Fee Public Noticing Fee Final Map Fee Plan Check and Inspection Fee TOTAL Cost per lot INDIVIDUAL BUILDING PERMIT* Design Review Storm Drainage Fee Park Fees Building Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Construction Tax (Y0.50 /sq.ft.) Total Permit Fee Cost Per Dwelling Unit COST $1,500.00 75.00 200.00 600.00 6,900.00 $9,275.00 927.50 COST /LOT $ 400.00 600.00 1,300.00 525.00 341.00 1.000.00 $4,1 066 0 $5,093.50 * Based on a typical 10 lot subdivision in the R- 1- 10,000 zoning district and the construction of a 1,600 sq. ft. dwelling with a 400 sq. ft. garage. - 36 - 4 TABLE 19 VALUE OF OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS - 37 - County Saratoga Units s _ # Units o Less than $10,000 219 0.10' 10.,000 - 14,999 322 2 .03 15,000 - 19,999 500 '15 3 .04 20,000 - 24,999 737 .23 3 .04 25,000 - 29,999 730 .33 3 .04 30,000 - 34,999 872 .33 6 .08 35,000 - 39,999 902 .39 8 .11 40,000 - 49,999 2,984 .40 1.34 6 21 .08 50,000 - 80,000 - 79,999 99,999 34,257 15.43 163 .28 2.20 100,000 - 149,999 55,199 75,716 24.86 34.10 353 4.,77 150,000 - 199,999 26,190 11.79 962 1, 288 12.99 $200 -,000+ 23,423 10.55 4,586 17.40 61.94 Total 222,051 100.00 7,404 100.00 County Median - $109,000 Saratoga Median - $200,1.00* * The 1980 census counted value so the actual median for homes over $200,000 as $200,100 value is not known. - 37 - TABLE 20 HOUSING VALUE COMPARISON WITH MARKET AREA CITIES (WESTERN SANTA CLARA COUNTY) Source: ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile 1 Western Santa Clara County is defined as Campbell, Chemek eta Park Redwood Estates, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Sarato � a Housing Activity (from ABAG s y Report - May 1982, pg. 11). 2 Saratoga is excluded from these numbers for this comparison P n 3 The data on this chart was collected in 1980 so and percentages may have changed substantially in numbers four years. Y past 38 1. Western Santa Clara Countyl'2 Sarato aJ g No. Units Per t No. Units Per Cent Less than $10,000 20 .19 2 .03 $10,000 - 14,999 14 $15,000 - 19,999 19 .14 3 .04 $20,000 - 24,999 25 .19 3 .04 $25,000 - 29,999 20 .24 3 .04 $30,000 - 34,999 34 .19 6 .0.8 $35,000 - 39,999 29 . 3 3' g .11 $40,000 - 49,999 104 .28 6 .08 $50,000 - 79,999 854 1.01 21 .28 $80,000 - 99,999 1,848 8.32 163 2.20 $100,000 - 149,999 3,357 18.00 353 4.77 $150,000 - 199,999 1,470' 32.70 962 12,99 $200,000+ 14.38 1'288 17.40 2,467 24.03 4,586 61.94 TOTAL 10,267 100.00 7,404 100.00 Source: ABAG - Census '80 Data Profile 1 Western Santa Clara County is defined as Campbell, Chemek eta Park Redwood Estates, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Sarato � a Housing Activity (from ABAG s y Report - May 1982, pg. 11). 2 Saratoga is excluded from these numbers for this comparison P n 3 The data on this chart was collected in 1980 so and percentages may have changed substantially in numbers four years. Y past 38 1. income households, particularly if they are senior citizen households. These homes may also increase significantly in value by 1985, thus further reducing the number of lower cost units available. Nonetheless, this lower valued housing stock is an important asset and its preservation is a major goal of the General Plan. Considering the cost of land in Saratoga and increase con- struction costs, it will be extremely difficult to have lower cost ownership housing in Saratoga. Ownership costs can be only indirectly influenced by the actions of the City and are primari- ly the result of market factors beyond the control of the City. The cost of flat land parcels in Saratoga can range from $250,000 - $500,000 per acre (based on conversations with development companies and certain land appraisals). Land costs can range from $58,000 - $115,000 for a standard 10,000 sq. ft. lot which is the smallest single family residential lot allowed in Saratoga. Construction costs can run from $60 -$100 per square foot for detached single family residences. Saratoga's Building Department currently uses a valuation of about $79 /square foot for new construction in determining permit fees. However, even assuming a low construction cost of $60 /square foot and no land cost, a 1,200 square foot unit with a two car garage (400 square feet at $20 /square foot) would cost $80,000 which is beyond the means of the very low and low income groups (based on 1985 County median income). Only units with living space from 488 to 682 square feet or less become affordable, but again, this does not include land cost. (If land costs are included, unit cost would range from $87,000 to $146,000.) Multi - family residential construction (again minus land costs) is estimated at abetit $45 /square feet minimum. A 620 square foot unit would cost about $31,900 including a 200 square foot single car garage. For these units to be affordable for very low income households, land costs would have to range from $0 to $9,000 per unit. Tables 21 and 22 show the relationships between land cost, construction cost, financing cost, and density under certain multi - family construction assumptions. These charts indicate that even under the most optimistic conditions the densities required for affordable lower income housing would be unreasonable. These densities are so high that there would be significant adverse impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods and on the character of the City. Considering these factors, it is highly unlikely that Saratoga will be able to provide lower cost housing for purchase by very low to low income households. Rental units would be able to accommodate the housing needs of this group, but as discussed above these units may not be available in sufficient numbers. Even in the case of moderate income households affordability at moderate densities is tenuous because of the optimistic 39 assumptions in Tables 21 and 22. The financing assumption of a 12% interest rate is probably the most subject to fluctuation. A more reasonable assumption may be 13 %. Income probably will not reach the projected 1985 level and in any case 35% rather than 25% of the household's income would have to be spent on housing. The smallness of the units assumed (620 - 1000 sq. ft.) may not meet the needs of most moderate income households. Larger units and increased construction cost would require considerably higher densities. Land costs are probably closer to $500,000 /acre than $250,000 /acre. 6ne means of redtdeing housing eests is the eensttnetien of seeend units on existing developed family lets.- This option eliminates land eests se that the seeend unit produetien eests are limited to the east of eenstruetien- Saratoga is eensldergng an ordinanee addressing the use of seeend units- 40 TABLE 21 SARATOGA HOUSING NEED MATRIX - No. 1 Household Income Level -- 186+ 16+ 16 or less Current Rate of I Production (units /Year) 0 0 0 20t 1. Assumes 15% downpayment; 12% interest on a 30 year loan 2. Also assumes a 620 square foot unit costing $45 /sq. ft. and one covered parking -space _.(200. sq, ft.) at $20 /sq. ft. for a total construction cost of $31,900 /DU. 3• Also assumes a 1000 square foot unit costing $45 /sq. ft. and two covered parking spaces (400 sq. ft.) at $20 /sq. ft...for a total construction cost..of $53,.000 /DU. -- Signifies that household could not afford to pay for the loan just covering construction costs. - 41 VERY LOW LOW MODERATE ABOVE MODERATE No. Units Needed 172 139 193 569 1980- 1985 per ABAG Annual HH 11980$11,685 or Less $11,686 - $18,696 $18,697 - $28,044 $28,045+ Income 1985$17,386 or Less $17,387 - $27,818 $27,819 - $41,726 $41,727+ Monthly Housing 11980$340 or Less $340 - $545 $545 -$818 $818+ Cost (35% of I I Income 11985$507 or Less $507 -$811 $811 -$1217 $1217+ Max. Purchase 1980 $23,346 Price l $37,422 $56,168 $56,168+ 11985 $34,813 $55,687 $83,565 $83,565+ Density (DU /AC) Required (Land 11980 -- 45 + 10 + 10 or less Cost: $250,000/Aq.,2 . ;1985 85+ 10+ 5+ 5 or less Density (DU /AC) Required (Land 1980, -- 90+ 20+ 20 or less Cost: $500, 000 /AC)2 i 11985! 171+ 21+ 10+ 10 or less Density (DU /AC) Required (Land 11980, -- -- 79+ 79 or less Cost: $250,000/A0.3 i :1985 __ 93+ 8+ 8 or less Density (DU /AC) Required (Land 11980 __ -- 158+ 158 or less Cost: $500,000 /AC)3 '1985 -- 186+ 16+ 16 or less Current Rate of I Production (units /Year) 0 0 0 20t 1. Assumes 15% downpayment; 12% interest on a 30 year loan 2. Also assumes a 620 square foot unit costing $45 /sq. ft. and one covered parking -space _.(200. sq, ft.) at $20 /sq. ft. for a total construction cost of $31,900 /DU. 3• Also assumes a 1000 square foot unit costing $45 /sq. ft. and two covered parking spaces (400 sq. ft.) at $20 /sq. ft...for a total construction cost..of $53,.000 /DU. -- Signifies that household could not afford to pay for the loan just covering construction costs. - 41 TABLE 22 -- Signifies that household could not afford to pay for the loan just covering construction costs. 1• Also assumes a 620 square foot unit costing $60 /sq. ft. and one covered uarkina space (200 sq. ft.)'at $28 /sq. ft.. for a total construction cost of $42,800/DU. 2. Also assumes a 1000 square foot unit.costinq $60 /sa/ ft/ and two covered parking spaces (400 sq. ft..)'at $28 sq. ft. for a total construction cost of $71,200 /DU. - 42 - SARATOGA HOUSING NEED MATRIX - No. 2 VERY LOW LOW MODERATE ABOVE MODERATE Density (DU /AC 1980! -- -- Required (Land I 19+ 19 or less Cost: $250,000 /AC)1� 1985 -- 19+ 6+ 6 or less Density (DU /AC) 1980; -- -- Required (Land ( 37+ 37 or less Cost: $500,000 /AC)1 19851 -- 39+ i 12+ 12 or less Density (DU /AC) I 1980: Required (Land -- ? Cost: $250,000 /AC)2 :_.1985; -- -- 20+ 20 or less Density (DU /AC) 1 1980; Required (Land ? Cost: $500, 000 /AC)2 1985 1 -- -- i 40+ 40 or less -- Signifies that household could not afford to pay for the loan just covering construction costs. 1• Also assumes a 620 square foot unit costing $60 /sq. ft. and one covered uarkina space (200 sq. ft.)'at $28 /sq. ft.. for a total construction cost of $42,800/DU. 2. Also assumes a 1000 square foot unit.costinq $60 /sa/ ft/ and two covered parking spaces (400 sq. ft..)'at $28 sq. ft. for a total construction cost of $71,200 /DU. - 42 - OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION Part of the goal of creating affordable housing is creating energy efficient housing. Reducing energy costs allows low to moderate income families to spend scarce financial resources on other necessities. But energy conservation is also essential for higher income households as well. As energy use declines, demands for new energy sources drop and so do the costs of energy thus benefiting everybody. Saratoga is committed to energy conservation as can be seen by examining housing goal H.4.0 and its supporting policies. However, much needs to be done to encourage energy conservation and uses of alternative energy sources, particularly solar energy systems. The City should provide information to homeowners and developers on energy conservation techniques. An energy information center with pamphlets and bibliographies on energy conservation would be appropriate. City Ordinances need to be revised to encourage energy conservation and use of non - polluting sources of energy. Currently the City's Design Review Ordinance requires City review of the impact a new structure or addition may have on the solar access of adjacent properties. Also, all subdivisions, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, are required to assess passive and natural heating and cooling opportunities available to lots in the subdivision. Generally speaking, many of the lots in Saratoga are large enough so that solar access is not a problem. The City uses SHARP funds to provide insulation in rehabilitated homes for low and moderate income households. This program could be expanded to include other homes, occupied by low and moderate income households, that do not need other rehabilitation work. The City should could encourage cluster type development to promote energy conservation. Ordinances should be revised to encourage proper orientation for heating and cooling. Variations in ordinance standards to accomplish energy conservation should also be seriously considered by the City. 43 HOUSING GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES During the General Plan revision process, goals and policies for the Housing Element were suggested by citizens and members of the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee although the Housing Element itself was not discussed in detail. Later the,Planning Commission and City Council modified some of those goals and policies. The result of that work is listed below: Goal No. 1 H.1.0 Promote the opportunity for all residents to have a sound home and a satisfying environment. Anlinina H.1.1 The City shall recognize the changing housing needs of Saratoga residents. H.1.2 The City should encourage private development of a residential stock which will promote opportunities for housing alternatives for Saratoga senior citizens. H.1.3 The City shall encourage accessibility for the handicapped in housing and other buildings. H.1.4 The City shall cooperate with the efforts of the County, non - profit groups, and the private sector to provide help to individuals to continue living in and maintaining their homes. H.1.5 The City shall rely upon the private sector's participation to satisfy housing needs. H.1.6 The City should be responsive to new ideas in physical design and types of construction for meeting housing needs. H.1.7 Rental housing opportunities should be maintained and encouraged. Goal No. 2 H.2.0 Maintain and enhance the character, quality, and livability of the City's residential neighbors. Policies H.2.1 The City shall actively encourage conservation and, where necessary, rehabilitation of existing housing. H.2.2 The City shall promote programs which will protect and 44 maintain the City's lower valued housing stock. H.2.3 The City shall promote land use decisions which will protect the environs of the City's lower valued housing stock. H.2.4 The City shall strive to maintain the qualities that make Saratoga neighborhoods desirable for families with children. H.2.5 The City shall maintain existing rental housing opportunities by continued implementastion of its condominium conversion ordinance which prevents the conversion of apartments unless more than 2% of the City's housing stock is In rental units and the apartment vacancy rate is over 3 %. H.2.6 Maintain the general low - density character of existing single - family residential areas. Goal No. 3 H.3.0 Insure that new housing shall be compatible with the existing natural and constructed environment. Policies H.3.1 The City shall mitigate the danger of earthquake damage by enforcing strict earthquake construction and soil engineering standards, selecting the most stable areas for development, and by having developers compensate for soil instabilities by approved engineering and construction techniques. H.3.2 Development shall be designed to retain the natural topographic features of the land to the maximum extent possible. H.3.3 Any development in areas subject to natural hazards shall be designed to protect the environment, inhabitants and general public. In areas where personal injury, property damage, or damage to streets and utilities could occur, development shall be prohibited, unless the potential hazards can be mitigated or avoided through engineering or construction techniques. Goal No. 4 H.4.0 Conserve our finite natural resources by stressing the importance of energy efficiency in housing. Policies H.4.1 The City shall promote building and subdivision designs which incorporate passive or natural heating opportunities. H.4.2 Solar access for new and existing structures shall be protected without removal of existing mature trees. H.4.3 The City shall encourage the use of the most energy efficient methods for space or water heating including use of 45 solar energy as well as other methods. If solar systems are utilized, the City shall provide guidance for aesthetic placement and installation of the solar system. H.4.4 The City shall promote the use of available energy conservation techniques for new and existing structures with the realization that the aesthetics of the structure must be a prime consideration. Goal No. 5 H.5.0 Saratoga shall continue to support the State's goal of providing decent housing and a suitable living environment. Policies H.5.1 The City should discourage discrimination in housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, marital status or physical handicap. H.5.2 The City shall continue to support fair housing rules and practices. Goal No. 6 H.6.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single - family detached residences. D_'1 , - __ H.6.1 Existing nondeveloped sites zoned single- family detached residential should remain so designated. H.6.2 Industrial land use in Saratoga shall be limited to existing sites. 46 Additional Housing Element Policies After its review of the State's comments regarding the Draft Housing Element, the City Council discussed a variety of optional responses to those comments. Some of these response options have been converted into new policies or have modified the policies proposed in the draft. These changes are as follows: H.1.8 The City shall adept consider a second unit ordinance. to address low to moderate +neeme and rental housing needs- H.1.9 Encourage staff to monitor construction techniques and materials and to amend the building code where appropriate to allow innovative cost saving techniques consistent with safety. H.1.10 Continue current plans for the Village to allow and encourage multi- family residential /commercial mixed use through the conditional use permit process. H.1.11 Affirm the City's policy not to interfere with free market rental practices through the imposition of rent control. H.2.7 Continue present City ordinances which allow the sharing of existing housing. H.2.8 Continue City efforts to preserve all existing Section 8 rental units for seniors. H.2.9 Continue the City's present SHARP program including eligible infrastructure improvements. H.2.10 Where appropriate provide funding for existing low and moderate income projects. H.5.3 Encourage citizen participation from all segments of the community in identifying and discussing housing issues. Objectives State law requires communities to quantify their housing objectives. Since it is unlikely that the City will meet the housing need projected by ABAG the City will should project the maximum number of housing units it expects to produce within a five year time frame. Quantified Objective No. 1 - New Construction 1. The City of Saratoga has little or no control over the market forces that affect the level of housing construction activity. The current rate of housing production governed by these market forces falls far short of the housing need requirements projected by ABAG for all household income categories. The most the City is likely to produce in terms of new housing units would be 20 units per year in the above 47 moderate income range. If a second unit ordinance is adopted in 1984 perhaps a maximum of 10 low to moderate income units could be produced annually. Therefore, the City can only expect a total of 150 units over the next five years (1989). Quantified Objective No. 2 _ Conserving Existing Housing 2. Through Saratoga's Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program SHARP) the City intends to rehabilitate 12 units per year or 60 units by 1989 in an attempt to arrest housing deterioration in older portions of the community. However, City staff adminis- tering the SHARP Program has been reduced so it may be- difficult to rehabilitate these units in time or even meet the modest objective of 12 units per year. It is anticipated that all 263 existing rental units will be preserved by the City's existing condominium conversion ordinance since vacancy rates will probably continue to be low through 1989. 48 Lq ACTION PROGRAM 1984 -1989 The following sections describe the actions the City of Saratoga is taking and intends to take between 1984 -1989 to ensure that the goals and policies of the Housing Element are implemented or modified to meet new needs as they arise. Current Housing Assistance Program The City has used federal funds to implement the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP) which has consisted primarily of a home improvement loan subsidy program for low and moderate income homeowners to repair and bring their homes up to code standards. Units eligible for this program are primarily concentrated in three areas: Saratoga Gardens, the Quito area and the Elva -Paul- Springer area which are the oldest areas of the City. The purpose of this program is to rehabililtate deteriorating housing units thus maintaining a housing stock for low to moderate income housholds. Thus far the program has rehabilitated approximataely 50 units. Recently the program has been used for street and draingaae improvements in two areas (Quito and Paul Ave.) as a means of improving the environment where many of these low to moderate income units are located. The City intends to continue this program, but the objectives will have to be scaled down due to declining federal monies and the loss of a program staff member. The City of Saratoga has authorized the Santa Clara Housing Authority to operate within the City. The City will continue to support, to the extent feasible, existing Section 8 units. The City adopted a condominium conversion ordinance in 1976 as a result of the continued loss of rental units that displaced many lower income households. This ordinance prevents conversion of apartments unless more than 2% of the City's housing stock is in rental units and the apartment vacancy rate is over 3 %. A Planned Residential Ordinance was adopted by the City in 1977 to allow greater flexibility in developing residential projects and higher density for senior citizen housing projects. This ordinance is tied to the Planned Development (P -D) General Plan Designation which was developed to meet the goals of the 1974 Housing Element. Five Year Implementation Program 1984 -1989 State law requires each community to develop a five year schedule of actions it is undertaking or will undertake to implement the Housing Element. In addition to the continuation 49 of the programs listed above the City of Saratoga intends to accomplish the following: 1. Identify Adequate Housing Site The City currently has sufficient land to accomodate the needs of the above moderate income households projected by ABAG for 1990. Land costs and other economic factors require, densities that would be highly impractical for the City to maintain to provide affordable housing for other income groups especially the very low and low income households. Some in these groups will be housed in second units once a second unit ordinance is adopted. The City does have 31 acres of commercial land which could be used for multi - family housing, either ownership or rental, upon receipt of a use permit. These commercial lands represent potentially 366 -411 dwelling units which could provide some of the low to moderate income housing needs projected by ABAG. This could happen if market conditions favored the use of this land for residential purposes. The City has no way of accurately predicting how this land will be used but it is available for multi- family residential purposes. The intreduetien of the seeond unit erdinenee will be the responsibility of the Eemmunity Develepment Department and the Eity Attorney-Ls of €lee- 2. Assisting Low and Moderate Income Households The City will continue to particpate with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority in the Section 8 Rental Program. As an incentive to create additional rental units, the City will maintain its policy of not interfering with free market rental practices. 3. Mitigation of Government Constraints The Eity will give priority proeessing to these pro�eets that meet the goals of the Housing element in terms of providing senior eitizen housing- Rental pre3eets or seeend units fer senior eitirens would be an example but the Eity will need to establish guidelines se that developers and Eity Staff can determine whieh pro3eets will qualify. Prier to Beeember 19$4; stteh guidelines will be develeped and adapted by Eity Eeuneil Reselutien- The City will encourage staff to monitor construction techniques and materials to determine if the building code needs amendment to allow innovative cost saving techniques consistent with safety. Within the constraints of State law the City will allow for focused E.I.R.'s and mitigated Negative Declarations whereever possible in lieu of full E.I.R.I s. The .Community Development Department will have the primary responsibility in carrying out this program. 50 4. Conserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock The City of Saratoga will continue its housing rehabilitation program as long as federal funds are available. The primary focus of the program will continue to be the preservation of the existing older housing stock available to low and moderate income households. The City will continue to seek funds to improve this housing stock and its environs. The primary responsibility for this will fall to the City Manager's Office and the HCD Coordinator. 5. Equal Opportunity in Housing Currently there is no evidence of discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, color or marital status. The City will encourage fair housing practices by coopera- ting 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. Where appropriate the Eitp will provide some funding to preserve existing law to Moderate ineeme pro�eets- Where appropriate, the Cif has used available HCDA funds to preserve existinq low to moderate income projects in the past and may consider using HCDA funds in the same manner in the future. 51 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section deals with the environmental impacts associated with the adoption of the Housing Element, the mitigation measures proposed within the General Plan and Housing Element to offset those impacts, and various alternatives to the proposed Housing Element. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT The discussion of significant effects of the General Plan /EIR of Saratoga is hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Housing Element /EIR. Land Use and Resource Consumption The City's vacant or underdeveloped acreage would be developed at the densities established in the General Plan adopted in 1983. Some open space /recreation resources could be lost if school sites or City owned property is developed for housing. The most significant impacts associated with the Housing Element are the cumulative impacts that would result when the remaining vacant or partially developed parcels are developed. The General Plan /EIR discusses these impacts identifying traffic, natural resource consumption, and energy consumption as the most significant. Traffic impacts are significant primarily in a regional sense since Saratoga will be contributing to the commuter traffic congestion of some of the major highways of the region. Traffic increases could be significant to specific neighborhoods. The increased use of energy and natural resources could be considered significant in cumulative sense when incorporated with the resource consumption of the state or region although Saratoga's contribution is relatively small. Air Quality Using the traffic projections generated by the maximum development densities proposed in the Housing Element and applying these numbers to formulas provided-by the California Air Resources Board (URBEMIS #1 A Land Use Emissions Model - Nov. 1982 ) and CAL -TRANS (CALINE 3 - Model) the following impacts on air quality were determined: Emission Type Carbon Monoxide (CO) Hydrocarbons (HC) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 52 Additional Amount Added to Atmosphere by Year 2000 429.3 tons /yr 9.4 tons /yr 26.0 tons /yr These numbers assume all units will be built by the year 2000 (maximum) of 1150 units; 943 single family units and 207 multifamily units) and a worst case situation of an ambient temperature of 35 degrees F. and a vehicle speed of 20 mph. In a cumulative regional sense, these additional pollutants may have a significant impact when combined with other development projects in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area. The solution to that problem is beyond the scope of this EIR. However, the City is encouraging the use of some alternative forms of transportation in the General Plan's Goals and Policies to reduce this impact (see Mitigation Measures). CAL -TRANS has calculated the 1 -hour and 8 -hour carbon monoxide concentrations likely to occur on Saratoga's most heavily traveled arterial (Saratoga - Sunnyvale Rd.) using the CALINE 3 model. The 1 -hour concentration was calculated at a maximum of 6.5 ppm by the year 2000. Neither of these concentrations exceed current State standards for 20 ppm for 1 hour and 9 ppm for 8 hours. These calculations assumed: 3500 trips at peak hour, 20 mph average speed, 6 hours D stability class at 17 gm /mile emission factor and 2 hours F stability class at 29 gm /mile, 1 hour peak ambient of 6 ppm, and a variety of wind angles. It should be noted that CALINE 3 has only been validated for freeway conditions, not stop and go traffic. However, the assumptions used in this calculation appear to suit Saratoga's situation the best. UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS The discussion on unavoidable effects of the General Plan /EIR of Saratoga is hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Housing Element /EIR. The most significant unavoidable effect is the irreversible commitment of agricultural and open space lands (some of which provide wildlife habitat) to residential uses. The size and value of the agricultural parcels indicates that their use agriculturally will not remain economical. Implementation of certain policies of the General Plan could mitigate traffic, freeway use and resource use impacts, but such impacts cannot be eliminated entirely. Disruption to the physical environment can also be partially mitigated, by minimizing grading and directing increased runoff into planned drainage systems as required by City code, but permanent placement of housing units is inevitable. MITIGATION MEASURES The discussion on mitigation measures Saratoga is hereby incorporated by this Housing Element /EIR. 53 of the General Plan /EIR of reference and made part of ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT A. No project (i.e., no amendment to the existing Housing Element): Without the proposed amendment low to moderate income housing needs will likely not be provided for within Saratoga. There might be lesser environmental impacts, but residential development will continue so it is anticipated this reduction in impact will not be substantial. This alternative is not considered feasible since State law mandates the revision of the Housing Element. B. Higher Densities on Vacant or Underdeveloped Residential or Mixed Use Parcels: This proposal would not comply with the major goal of preserving what the residents believe to be the desirable qualities of Saratoga. Higher density could significantly increase traffic impacts depending on the location and number of such higher density housing projects. With an increase in traffic impacts, there would certainly be an increase in air quality impacts. But the land available for such projects indicates that, in a regional sense, Saratoga's contribution to the County and Bay Area's traffic and air quality problems will be relatively small. Energy and resource consumption will also increase but at a relatively small rate. C. Rely, Exclusively on Second Units to Provide Necessary Low and Moderate Income Housing: This alternative would not require an increase in density of residential parcels, but would still increase traffic and air quality impacts. Energy for house heating and resource consumption would likely be less than if new, smaller buildings were constructed. D Convert Remaining Vacant or Partials Developed Commercial or Industrial Land to Residential Use: This alternative would increase the number of housing units provided without increasing density. However, this option would reduce the economic viability of the City which is already stressed due to a variety of revenue reductions. Such conversions would not provide sufficient low to moderate income units since land costs would still be high. Thus, one of the State's and City's major goals would not be achieved. SHORT -TERM USE VS. LONG -TERM PRODUCTIVITY The discussion on short - term /long -term impacts of the General Plan E.I.R. of Saratoga is hereby incorporated by reference. The greatest long -term impact on the environment by the Housing Element would be the commitment of vacant open space or agricultural lands to residential use and the cumulative impacts. (traffic, resource consumption and air quality) associated with such use. Short term impacts associated with the construction of housing units will be substantially mitigated by the policies of the General Plan and code requirements that are directed to 54 controlling development practices. Although some disruption of the physical environment will be necessary to construct housing, environmentally sensitive areas will be protected by the implementation of the goals and policies of the General Plan. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES: The discussion on significant environmental changes of the General Plan /EIR of Saratoga is hereby incorporated by reference. Use of remaining vacant parcels for residential purposes: involves an irretrievable commitment of land which, with only 15% of the City undeveloped, is a scarce resource. Residential construction will require greater use of energy and natural resources. The irreversible commitment of these resources would result from meeting the State's goal of providing housing. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS The discussion on growth inducing impacts of the General Plan /EIR of Saratoga is hereby incorporated by reference. Excluding the vacant parcels in the hillsides which are primarily dealt with in the Northwestern Hillsides Specific Plan, the remaining vacant parcels in the City would be developed as infill projects which will not require the significant extension of urban services. No agency providing basic services such as sewage treatment, water, fire protection, electricity, gas, etc., has indicated that these services cannot be provided. The infrastructure outside the Northwestern /Hillside Area will not be significantly changed other than street improvements to serve individual projects on parcels of 10 acres or less in size. Growth Projections The discussion on growth projections of the General Plan /EIR of Saratoga is hereby incorporated by reference. A. Residential Population The General Plan /EIR projected that approximately 1,020 -1,200 units based on the densities in that plan would be constructed at buildout in addition to the 9,740 units already in the City. 3,200 -4,200 people could be added to the City's estimated popula- tion of about 30,000. Even with those increases, the total population of Saratoga would be under the 35,000 person carrying capacity originally established in the 1974 General Plan. B. Traffic Growth The General Plan /EIR projected that 25.6% of the future traffic of the City or about 10,000 - 11,000 ADT (Average Daily Trips) will be generated by residential use at buildout. In general terms, those increases were not determined to have an adverse 5S impact when spread over the City. With increased densities, 85- 127 additional units could be construacted in excess of the 1020 DU anticipated in the General Plan /EIR. This represents an increase of 498 -762 ADT over that projected in the General Plan/ EIR or about a 1 -2% increase in the total projected increased traffic for all uses. This increase is not substantial based on current or projected ADT figures. However, individual roadways such as Quito Road, with poor service levels, could be impacted. DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT No housing units will be located in severe geologic hazard areas. The major hazard areas are located in the hillside areas which require geotechnical and soil studies prior to development. Further information on these hazards can be found in the EIR for the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan and the EIR's for specific subdivisions in the hillsides. Some soil disruption and vegetation removal is necessary with any project involving construction. Saratoga has a very stringent grading ordinance and development review procedure which tends to significantly reduce such impacts. The City's tree ordinance prohibits removal of any tree over 12 inches in diameter measuring 2 feet above grade. Erosion control plantings are required for hillside subdivisions. (See above referenced EIR's for further information). 56 END NOTES 1Data based on apartment surveys done by Planning Department staff from 1978 -1982. 2ABAG 3A high correlation has been established in other communities between visible exterior physical problems and similarily extensive problems on the interior. 4Based on a 1980 Santa Clara County Median Income of $23,370 50% of median = Very Low Income 50 -80% of median = Low Income 80 -120% of median= Moderate Income 120 %+ of median = Above Moderate Income 5Draft Interim Housing Element,.dated June 26, 1981, Pg. 2. 6ABAG - Census 180 data bulletins 57 APPENDIX 1 CITY OF SARATOGA CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (TO BE COMPLETED BY PUBLIC AGENCY) PROJECT: Peylsed Housing Element LOCATION: City of Saratoga FORM EIA -lb FILE NO: CPA 83 -1 I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponen''i: City of Saratoga 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 13777 Fruityale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 3. Date of Checklist Submitted: 12/3/82 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Saratoga -. 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Housing Element II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over- crowding of the soil? X Higher densities might require greater disruptions to soil. C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of anv_ unique geologic or physical features? x C c 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X Higher densities could increase the amount of impervious surface thus increasina runoff. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? In X YES MAYBE NO e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X Increased runoff from hider density developmnt could increase erosion. f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? _X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X Geologic hazard similar to other areas in region. Mitigating policies are in General Plan. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X _14icibpr t9F -nsJ t-J PC c-niilcl �..nCrPG�.Se Ai r PTnI CCl Cms but unt_wozal d c mill in a regi ona 1 sense. b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any chance in climate, either locally or region- ally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X Higher densities could increase the amount of impervious surface thus increasina runoff. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? In X t c - YES MAYBE N e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X Increased runoff from higher density development could increase erosion. f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X Geologic hazard similar to other areas in region. Mitigating policies are in General Plan. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X Hi char rl cci nnS but- that -amount- would 1— simll in a regional sense. b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or region- ally? , 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X _ Higher densities could increase the amount of impervious surface _thus increasing runoff. C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? • - >, i -2- C YES MAYBE NO d. Change in the amount of surface water or any X water in any water body? Qmntl ati yP i mr ar -S of rlPVPI nnmPni-c rrra;: -J ng *pw imprs- - z mi -S will lrr- P �S P W�tC" VD1 � II1� . - e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited X to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Hiciher C1PnGl tl PP r-mil d l nr_rPaca demand n„ r_oj in .LWatPr h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? X See 3(g) above i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X j. Significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass crops, and aquatic plants)? _ X - -More vegetation could.be removed with higher density developmen � di n+ i�o- mitigate b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? }{ None known -3- Kr. C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? YES 61AYBE NO X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X Some orchard space will be lost as parcels are developed but mast development will occur in areas 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals includ- ing reptiles, fish, or insects)? As land is developed wi 1 dl i fc- habit-at wi 11 he lost. C -neral Plan wi l l prpsp=p snap spas b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? None Known. C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? X See 5(a) above. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? TPn=rar= _mnstrlir+i on nni se wi 11 have s m i mnact hi It- hp mit i gat-i-cl b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X X PAM 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X -4- l' C YES MAYBE NC C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X Some orchard space will be lost as parcels are developed but most development will occur in areas 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals includ- ing reptiles, fish, or insects)? A. land i d m 1 Qpa wi 1 cal i fP h hi txa w 1 1 be lost. C.-nPral Plan wi 11 nrPSPrZrP �nrm rP b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? X None Known. C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? X d. Deterioration to existing wildlife or fish habitat? X _ See 5 (a) above. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Teniporar . ronsi-riirt-i nn nni sP x.ri 1 1 h, ra corm i mact hilt- U,7.i 11 ha mi ti rratarl b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? -4- X r C YES '1AYB£ NC 8.• Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X Hider densities on sore sites could be necessary to inplement the Housing Element. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X Construction, in cumulative sense, increases use of natural resources. b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X Tn conjunction with mgional develoF;,�t fossil fuel s wi 11 he depleted 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (inlcuding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X Higher densities would create larger population. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Nn� „ -,i n T w 1 1 Pnmura g m i n nnn of Pxi s't1.ng hollsi n T aS well as i ncroacpcj mriG+ ; _rr�rr�i nnl 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Higher don gI traffic. Increases could be substantial for some locations. -5- C C . YES 14AYTIE NC b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? _X Tnc-rPaga niMbi -ref residents that shop in - Saratoga J-narzease parking dP qrl c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Traffic increases could have imzzact on existing street system. d. Alterations .,to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X Increase in traffic may make use of major thoroughfares. more hazardous. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. other governmental services? X Development of vacant parcels will require the increase of fire and police services but only minimally especially since infill parcels will be focus for higher density. New roads and increased traffic will increase need for maintenance. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or enerqy? Tnr - easPrl rnmi-k--r nf peop1e, traffic will increase u=se of energy. - igher density ,a.-..,,,,,.,.,m nt uld be more energy efficient. -6- t c YES 1 AYAE b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Tnc- r,-aga rnm ,-r of residents that Shop in toga -rte, cruse- Parking dr.� nd c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Traffic increases could have impact on existing street system. d. Alterations.to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazardous to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X Increase in traffic may make use of major thoroughfares. mire hazardous. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? X C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. Other governmental services? X Development of vacant parcels will require the increase of fire and police services but only minimally especially since infill parcels will be focus for higher density. New roads and increased traffic will increase need for maintenance. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or enerqy? X .-Increased rnnnh-r of p1 e, traffi r wi 1 1 -;=ease �,c�of energy,- be more energy efficient. -6- C C YES MAYBE NO b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? -X- Likely increase in fossil fuel demand. Cumulative impact with development in other jurisdictions may require develop- 16. Util *5 ofiRTY' t�gUW @§asal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X b. Communications systems? X C. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X Hider densities will occur in flatland infill sites that will .require no significant extension of urban services. Slightly higher population will increase demands on these services. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X i b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X Some recreation opportunities will be lost if school sites or City property are developed for housing. YF.S MAYBE NO 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical chance which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? k d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaininc levels, threaten 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? X Prod Pct-- cowl d Pote_n ; ally reduce gal ' � Cpi ntit�Z cif wi 1 dli_fe_habitat, b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) Over long term some existing open space areas will be developed and will not be available for other use. .._ _R_ i r YFS MAYBE 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten 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? X Project co_llld �n i al 1� rPr717ce rn�al i 3, and 1y7ntit C)f wi 1 ffl i fP hahi tat b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental qoals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a rela- tively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) Over long term sow existing open space areas will be developed and will not be available for other use. YES MAYBE NO C. Does the project have impacts which are indivi- dually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X Project will have cumulative impact on energy resources and other natural resources. Contribution to regional traffic problem. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Increased traffic (air pollution), water use, and sewage treatment may have adverse cumulative impacts when combined with other projects in the region. III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed protect is the adoption higher densities will only be targeted for infill parcels that are relatively easy to develop. The policies of the General Plan and the Housing Element in conjunction with current codes and ordinances will contain mitigation measures to lessen the potential adverse impacts identified in this initial study. -9- f IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: CI find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. OI 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRON14ENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE: 12/3/82 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: N SIGItATURE • !.. . SEEM -10- (rev. 5/16/80) � r IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: OI find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. OI 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLAP- -ITION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRON14ENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE: 12/3/82 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: SIG. 1TU. E -10- (rev. 5/16/80) APPENDIX 2 LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMENTING ON DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT /E.I.R. 1. State of California -- Office of Planning and Research (Letter dated April 18, 1983) 2. Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department (Letter dated March 22, 1983) 3. Santa Clara Valley Water District (Letter dated March 21, 1983) 4. County Sanitation District No. 4 (Letter dated January 13, 1983) v C ,. .f �t�ztl' �f ��Ytfarnt� GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN GOVERNOR Michael Flores City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (916/445 -0613) RECEIVED PLANNING POLICY ANALYSIS Subject: Housing Element, SCH #82121411 Dear Mr. Flores: April 18, 1983 The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named enviromental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter certifies only that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (EIR Guidelines, Section 15161.5). Where applicable, this should not be construed as a waiver of any jurisdictional authority or title interests of the State of California. The project may still require approval from state agencies with permit authority or jurisdiction by law. If so, the state agencies will have to use the environmental document in their decision - making. Please contact them im- mediately after the document is finalized with a copy of the final document, the Notice of Determination, adopted mitigation measures, and any statements of overriding considerations. Once the document is adopted (Negative Declaration) or certified (final EIR) and if a decision is made to approve the project, a Notice of Determination must be filed with the County Clerk. If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice of Determination must also be filed with the Secretary for Resources (EIR Guidelines, Sections 15083(f) and 15085 (h)). Sincerely, on Bass Director State Clearinghouse M F � ��ttt� of C��zriforni� � GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH v 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95814 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN GOVERNOR Michael Flores City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (916/445 -0613) RECEIVED ht i' v, PLANNING POLICY APIALYSIS Subject: Housing Element, SCH #32121411 Dear Mr. Flores: April 18, 1983 The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter certifies only that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (EIR Guidelines, Section 15161.5). Where applicable, this should not be construed as a waiver of any jurisdictional authority or title interests of the State of California. The project may still require approval from state agencies with permit authority or jurisdiction by law. If so, the state agencies will have to use the environmental document in their decision - making. Please contact them im- mediately after the document is finalized with a copy of the final document, the Notice of Determination, adopted mitigation measures, and any statements of overriding considerations. Once the document is adopted (Negative Declaration) or certified (final EIR) and if a decision is made to approve the project, a Notice of Determination must be filed with the County Clerk. If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice of Determination must also be filed with the Secretary for Resources (EIR Guidelines, Sections 15083(f) and 15085 (h)). Sincerely, on Bass Director State Clearinghouse anum + t: TO ti. Lt. I_Iouston FROM Sgt_ Marburg CITY OF SARATOGA ENVIRONML WAL IMPACT REPORT �. /.L..1 DAiI1rt -- -- - -�I -- 3-22-83 This report is primarily concerned with commercial and housing unit in- creases and their impact upon the city of Saratoga for the next'five years. Based on the industrial and commercial lands available it is projected that 210 basic industry and 908 service industry jobs will be created between 1982 and 2005. It is likely most of these jobs will be filled by people who do not reside within the city. A Housing Needs Determination Report submitted by ABAG in 1981 indicated that Saratoga would need 469 new housing units by 1985. After some revision of the report and aquisition of the Sunland Park area through annexation by the city, it has been suggested that only 258 housing units are necessary. Traffic growth has been projected at 10,000 to 11,000 average daily trips per day'. The report indicates the increase in traffic will not have an ad- verse impact over all. A 1 -2% increase in.traffic for all uses spread out over the whole city is anticipated. Impact on Public Services Statement: "Development of vacant parcels will require the increase of Fire and Police services but only minimally especially since infill parcels will be a focus for higher density. New roads and in- creased traffic will increase need for maintenance." Goals and.Policies as-established by the General Plan Citizens Committee in chapter 2 of Appendix 3, refers to some particular actions that should be taken by the city that may affect the Sheriff's Department but only to a minor degree, such as; parking, bicycle lane ordinances, etc.. All areas that I believe to be of concern to the Sheriff's Department have been tabbed with an orange metal tab. In summary, the overall impact upon the Sheriff's Department should be mini- mal and can be absorbed by the existing Patrol force. The greatest impact will be upon the traffic units. M: jg RCORDF.R CODE NO. 963077 U -A REV 2/75 March 21, 1933 Hr. R. &. .Robinson, Jr. Director of Planning and Policy Analysis City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear sir. Robinson: Tonto CdoraVa91eC Noter District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265 -2600 9LA1,'NI,IG PDLICy P41 Subject: Draft ,sousing Element and Environmenatal Impact Report We have reviewed the above subject matter and it does not appear that implementation of the mousing element will Inave significant effect on flooding or on District facilities. Sincerely yours, bj Dr. Bernard H. Goldner Environmentai Specialist Project Development Branch AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER a w� C March 21, 1933 Hr. R. S. .Robinson, Jr. Director of Planning and Policy Analysis City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 9507 Dear Mr. Robinson: Scroka Clara Vc H Maier District 5750 ALMADEN EXPRESSWAY SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95118 TELEPHONE (408) 265 -2600 °�Aid,Nl,�IG PpCICY Subject: Draft ;sousing Element and Environmenatal Impact Report We have reviewed the above subject matter and it does not appear that implementation of the housing element will ;save significant effect on flooding or on District facilities. Sincerely yours, V Q, Dr. Bernard H. Goldner Environmental Specialist Project Development Branch AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER COUNTY SAN111-AT ION DISTRICT NO. 4 SAi!TA CLARA COUNTY 30 East Sunn,caks Avenue I: tll, Cali`c;rnia 9w78 January 13, 1983 City of Saratoga . Planning Department j Yi i-1 'Fr"" 1 /OJC y4 Cj Attn Mr. Michael Flores RE Housing Element Gentlemen SERVING RESIDENTS OF CITY OF CAIMPBELL TOV;N' OF LOS GATOS CITY OF % ,ONTE SERENO CITY OF SAN JOSE CITY OF SANTA CLARA CITY OF SARATOGA UNINCORPORATED AREA In 1981, the staff of this office studied the potential for growth within Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga, with the assistance of the staffs of these cities. At that time, it was determined that the portion of Saratoga within Sanitation District 4.had a growth potential of 619 additional residences. In short telephone conversations with Mr. Michael Flores of your office I was informed this may be increased by 200 or approximately 120 units. The 1981 study indicated the the cities was 5,000 residen Treatment plant capacity for the basis of that estimate. not consequential; as no one within 20. Very truly yours, QZ.•.,� Preston R. Nichols Assistant District Engineer PN /ch overall growth potential for all tial units, over the next 20 years. the area is being purchased on Another 120 units, however, is expected the estimate to be RESPONSES TO LETTERS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT /E.I.R. 1. State of California -- Office of Planning and Research No response required. 2. Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department Comment of minimal impact on Sheriff's Department noted; no response required. 3. Santa Clara Valley Water District Comment of minimal impact on flooding or District facilities noted; no response required. 4. County Sanitation District No. 4 Comment of minimal impact on treatment capacity noted; no response required. RESPONSES TO LETTERS COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT /E.I.R. 1. State of California _ Office of Planning and Research No response required. 2. Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department Comment of minimal impact on Sheriff's Department noted; no response required. 3. Santa Clara Valley Water District Comment of minimal impact on flooding or District facilities noted; no response required. 4. County Sanitation District No. 4 Comment of minimal impact on treatment capacity noted; no response required. i 0 xo ACT D ._—, GPA 69-1 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �T U DATE: Wednesday, March 14, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. Ir PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA - TYPE: Regular Meeting L---------------------------------------------------------------------------- X. ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call j Nsi Present: Commissioners Crowther, Harris, Hlava, McGoldrick, Peterson, a' Schaefer and Siegfried (Commissioner Crowther arrived at 7:37 p.m.) i . Absent: None Minutes f Commissioner Hlava moved to waive the reading of the minutes of February 22, 1984 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, t,which was carried, with Commissioner McGoldrick abstaining because she was ti not present. CONSENT CALENDAR t1. SD -1364 - Allen DeMartini, Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval, 17 lots, Request for One -Year Extension 2. SDR -1370 - George Day Construction Co. (Irany), Mt. Eden Road, Tentative Building Site Approval, 1 Lot, Request for One -Year Extension .. commissioner Hlava moved to approve the items listed above on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried ''unanimously 6 -0. HEARINGS IPUBLTC 3. GPA- 83 -17A - Consideration of Draft Housing Element and Environmental Impact Report Staff stated that they have submitted a revised Housing Element incorporating choices made by the City Council and Planning Commission at their study :sessions. They commented that they feel the Commission should focus on the .additional policies in the revised draft. They noted that they have also reduced the bulk of the Housing Element, at the direction of the Council. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Since no one was present at that time to address the Commission, the public hearing was continued until later in the evening. It was reopened at 9:37 p.m. Staff discussed the changes and the schedule for the Housing Element. Commissioner Schaefer commented that the Governor's office, at the League of California Cities meeting, suggested that any comments made by the State were advisory and should be treated as such and not as a mandate. 'Don Eagleston, 14669 Big Basin Way, expressed concern regarding the providing of alternative housing for senior citizens and stressed the importance of doing so. He indicated that, in conjunction with this, he is very much in _ — favor of retirement type communities. He suggested that the City consider using some of the City land for these communities, particularly those near shopping areas. He commented that, as President of the Village Association, s, he would like to encourage commercial structures with condominiums set behind, as long as the condominiums are not directly on Big Basin Way, since they would like to see that preserved for retail in the future. Commissioner Schaefer stated that another comment made at the League of Cali- fornia Cities meeting was that the word "alternative" in several years may mean manufactured housing. Therefore, another word might be considered if the City does not mean manufactured housing. Commissioner Crowther inquired about incorporating the City's policies on second units in the Housing Element. The City Attorney indicated that the - 1 - �r R P] Planning Commission ( Page 2 Meeting Minutes 3/14/84 GPA- 83 -1 -A (cont.) present element was drafted prior to last night's study session of the City Council and does call for consideration and adoption of a Second Unit Ordi- nance. The Council has now sent that ordinance back to the Commission for further action and consideration. He stated that if the City Council decides to modify the recommended ordinance they have received from the Commission, then obviously that would require changes in the Housing Element to the extent it refers to the Second Unit Ordinance as one means of providing lower cost housing. He explained that the ordinance has been referred back to the Com- mission for the purpose of determining whether the Commission is able to make the findings required by State law for adoption of an ordinance which totall� precludes second units throughout the City, and that will be coming back to the Commission as soon as it can be agendized. Fie added that he did advise the Council that that option had not been considered in detail by the Commission. Staff was requested to get a copy of the findings from San ,Jose that they had made and the basis on which they made them, and also copies of adopted ordi- nances from the League of California Cities. The City Attorney clarified that if the Commission determines that they can make the findings Staff will certainly assist in drafting it and putting it into ordinance form; however, he does not anticipate that Staff will be giving recommended findings to the Commission. Discussion followed on the findings which would have to be made and the City Attorney was asked to provide some examples of what would be included under the categories. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on March 20, 1984 and the regular meeting of March 28, 1984. 4. A -928 - Dwayne Richards, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a split level single family residence at 14012 Palomino Way, in the NHR Zoning District It was directed that this item be continued to March 28, 1984. 5. A -934 - Parnas Corporation, Request for Design Review Approval to con- struct a two -story single family residence on Saratoga Heights Drive (Lot 10, Tract 6665), in the NHR Zoning District Staff reported that they have reviewed the revised plan showing the floor plan reversed and the driveway adjusted, as suggested by the applicant at .the last meeting, and recommend approval. The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A -934, per the Staff Report dated February 16, 1984 and Exhibits "B ", "C" and "D". Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 6. A -936 - Pinn Brothers Construction, Request for Design Review Approval to construct 15 single story residences on the north side of Verde Vista 400 ft. south of Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road (Saratoga Horticultural Foundation) in the R -1- 12,500 Zoning District Staff explained the proposal. It was noted that the house on Lot N5 extends into the front yard setback and will have to be moved or obtain a variance, and the house on Lot Ill exceeds the floor area standard. The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. The setbacks on Lots #2 and II15 were discussed, and it was noted that the applicant defined the driveway frontage as the front yard; therefore he does now have the 25 ft. yard setback. Commissioner Peterson inquired about the drainage from a personal standpoint, since some of his neighbors have had some significant problems with flooding primarily from the Horticultural Society. Staff explained the proposed - 2 - I CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, March 28, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Harris, Hlava, McGoldrick, Schaefer and Siegfried mss.% (Commissioner Harris arrived at 7:35 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners Crowther and Peterson Minutes Commissioner McGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of March 14, 1984 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SDR -1561 - Mr. and Mrs. Levy, 19800 Glen Una Drive, Approval of Conditions of Building Site Approval Staff clarified that the condition in the Memorandum relative to the required interim improvements would be that the property be widened to 22 feet on the City portion and there would be a Deferred Improvement Agreement on the County portion. Commissioner Schaefer requested that it be left at 18 feet on both sides, with a 1" cap to go on the City portion as well as the County portion. She explained that, in talking to the neighbors, it was their feeling that it should not be widened to 22 feet, in order to preserve the rural aesthetics and because of the safety factor. Discussion followed on the improvements. Commissioner Hlava noted that the memo states that there will be no sudden bulge and the widening will taper and be virtually unnoticed. She commented that she did not feel that 22 ft. was a very wide road and most of the improve- ments have been put under a Deferred Improvement Agreement. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to change Condition 1 to read "Widen pavement to provide two 9 ft. lanes" and Condition shall read "1 inch overlay of entire street fronting property (minimum 18' width). Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried 4 -1, with Commissioner Hlava dissenting, stating that she would prefer the Staff recommendation of two 11 ft. lanes. .2. GPA- 83 -1 -A - Consideration of Draft Housing Element and Environmental Impact Report; continued from March 14, 1984 Chairman Schaefer suggested that this matter be continued to the meeting on April 11, 1984, and it will be forwarded to the City Council with the Second Unit Ordinance. The public hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed that this be continued to April 11, 1984. 3. A -928 - Dwayne Richards, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a split level single family residence at 14012 Palomino Way in the NHR Zoning District; continued from March 14, 1984 It was directed that this item be continued to April 11, 1984. 4a. SDR -1545 - Warren Sturla, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval and 4b. V -615 - Design Review Approval for four office condominiums and Variance 4c. A -900 - Approval for a reduced side setback at the southwest corner of Cox Avenue and Saratoga Creek Drive in a P -A Zoning District; continued from March 14, 1984 Chairman Schaefer commented that this matter has been at study sessions and she understands that there has been a request for changes. The applicant stated that lie would like the Commission to vote tonight on the project presented. The public hearing was opened at 7:46 p.m. - 1 - S:. It UZZ. . r CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, April 11, 1984 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Harris, Hlava, McGoldrick, Peterson, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: Commissioner Crowther Minutes Commissioner McGoldrick moved to waive the reading of the minutes of March 28, 1984 and approve as distributed. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Annual Reorganization Commissioner Schaefer nominated Commissioner Siegfried for Chairman. Commis sioner Hlava seconded the nomination. It was moved and seconded to close the nominations and Commissioner Siegfried was unanimously appointed Chairman. Commissioner Hlava nominated Commissioner Peterson for Vice Chairman. Com- missioner McGoldrick seconded the nomination. It was moved and seconded to close the nominations and Commissioner Peterson was unanimously appointed Vice Chairman. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. SDR -1329 - D. Apker (Krajeska), Vista Regina, 2 lots - Request for One - Year Extension Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the item listed above on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner McGoldrick seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6 -0. 2. GPA- 83 -1 -A - Consideration of Draft Housing Element and Environmental Impact Report; continued from March 28, 1984 3. GF -344 - City of Saratoga, Consideration of an ordinance to completely preclude allowing second units in any residential district per Section 65852.2(c) of the Government Code of the State of California, per Article 18 of Ordinance NS -3 of the City of Saratoga These two items were discussed simultaneously. Chairman Schaefer explained that the second units are being considered to be precluded at the direction . of the City Council, noting that the Planning Commission had sent forth to them a proposal that allowed second units on 45,000 sq. ft. lots or greater, I,lith many conditions. She noted possible alternatives that have been men - , tioned, i.e., moratorium for five years or two years,on 45,000 sq. ft. lots 'nor greater and in the Village area, either on a timeframe or indefinite, in each tract or determined area and a certain number of homes would be allowed in each of those areas, or a designated number throughout the City, and also .the issue of illegal units. Commissioner Hlava added another option that had been suggested to her, i.e. to have illegal units to be able to come in for •a use permit under some kind of standards. Staff noted that there are some corrections to be made to the Housing Element and also some outstanding items in the element that need to be decided by a separate vote. They indicated that they did review many of the Second Unit Ordinances that have been adopted by other communities and the findings that had been made. They commented that, in reviewing, they are of the opinion that Saratoga is not in similar situations, either in terms of limited urban ser- vices or lot size or overcrowding that some of these communities had indicated were a problem. They added that, therefore, they feel that the City cannot make the findings necessary to preclude second units entirely, especially if - 1 - Planning Commission r Page 2 Meeting Minutes 4/11/84 r GPA- 83 -1 -A and GF -344 (cont.) a moderate number were allowed. Staff noted that there are two findings qp'= required by State law. Commissioner Harris stated that the Housing Element and General Plan identify the goals of this community with zoning and density regulations reflecting _ the desires of Saratoga residents. She commented that beyond that she con- siders it an encroachment of the State to tell the City to change those guidelines merely to increase the amount of housing. She added that the public health, safety and welfare of the residents should be the prevailing consideration for adopting an ordinance. She presented the basis for a pro- posal that the City make the findings which will preclude the allowing of second 10 -its. She passed this out and read it into the record (attached). The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Greg Nellis, 18366 Clemson Avenue, stated that he feels that the City is talking about serious long range planning when discussing the Second Unit Ordinance. He commented that he was against second units as a general prin- ciple in the City, and lie feels there are a lot of people who share that view. He stated that lie does not know how the Commission can make findings and go forward if they do not know what the end result will be. He added that he is in favor of second units for senior citizens if appropriate con- trols were put on them; however, the City Attorney has pointed out that this option is not available. Regarding options, he commented that he would sug- gest that the Commission do nothing at this time until they have clearly defined where they want to end up. Discussion followed on limiting second units to senior citizens only and the possibility of the court throwing out the restriction on age. The City Attorney noted that approximately 20% of the cities that have adopted ordi- nances have restricted second units to seniors only. He commented that he thinks everyone of them has recognized that there are constitutional problems with respect to that restriction and there are also practical problems in terms of enforcement. He added that, recognizing that, they may have simply opted to run that risk, rather than run the risk other cities have of a total prohibition being declared ineffective because it did not have the factual support for the findings. Mr. Nellis commented that that is another point for doing nothing at this time.° He indicated that, in terms of either putting a moratorium or making the find- ings, maybe a moratorium would be better. He stated that he would like to buy some time and wait to see what comes out of other cities, and if the courts rule that it can be done for seniors, then there will definitely be something to look at. Andrew Beverett, 19597 Via Monte, urged the Commission to come to some com- promise, an experimental course of action ;with perhaps 20 units, care- fully considered over a year or two, with review and a sunset clause Dis- cussion followed on the options that had previously been discussed. Dick Drake, Gordon Court, stated that the character of Saratoga is changing and the needs of seniors are increasing very rapidly. He commented that the point of view of the senior citizens is that they are just as strongly opposed to duplexes and to increasing the whole living unit in Saratoga as anyone. He added that they are just as strongly saying that they want to preserve the single family character but suggesting a way in which it can be done. He w stated that he feels Commissioner Harris' proposal does not address the issue, and it should be done under existing ordinances and trying not to destroy the — basic housing concept in Saratoga. He clarified that the original ordinance which the Commission passed, that limited this to 45,000 sq. ft., does absol- utely nothing for the senior citizens. He suggested the following: (1) that the Commission stand up to the mark and decree that they simply cannot develop a statement that would support the State requirement that says that the City should do nothing, (2) to reverse the Commission's original position and pass a reasonable ordinance that would give some relief, similar to the last draft of the City Council's, that says this would extend to all areas but be limited to a certain number, such as 20, excluding presently illegal units and deal with those separately. lie added that this ordinance makes sense, is a com- promise, and would go a long ways towards bringing harmony to the entire City of Saratoga. Mildred Gordon, President of the Senior Coordinating Council, stated that she _ believes that there is no basis for findings that second units will bring `- - 2 - Planning Commission ( Page 3 .Meeting Minutes 4/11/84 GPA- 83 -1 -A and GF -344 (cont.) adverse impacts to Saratoga. She commented that she feels it is necessary to have an ordinance to have any kind of control on second units. She added that she agrees with the ordinance presented on March 1, 1984 by the City Attorney, and the City could experiment for a year, make corrections, and continue. Chairman Schaefer commented that she feels that the Commission is for the seniors. She noted that the League of California Cities has composed some figures that say that only approximately 150 of the applications that come in for second units specifically state that they are for seniors. Commissioner Peterson inquired as to what Menlo Park has done, since it is similar to Sara- toga. Staff was requested to contact them to see what they have done regarding an ordin*!hce. Dora Grens, 13451 Old Oak Way, stated that she thoroughly agreeswith Commis- sioner Harris and Mr. Nellis. She also asked about what type of ordinance Los Altos Hills has done. Discussion followed on the communities that have adopted ordinances precluding second units. Commissioner Siegfried noted that, with the exception of San Jose, they are relatively very small cities in size, smaller than Saratoga in area; most of them much larger in population; most of which have less than to of their lots exceeding 20,000 sq. ft., whereas Saratoga has 50% of its lots exceeding 20,000 sq. ft. He stated that the problem is, again not looking at the options for the future but just on the question of an ordinance that would totally preclude them, each city, just on the mere fact of the size of the lots and the fact that they have very significant presence of multi - family struc- tures already, can maybe make their ordinance work in terms of precluding* stated that he thinks all of those cities have options that allow them to .He say they have already done it in one way or the other. He added that that is the problem in saying the City has to preclude it; then other options have to be discussed if the City doesn't preclude it. He added that he wished the City could find a way to say senior citizens only. *second units. The City Attorney clarified that the State law specifically allows cities to allocate the second units in certain areas if they feel those are the only areas that are appropriate; to preclude second units it would have to be done on a City -wide basis. There was a consensus to go to a study session to get more information on the ordinances that have been adopted. The following votes were taking on the Housing Element: sue; -= Page 16 - Re the term "income ". Commissioner Schaefer had requested that it be noted what exactly is considered income, to include a definition on a foot- note. There was a consensus to do this. Page 21 - Re ABAG's arguments rejecting Saratoga's first proposal. After discussion, Commissioner Hlava moved, seconded by Commissioner Siegfried, to repeat these arguments. The motion was carried 5 -1, with Commissioner Schaefer dissenting. Page 51 - Commissioner McGoldrick moved, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, to include the present wording of the last sentence on this page. The motion was carried unanimously 6 -0. It was noted that the word "alternative" will be removed from the Housing Element and other wording will be used. It was directed that GPA- 83 -1 -A and GF -344 be continued to the regular meeting of April 25, 1984 and GF -344, �Z Second Unit Ordinance, will be further discussed at a study session on April 17, 1984. 4. A -928 - Dwayne Richards, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a split level single family residence at 14612 Palomino Way, in the NHR Zoning District It was directed that this item be continued to May 9, 1984. 5a. A -945 - Bank of America, Request for Use Permit Approval for a minor 5b. UP -557 - expansion of an existing bank and for compact parking, and Design Review Approval for exterior remodeling at 14476 Big Basin Way, in the C -C zoning district Staff described the proposal. They noted that the entrance to the parking is - 3 - FINDINGS: 1. PROVISIONS FOR ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WHICH EMPHASIZES PROTECTION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER IN ORDER, TO PROVIDE FOR SINGLE - FAMILY HOUSING NEEDS WITHIN THE REGION. 2. ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WOULD COMPrO11,1ISE THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES OF THE GENERAL PLAN AS ENUMERATED IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND NOISE ELEMENT: A. TO PROMOTE THE LONG -TERM ECONOMIC SOUNDNESS OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT AS INCREASES IN PUBLIC SERVICE DEMANDS COULD FORCE REDUCTION OF SERVICE LEVELS OR INCREASED ASSESSMENT COSTS TO TAXPAYERS. B. TO PREVENT UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION. C. TO RELATE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ITS LAND USES TO PRESENTLY PLANNED STREET CAPACITIES. SARATOGA'S ROADWAYS ARE NARROW WITH NO SIDEWALKS. THE CURRENT CAPACITY AND DESIGN OF THE ROADWAYS CANNOT WITHSTAND INCREASED DENSITIES. AUTHORIZATION OF TWO UNITS ON LOTS WOULD DEMAND A CHANGE IN THE ROADWAY DESIGN OF THE CITY. THERE IS NO FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR SUCH AN ENDEAVOR, AND TO PROCEED WITH TWO UNITS ON LOTS WOULD COMPROMISE TRAFFIC SAFETY. D. TO AFFIRM THAT THE CITY SHALL CONTINUE TO BE PREDOMINANTLY A COMMUNITY OF SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES. E. TO PROTECT SARATOGA RESIDENTS FROM EXCESSIVE NOISE. 3. ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WOULD HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BECAUSE: A. MANY AREAS OF THE CITY ARE EXPERIENCING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON LOCAL STREETS RELATED TO EXCESSIVE VOLUMES, SPEEDING, AND NOISE. MANY TRAFFIC PROBLEMS HAVE RESULTED FROM THE LACK OF A MAJOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIY WHICH HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO BY THE STATE BUT WHICH REMAINS UNFUNDED. TRAFFIC RELATED PROBLEMS CAN DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS AND WOULD BE EXACERBATED BY THE CREATION OF SECOND UNITS WITH THE ADDITIONAL POPULATION, TRAFFIC, AND PARKING DEMAND THEY WOULD GENERATE IN NEIGHBORHOODS. B. STUDIES HAVE SHOWN A POSITIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PERCENTAGE OF OWNER- OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS, SOUND HOUSING CONDITIONS AND NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY. C. HIGHER CRIB °tE RATES IN DENSELY POPULATED NEIGHBORHOODS THREATEN THE SAFETY OF ALL RESIDENTS. D. SOME NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH ARE ALREADY CHAR,AC:TERIZED BY MULTI -CAR FAMILIES HAVE CRITICAL ON- STREET PARKING PROBLEMS. THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WOULD BE ADDITIONAL ON- STREET PARKING IN MANY NEIGHBORHOODS. 4. , PROBABLE DECLINING PROPERTY VALUES WOULD BE SUFFERED BY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4/25/8,4. UNAPPROVED GPA- 83 -1 -A and GF -344 - Draft Housing Element and Environmental Impact Report and Second Unit Ordinance- These two matters were discussed simultaneously. Staff commented that the major issue before the Commission tonight is to vote on the Housing Elemtn with a psotive or negative recommendation to the City Council. They commented that, interms of the Second Unit Ordinance, the key issue tonight is to determine whether the Commission can reasonably make the findings to preclude second units. The necessary findings were dis- cussed. Staff reiterated that they do not believe these findings can be made, based on comparison of other ordinances from cities that have precluded second units and on Saratoga's situation. They added that the Staff will prepare a report from the Planning Commission to the City Council on the decision the Commission makes. Commissioner Schaefer stated that she feels the findings can be made, but she has talked with people about. the fact that there obviously is a major controversy within the City. She commented that it has been pointed out, as the Commission has expressed before, that there is a real need for seniors to have a place to live and for relatives, and yet. right now it does not seem that an ordinance can be passed that is going to be upheld for that. She stated that her proposal would be to make the findings for a period of time, for example two years, or until there_ was a court decision on whether there could be units for seniors only. If that came earlier than two years this would certainly be reviewed with the anticipation that.recommendations and changes would be made. If it did not happen within two years, the Commission would look at it and see if they still consider it.appropriate. That would essentially keep the status quo, and she noted that there were no ordinances that are known that were passed on the books in California before July of last year. She added that, in talking with one of the City Council members from Palo Alto, she also found that they felt that they had put in their pro- posal perhaps not considering all the options, and felt they had some very major problems. Now they are trying to change and make up for those. She commented that perhaps this way Saratoga can learn from other cities. Commissioner Halva noted that the findings made by the City of San Jose were not approved by the Planning Commission; they were voted down on a 5 -2 vote at their meeting last week. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Staff explained the Housing Element, at the request of a citizen. Greg Nellis, 18366 Clemson, stated that if the.Commission' cannot make the findings to prohibit second units in the City, he feels that there are a lot of questiorB and concern over what will happen. He asked the Commissioners who feel they cannot make the findings to prohibit them to state what they would be in favor of, specifically where they would see second units as being appropriate, how many, under what conditions, etc. He added that he feels this would be beneficial to the public. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. - 1 - Planning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 4/25/84 The following comments were made by the Commission: Commissioner McGoldrick There is no way I can make the findings to preclude second units. I appreciate having received from the Senior Coordinating Council a great many papers, one of which was the City Attorney's March 1st draft of a proposal that went to the City Council. It was different from the R -1- 45,000 proposal that we had made, and his proposal would be my wish. Commissioner Hlava - I also cannot make the findings, primarily because I feel that our Staff and our best legal advisors are telling us that they would prefer to see us pass a Second Unit Ordinance, no matter how restrictive, rather than try to make the findings and take the chance of being sued and spend endless dollars and time in court. We have in this city in the past passed ill- advised legislation which resulted in lengthy court costs, and.I don't think we want to look at that again for our city. In terms of what I would like to see, I have said repeatedly that my two major concerns with the Second Unit Ordinance are (1) the number of illegal units we already have in the city.which have been built without inspections, which I think is dangerous and a situation we have to handle, and (2) the fact that obviously since there are so many illegal.units there must be some need, and I see that need as being primarily with the seniors. I would like to see something that would deal with that. I am willing to look at almost anything, even.if it started out with very restrictive in order to judge the impacts, that would deal in any way with those two issues.:. ... ­­- Commissioner . Commissioner Schaefer I think the best one we came up with that could still use some. modification is the one on lots of 45,000 sq. ft. or greater. Perhaps.considering them on lots that are 25% greater than the other homes in their own zoning district, or to look at them and bring them out to the neighborhood and say, what do you want in your own zoning district, because I think it has such a major impact. If all we are voting on tonight is either put them everywhere or put them nowhere, then I would make a motion not to have them now but with a timeframe limit on that, assuming that we would look at that and clarify that at a later date. Chairman Siegfried commented that the Commission is voting only on whether or not we can preclude them; the Council is deciding whether or not and where they are going to allow them. Commissioner Harris - I had presented at the last meeting the findings that.I thought could be made to preclude them. Commissioner Siegfried I was originally one in favor of the 45,000 sq. ft. limitation, and after much deliberation and listening to comments, I have come around to a different point of view. I appreciate the seniors sending the ordinance that has been considered. I would be inclined to go along with the Council's proposal, except that I would insert in it a senior citizens limitation, even though 'I think legally it won't survive. But I think we can certainly protect the ordinance in allowing severabil- ity, so that if that fails the rest of the ordinance survives. Secondly, I think I would, not in terms of detached units, make the limitation that Planning Commission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 4/25/84 the lot be twice the size of the zoning district. I think I would do it something less than that, 60% or 700, because if it is twice the size that essentially says there can probably be two units there anyway, I think I would compromise that to some extent, and I am somewhat inclined to say that, for any kind of second unit, it has to be some percentage over the minimum size, but I would be open to thought about that. I thought perhaps for the attached unit it could be 20 or 25% larger, but I am not wedded to that. Commissioner McGoldrick moved to forward a denial of the ordinance pre- cluding second units to the City Council, not being able to make the findings. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried 3 -2, with Commissioners Harris and Schaefer dissenting. Commissioner Harris expressed her frustration with the whole procedure. She stated that, having come on the Commission after this ordinance was considered, she felt it was very akward. She added that she felt that the Commission's task was merely to see whether they could make the findings for preclusion or not, and she found it very disconcerting that the Commission kept considering other things along the way because it was inappropriate and it was not a complete job. Chairman Siegfried commented that the Housing Element contains a state- ment that the City is considering second units, which is where the Commission would be at this point. Commissioner Hlava moved to approve the Housing Element and forward it to the City Council. Commissioner Schaefer seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5 -0. - 3 - CITY OF SARATOGA AGENDA BILL NO. 8 Initial: Dept. Hd. (Z-Sy DATE: April 27, 19 8 4 ( May 2, 198-4) C. Atty. . DEPARTMENT: Community Development C. Mgr. SUBJECT: GF -344, City of Saratoga, Second Unit Ordinance Issue Summary 1. In March of 1984 the City Council referred the second unit ordinance back to the Planning C6mmission to determine if the necessary findings can be made to preclude second units in Saratoga. 2. The Commission reviewed ordinances from other cities which have pre- cluded second units and held several public hearings on this issue. 3. A majority of the Commission determined that the necessary findings could not be made after comparing Saratoga with those communities that preclude second units. Recommendation 1. Staff indicated to the Commission that the necessary findings could not be made and recommended that the Commission report that to the City Council. 2. If the Council wishes to preclude second units, then it will have to make the necessary findings specifying how second units will adversely impact public health, safety and welfare. 3. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance proposed Fiscal YFsCity Attorney at the Council's last study session on this ordinance. None anticipated. Exhibits /Attachments Exhibit A - Staff Report dated 4/6/84 & 4/27`/'8'4 Exhibit B - Verbatim Planning Commission minutes dated 4/25/84* Exhibit C - Planning Commission minutes dated 4/11/84* Exhibit D - Report of findings prepared by Commissioner Harris Exhibit E - Second Unit Ordinance drafted by.the City Attorney. Council Action 5/2: Continued to meeting of 5/16. 5/16: Read and three amendments made 5 -0; introduced 3 -2 (Clevenger, Mallory opposed). * See Exhibit D of GPA 83 -1 -A Oxmstr A 6F -3ySf REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: 4/6/84 Commission Meeting: 4/11/84 SUBJECT: GF -344, Second Unit Ordinance At its Study Session of April 3, 1984, the Planning Commission considered the feasibility of making the necessary findings to adopt an ordinance completely precluding second units. Staff presented a summary of such ordinances adopted by other cities and the types of findings made by these cities to support these ordinances. After discussing these ordi- nances, the Planning Commission requested further information from staff. It appeared to staff that the majority of the Commissioners present indicated that making the required findings could be difficult in Saratoga's case. The Commission requested some basic statistical information on the cities that adopted ordinances precluding second units. Table 1 provides a summary of this information by city. In review of Table 1, it can be seen that most of the cities adopting ordinances precluding second units have lot sizes considerably smaller than Saratoga's. The two exceptions to this are Atascadero and Rolling Hills. Both of these cities have signifi- cant sewage treatment constraints: 100% of Rolling Hills is on septic tanks and 65% of the land area in Atascadero is on septic tanks. Approximately 75% of Saratoga's land area and 90 -95% of its existing dwelling units are served by sanitary sewer. Staff has prepared a matrix summarizing the categories of different findings made by cities to support their ordinances precluding second units (see Table 2). Staff has also attach- ed the complete text of several ordinances to give the Commission the exact wording used by these cities. It should be noted that Table 2 is not complete since the City has not received copies of all the ordinances with the necessary details. Two of the cities have used substantial statistical information to back up their findings: San Jose and Sausalito. The other communities have primarily put together findings that make statements rather than provide supporting evidence. URBAN SERVICES The single factor used by "-most cities in precluding second units was the lack or over- taxing of existing urban services. Sewer and water services appeared to be the most im- portant in the ordinances reviewed by staff. In October of 1983, both sanitation dis- tricts that serve Saratoga and the San Jose Water Co. met with the City to discuss the impacts of a second unit ordinance on their operation. All three indicated there would be no significant impact on their ability to provide service if a moderate number of Report to Planning Commiss(i \ 4/6/84 GF -344, Second Unit Ordinance Page 2 second units were added. Staff confirmed this statement in telephone conversations with these agencies this month. Staff also contacted Central Fire District to determine any concerns it had regarding second units. The fire district indicated it was primarily concerned with the location of the second unit on the lot itself rather than the likely number of second units. Ser- vices might have to be increased over the long -term but that would be necessary in any case as the City approaches buildout. Some cities also cited inadequate streets and street maintenance as a problem in providing second units. This is also a concern of the City of Saratoga and is the impetus behind the Pavement Management Plan. Staff contacted the Director of Maintenance Services and asked what impact the addition of 500 second units would have on the City's street system (500 second units would meet the ABAG - projected low to moderate income housing need). It was determined that these units would represent about a 2.5% increase in the automobile traffic contributing to street wear. This number was considered insignificant in terms of the overall street maintenance program. rnNr.1 IICTnN In comparing the ordinances prohibiting second units and the circumstances of the cities adopting-them, staff can find no significant correlation between :these cities and Saratoga. Nor can staff find any significant urban service limitations for Saratoga if a moderate number of second units were added to the City's housing stock. Those cities which have comparable lot sizes or greater than Sartoga's are not as well served by sewers as Saratoga. The other cities have considerably smaller lots than -Sara- toga and have a higher population density than Saratoga. Staff is also of the opinion that even some of these cities could accomodate second units if certain districts were specified. Approved: MF /dsc P.C. Agenda: 4/11/84 Attachments C Michael Flores Planner c c TABLE 1 Cities Adopting Ordinances Precluding Second Units Lot City POP. Area Size Atascadero2 E1 Monte Huntington Park Lynwood Montclair National City Pasadena Rolling Hills Sau&alito San Bruno San Jose South Pasadena Vista 18,000 25.0 z - 10AC 81,800 9.3 5000 sq. ft. 49,000 3.0 5000 sq. ft. 49,150 5.0 5000 sq. ft. 23,500 6.1 7,500- 20,000 sq. ft. 52,800 8.5 5,000 - 20,000 sq. ft. 120,500 23.0 7,200- 40,000 sq. ft. 2,050 3.0 1 -2 AC 7,050 2.2 3,000 -4,000 sq. ft. 35,350 5.9 5,000 -6,000 sq. ft. 680,000 168.0 6,000 sq. ft. -1AC 22,750 3.5 10,000 sq. ft. 37,050 14.9 6,000- 20,000 sq. ft. Lots 20,000+ Sq. Ft. 100% <1% <1% .< 1% <5% <1% 12% 100% <1% -� 1 28 %4 < 1% 20% Saratoga 30,000 12.0 10,000 sq. ft. -IOAC 50% lIndicates percent of single - family residential land area in lot sizes at or over 20,000 sq. ft., 265% of the residential land area (lots 22 - 10 Acres in size) is on septic tank. 3All residences are on septic tank and all roads are private. 4Vacant land only. 1. Urban Service /Infrastructure Limits X TABLE 2 X X X X X X X 2. Traffic Increases /Parking Problems X ro o i c O X i O O c N X X 4.1 X r ro X + c a a +� m _0 ro o C X X 10 10 ro U C O C O O C U 4J C ro i b O 7 V ro ro �n ro X 41 Y C i 3 C 41 r C Y i� ro Vl X Vl 7 C C d Y VI Q W 2 C1 J O ro � ro Or ro N ro N ro N N � 1. Urban Service /Infrastructure Limits X X X X X X X X X 2. Traffic Increases /Parking Problems X X X X X X 3. Overcrowding /Small Lots X X X X X X �r 4. Contrary to General Plan X X X X X X X 5. Contrary to Single Family Character/ Housing Value /Maintain Neighborhoods X X X X X X 6. Geologic Hazards /Topographic Constraints X X 7. Revenue /Cost Strains X X X 8. Have Sufficient Multi - Family Land /Density Bonuses /Rentals X X X X X X X 9. Already Providing Low to Moderate Income Housing or Senior Housing X X X X 10 Legalized Existing Second Units or Mention Existing Second Units i X X 11. Intrusion into Municipal Affairs X 12. Use of Statistics to Support Findings X X 13. Rural Atmosphere X 14. Inadequate Streets X X X 15. Noise and Air Pollution X X X X 1 q. I �3 a (1 �^ IEl# �r 3.: ffExy�g #�app t3 t ti,°atF'� #€.iYt�r,sla&n,.�t>m& REPORT TO MAYOR AND CI'T'Y COUNCIL DATE: 4/27/84 COUNCIL MEETING: 5/2/84 SUBJECT GPA 83 -1 -A, Housing Element /E.I.R. GF -344, Second Unit Ordinance ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- At its meeting of.April 25, 1984 the Planning Commission held its final public hearing on the Draft Housing Element /E.I.R. and the Second Unit Ordinance which were discussed simultaneously. The re- sults of that meeting were as follows: Second Unit Ordinance The Commission voted 3 -2 to recommend to the City Council that the necessary findings could not be made to adopt an ordinance precluding second units. 'Staff had recommended that the Commission not make the findings based on a review of the ordinances precluding second units.adopted by other cities and comparing their situation to Saratoga's. The majority -of the Commission agreed with that argument. A majority of the Commission would also support the use of second units for senior citizens. Housing Element /E.I.R. The Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the revised Housing Element /E.I.R. dated March 28, 1984 which mentions that the City is considering adopting a second unit ordinance. The Council should refer to the Planning Commission minutes of April 25, 1984 for detailed comments on these items. Richard Siegfried Chairman RS /MF /bjc C.C. Agenda 5/2/84 FINDINGS: 1. PROVISIONS FOR ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CITY ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN WHICH EMPHASIZES PROTECTION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR SINGLE- FAMIL`( HOUSING NEEDS WITHIN THE REGION. 2. ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WOULD COMPROMISE THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES OF THE GENERAL PLAN AS ENUMERATED IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND NOISE ELEMENT: A. TO PROMOTE THE LONG -TERM ECONOMIC SOUNDNESS OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT AS INCREASES IN PUBLIC SERVICE DEMANDS COULD FORCE REDUCTION OF SERVICE LEVELS OR INCREASED ASSESSMENT COSTS TO TAXPAYERS. B. TO PREVENT UNDUE CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION. C. TO RELATE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND ITS LAND USES TO PRESENTLY PLANNED STREET C:APAC:ITIES. SARATOGA'S ROADWAYS ARE NARROW WITH NO SIDEWALKS. THE CURRENT CAPACITY AND DESIGN OF THE ROADWAYS CANNOT WITHSTAND INCREASED DENSITIES. AUTHORIZATION OF TWO UNITS ON LOTS WOULD DEMAND A CHANGE IN THE ROADWAY DESIGN OF THE CITY. THERE IS NO FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR SUCH AN ENDEAVOR AND TO PROCEED WITH TWO UNITS ON LOTS WOULD COMPROMISE TRAFFIC SAFETY. D. TO AFFIRM THAT THE CITY SHALL CONTINUE TO BE PREDOMINANTLY A COMMUNITY OF SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENCES. E. TO PROTECT SARATOGA RESIDENTS FROM EXCESSIVE NOISE. 3. ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WOULD HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BECAUSE: A. MANY AREA'S OF THE CITY ARE EXPERIENCING TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ON LOCAL STREETS RELATED TO EXCESSIVE VOLUMES, SPEEDING, AND NOISE. MANY TRAFFIC PROBLEMS HAVE RESULTED FROM THE LACK OF A MAJOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIY WHICH HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO BY THE STATE BUT WHICH REMAINS UNFUNDED. TRAFFIC RELATED PROBLEMS CAN DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS AND WOULD BE EXACERBATED BY THE CREATION OF SECOND UNITS WITH THE ADDITIONAL POPULATION, TRAFFIC, AND PARKING DEMAND THEY WOULD GENERATE IN NEIGHBORHOODS. B. STUDIES HAVE SHOWN A POSITIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PERCENTAGE OF OWNER- OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS, SOUND HOUSING CONDITIONS AND NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY. C. HIGHER CRIME RATES IN DENSELY POPULATED NEIGHBORHOODS THREATEN THE SAFETY OF ALL RESIDENTS. D. SOME NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH ARE ALREADY CHARACTERIZED BY MULTI -CAP, FAMILIES HAVE CRITICAL ON- STREET PARKING PROBLEMS. THE EFFECT OF ALLOWING SECOND UNITS WOULD BE ADDITIONAL ON- STREET PARKING IN MANY NEIGHBORHOODS. 4. PROBABLE DECLINING PROPERTY VALUES WOULD BE SUFFERED BY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. 0--moatr 1�� 6e -3Vy ORDINANCE NO. NS-3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ADDING ARTICLE 16A RELATING TO SECOND UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Article 16A is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, to read as follows: "ARTICLE 16A SECOND UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES Sec. 16A.1 - Statement of Findings. The City recognizes that some of its existing housing resources could provide a cost - effective method to deal with housing needs. However, there are environmental and service constraints the City faces which limit the use of methods such as adding second dwelling units. In particular, such units would not be appropriate on hillside lots since these lots usually have environmental constraints on development. In the flatter portions of the City, the use of second dwelling units is limited by the amount of traffic that can adequately be accommodated on local streets. Public safety, fire hazard and urban service capacity also limit the amount of development that can take place. The following Article incorporates these limitations. Sec. 16A.2 - Definition of Second Unit. As used in this Article and elsewhere in this Ordinance, the term "second unit" shall mean a separate residential unit containing sleeping quarters, a separate kitchen (cooking facilities), bathroom facilities and its own separate entrance, created upon a lot within the "A" (Agricultural), "R -1" (Residential), "HC -RD" (Hillside Conservation Residential), or "NHR" (Northwestern Hillside Residential) zoning district that already contains one legally created residential unit. Subject to the restrictions contained in Section 16A.4, a second unit may be either attached to or detached and separate from the existing main dwelling. Sec. 16A.3 - Use Permit Required. A second unit may be created or occupied only if a use permit has been granted for such second unit pursuant to the provisions of Article 16 and this Article 16A. 3/1/84 /HST Muni 2 -1- Sec. 16A.4 - Restrictions and Standards. Only one second unit shall be permitted on any one lot, and no second unit shall be permitted on any lot having an average slope in excess of ten percent (10%). Each second unit shall comply with all of the following standards before a use permit may be granted: (a) The lot upon which the second unit will be created is located within the "A ", "11-111, "HC -RD" or "NHR" zoning district, except that no second units shall be permitted on any lot within the R -1- 10,000 zoning district. (b) The second unit is no larger than 800 square feet of living space, not including the garage. (c) The second unit complies with applicable building, health and fire codes. (d) The second unit complies with applicable zoning ordinance requirements (including, but not limited to, required setbacks, coverage, height limits and design review). (e) A minimum of one (1) parking space enclosed within a structure is provided for the second unit in addition to the covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. (f) The second unit shall be served by sanitary sewer. Under no circumstances will a second unit be served by a septic tank system. (g) Either the existing main dwelling or the second unit is main- tained as the principal place of residence of the record owner of the lot. In the case of ownership by a corporation, partnership, trust or association, either the main dwelling or the second unit shall be the place of residence of an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a trustor, trustee or beneficiary of the trust, a member of the association, or an employee of any such organi- zation. (h) The second unit is served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. (i) The second unit may not be occupied by more than two people as permanent living quarters. (j) If the second unit is detached from the main dwelling, the lot upon which the second unit is located must be twice the minimum site area required for the zoning district applicable to such lot. (k) The second unit shall comply with such other conditions or standards which, in the judgment of the City Planning 3/1/84 /HST Muni 2 -2- s. Commission, are necessary or appropriate to mitigate possible adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Sec. 16A.5 - Inspections. (a) Prior to the public hearing on the use permit, an inspection of the property shall be conducted to determine that the proposed second unit, and any main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, will comply with all applicable building, health, fire and zoning codes. If a use permit is granted, a further inspection to determine such compliance shall be conducted after any construction or alteration work is completed. (b) Each second unit and each main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshall or his designated representative prior to the public hearing for the use permit. Any recommendations by the Fire Marshall shall be a condition for the granting of a use permit. Such recommendations may include the connection of the second unit to an existing or proposed remote alarm system installed in the main dwelling. Sec. 16A.6 - Findings Required for Use Permit. Subject to the numerical limitation prescribed in Section 16A.7, the City Planning Commission may grant an application for a second unit use permit as applied, for or in modified form, if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Commission makes all of the findings set forth in Section 16.6 of this Ordinance and all of the following additional findings: (a) The proposed second unit complies with the standards described in Section 16A.4. (b) The proposed second unit will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to residents of adjoining properties. (c) The proposed second unit is designed to the compatible with the exterior appearance and character of the existing main dwelling. (d) The proposed second unit is designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of form, bulk, height, material and landscaping. (e) The proposed second unit will not cause unreasonable noise, traffic congestion, parking congestion or overload existing public facilities or utilities. Sec. 16A.7 - Limitation on Number of Use Permits. 3/1/84 /HST Muni 2 -3- (a) During the first year after the effective date of this Article, a maximum number of twenty (20) use permits for second units may be granted. Prior to the first anniversary of such effective date, the City Council shall review the impacts of the second units established under such use permits. A public hearing shall be conducted for this purpose. The City Council shall then determine the limitation, if any, on the number of use permits for second units to be granted during the next successive year or such longer period of time as may be specified until the next review by the City Council. The numerical limitation may be increased, decreased or retained by the City Council, based upon its review of impacts caused by the creation of second units. (b) During any period of time in which a limitation on the number of use permits for second units is imposed, all applications for such use permits shall be date stamped and consecutively numbered when received and permits shall be granted in the order of receipt. The Director of Community Development, or his representative, may decline to receive any application which is not accompanied by payment of the application fee and all information and documents described in Section 16.3 of this Ordinance. If a use permit is granted by the Planning Commission and the matter is thereafter appealed to the City Council, the use permit shall still be included within the numerical limitation unless and until the granting thereof is reversed by the City Council on appeal. If the application for such use permit is denied by the Planning Commission, such application shall not be included within the numerical limitation notwithstanding any appeal to the City Council; provided, however, in the event a use permit is granted by the City Council on appeal, such use permit shall have priority over applications granted subsequent to the date on which the City Council renders its decision. Sec. 16A.8 - Revocation of Use Permit. In addition to the grounds for revocation of a use permit as set forth in Section 16.11 of this Ordinance, the Planning Commission may revoke any use permit for a second unit upon a finding that: (a) The second unit has failed to comply with any of the standards contained in Section 16A.4; or (b) The owner of the property has failed to establish the second unit within a reasonable time after the granting of the use permit; or (c) The second unit has been eliminated through alteration of the structure in which such unit was contained; or (d) Any of the findings required under paragraph (e) of Section 16A.6 can no longer be made. 3/1/84 /HST Muni 2 -4- d Sec. 16A.9 - Legalization of Existing Second Units. (a) Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the effective date of this Article, the owner of any lot containing a second unit established prior to such effective date shall apply for a use permit pursuant to this Article. (b) The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify the standards set forth in paragraphs (b), (h) and (j) of Section 16A.4 and the Commission may grant a variance pursuant to Article 17 of this Ordinance with respect to the standards set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 16A.4, provided the Commission is able to make all of the other findings required under Section 16A.6 for the existing second unit. (c) Use permits for legalization of existing second units granted within one year after the effective date of this Article shall not be subject to or included within the numerical limitation prescribed in Section 16A.7. Sec. 16A.10 - Illegal Second Units. The establishment or continuance of a second unit without a use permit is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute an infraction and a public nuisance. Any violation of this Article 16A shall be subject to the penalties as provided in Article 2.5 of the Saratoga City Code." follows: follows: follows: follows: SECTION 2: Section 2.3(g) is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3 to read as "(g) One second unit, under a use permit granted pursuant to Article 16A of this Ordinance." SECTION 3: Section 3.3(1) is hereby added to Ordinance N'S -3 to read as 11(1) One second unit, under a use permit granted pursuant to Article 16A of this Ordinance." SECTION 4: Section 3.6 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as "Not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on each site, unless a use permit for a second unit has been granted pursuant to Article 16A of this Ordinance." SECTION 5: Section 3B.4(j) is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3 to read as "(j) One second unit, under a use permit granted pursuant to Article 16A of this Ordinance." 3/1/84 /HST Muni 2 -5- as follows: follows: SECTION 6: Section 11.2(a) of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read "(a) One-family dwellings. Two spaces, located in a garage or carport, for each dwelling unit except a second unit established under a use permit granted pursuant to Article 16A of this Ordinance, which shall comply with the parking requirement specified in Section 16A.4(f)." SECTION 7: Section 16.1 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as "A conditional use is not a matter of right, and the Planning Commission may deny a use permit for a use listed as conditional use if it finds that the proposed use will adversely affect existing uses in the immediate neighborhood, or will adversely affect surrounding property and its occupants or its anticipated permitted use or uses. A conditional use may be permitted by a use permit to have different site area, density, structure height, distances between structures, site coverage, front, side and rear yard minimums, off - street parking requirements, other than as listed under the specific regulations for unconditional permitted uses in the zoning district in which it lies; provided, however, no modification of such regulations shall be made in the case of a use permit for a second unit granted pursuant to Article 16A of this Ordinance except as specifically provided in paragraph (b) of Section 16A.9." SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 9: This Ordinance _shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted this day 3/1/84 /HST Muni 2 -6- t d of , 1984, by the following vote: AYES: 09106T ABSENT: ATTEST: CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA 3/1/84 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA -7- GF- 4 "E ait B" FINDINGS: 1. The proposed changes in the text of the zoning ordinance are required to achieve the objectives of the General Plan and the zoning ordinance as prescribed in Section 1.1 of the ord- inance. 2. The proposed changes in the text of the zoning ordinance are required to comply with State Law taking into account the environmental constraints of the City and the concerns of its residents. 3. The proposed zoning amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment, or adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. • • • LOS GATOS - SARATOGA BOARD OF REALTORS 20454 Blauer Drive, Saratoga, California 95070 Telephone 408 867 -0922 REALTOR May 11, 1984 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Moyles and Councilmembers: The Los Gatos - Saratoga Board of REALTORS wishes to congratulate the Council on its decision to implement a second unit ordinance for the City of Saratoga. We have, however, a number of concerns which we would like to address regarding the draft ordinance before you for adoption. We question whether the senior citizen requirement is legal and also whether it is wise. As long as one unit is owner- occupied, one can reasonably be assured.that the renter will be a "good" tenant. We also wonder whether the City can limit the occupancy to two per- sons according to the Adamson vs. Santa Barbara case. The square footage requirement would certainly limit the number of persons as a matter of comfort, and as stated above,.the owner - occupancy requirement will take care of concerns with regards to too many people in one unit. Why should a couple with a child or a single parent with two children be excluded from the availability of living in the second unit? The change of ownership provision, although perhaps beneficial, will be extremely hard to enforce. We understand the Council's concerns in this regard, but feel that the goal of the ordinance is to provide affordable housing in the community. This requirement, which we understand will include additional fees and more public hearings,will be a deterent to the ultimate goal. Thank you in advance for your consideration of these areas of concern for the Board of REALTORS. We look forward to working with the Council again on issues of mutual concern. WAM:jn cc:, Glenna Thomas, President REALTOR' — is a reg,stered mark which idenhhes a professional m real estate who subscribes to a strict Code of Ethics as a member of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS. Sincerely, William A. Murphy, Chairman Local Governmental Relations Committee 0 o ��o onio.n. EIA -4 Saratoga CFile No: GF -344 DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Sections 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and.Resolu- tion 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Adoption of an ordinance to allow second units on certain single- family lots in certain R -1 districts in the City of Saratoga through the use permit process. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga CA 95070 REASON F6R NEGATIVE DECLARATION The number of second units anticipated is unlikely to be substantial. These units will be infill projects which will not require the sig- nificant extension of urban services. Construction impacts will be mitigated through the use permit process and by application of existing codes and ordinances. Executed at Saratoga, California this 6th day of September , 19 83. ROBERT S. SHOOK DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OF THE CITY OF SAM, TOGAe DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER . A PAUL B. SMITH ERIC L. FARASYN LEONARD J. SIEGAL HAROLD S. TOPPEL STEVEN G. BAIRD JACK L. BRIDGE GREGORY A. MANCHUK ATKINSON - FARASYN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 660 WEST DANA STREET P.O. BOX 279 MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFOENIA 94042 (415) 967 -6941 MEMORANDUM To: Saratoga City Council From: Harold S. Toppel, City Attorney Re: Revised Second Unit Ordinance Dated: May 7, 1984 J. M. ATKINSON, (1892 -1982) L. M. FARASYN, (1915 -1979) Attached is a revised draft of the second unit ordinance incorporating the items discussed at your regular meeting on May 2, 1984. The changes are as follows: 1. Section 16A.1 - Slight change in wording for clarity; no change in substance. 2. Section 16A.2 - The reference to a separate entrance as part of the definition of a second unit has been deleted since a common entrance is now required for an attached unit. 3. Section 16A.4 - Subparagraph (a) has been expanded to prohibit second units on any nonconforming lot. In subparagraph (e) the requirement for an "enclosed" parking space has been changed to a "covered" parking space. A new subparagraph (h) has been added to require that either the second unit or the main dwelling be occupied by a person 65 years of age or older. A new subparagraph (k) has also been added to require a common entrance for an attached second unit. Finally, subparagraph (1) has been revised to require 1.6 times the minimum site area for a detached second unit, rather than twice the minimum site area. 4. Section 16A.7 - In the last sentence of subparagraph (a) a reference has been added to legalization of existing second units. This reference should have been included in the original draft. 5. Section 16A.8 - This is a new section which provides for expiration of the second unit use permit after 5 years or upon change of ownership, whichever first occurs. The 5 -year expiration date is intended to serve as a monitoring system to insure compliance with the requirements for a second unit, particularly the requirement that either the main or second unit be occupied by a senior. The expiration date is also intended to avoid the need for annual certifications, which neither the council nor staff wished to implement, and ,provides a backup means of ascertaining unreported changes of ownership. Memorandum to Saratoga City Council May 7, 1984 Page Two After the expiration of 5 years, or upon any change in ownership, the use permit can be renewed by filing a new application. If the application is submitted prior to or within 60 days after the expiration date, the permit would not be subject to any numerical limitation then in force. This exception will allow continued use of a second unit provided all of the requirements can still be satisfied. 6. Section 16A.9 - This section has been added to require recordation of the original use permit as notice to third parties (including prospective purchasers) of the restrictions on the use permit and the fact that the existing permit will automatically expire after 5 years or upon any change of ownership. 7. Section 16A.11 - Subparagraph (a) has been amended to clarify that within 120 days after the effective date of the ordinance, the owner of a property having an existing second unit must either discontinue such unit or apply for a use permit. Subparagraph (b) has been revised to provide that the Planning Commission may vary some of the standards only with respect to second units established more than 6 months prior to the effective date of the ordinance. The presumption here is that any person who created an illegal a second unit within 6 months, did so with knowledge that a second unit ordinance was under consideration. The standards should not be modified for such person who may have chosen to "jump the gun." It should also be remembered that in the case of any application to legalize an existing second unit, the Planning Commission has authority to deny the application and require that the existing unit be removed. Many of the changes incorporated into the Planning Commission. Consequently, I do no' refer the ordinance back to the Commission fordo the revised draft were discussed by fee is necessary to once again Ej:106ra ion of tt,i,ese changes. Saratoga City Attorney UvJe r I vi i vta i J i cares Y- evisel at RJJ1+;V'Aa) a\AJ va%t * iv►�.iCa4es 4e)e�iaw ORDINANCE NO. NS -3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING ORDINANCE NS-3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ADDING ARTICLE 16A RELATING TO SECOND UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Article 16A is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, to read as follows: "ARTICLE 16A. SECOND UNITS AS CONDITIONAL USES Sec. 16A.1 - Statement of Findings. The City recognizes that some of its existing housing resources could provide a cost - effective method to deal with housing needs. However, there are environmental and service constraints the City faces which limit the use of methods such as adding second dwelling units. In particular, such units would not be appropriate on hillside lots since these lots usually have environmental constraints on development. The use of second dwelling units is also limited by urban service capacity, public safety_ standards, traffic conditions, fire hazards, privacy impacts and compatibility with neighboring uses and structures. The following Article incorporates these limitations. Sec. 16A.2 - Definition of Second Unit. As used in this Article and elsewhere in this Ordinance, the term "second unit" shall mean a separate residential unit containing sleeping quarters, a separate kitchen (cooking facilities) and bathroom facilities, created upon a lot within the "A" (Agricultural), 11R -1" (Residential), "HC- RD" (Hillside Conservation Residential), or "N HR" (Northwestern Hillside Residential) zoning district that already contains one legally created residential unit. Subject to the restrictions contained in Section 16A.4, a second unit may be either attached to or detached and separate from the existing main dwelling. Sec. 16A.3 - Use Permit Required. A second unit may be created or occupied only if a use permit has been granted for such second unit pursuant to the provisions of Article 16 and this Article 16A. 5/7/84/14ST Muni 2 -1- Sec. 16A.4 - Restrictions and Standards. Only one second unit shall be permitted on any one lot, and no second unit shall be permitted on any lot having an average slope in excess of ten percent (10%). Each second unit shall comply with all of the following standards before a use permit may be granted: (a) The lot upon which the second unit will, be created is located within the "q ", "R -1", "HC -RD" or "NHR" zoning district; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, no second units shall be permitted: (1) On any lot within the R -1- 10,000 zoning district; or (2) On any lot which is smaller than the minimum site area prescribed for. the zoning district wherein such o is located. (b) The second unit is no larger than 800 square feet of living space, not including the garage. (c) The second unit complies with applicable building, health and fire codes. (d) The second unit complies with applicable zoning ordinance requirements (including, but not limited to, required setbacks, coverage, height limits and design review). (e) A minimum of one (1) covered parking spaces provided for the second unit in addition to the covered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. (f) The second unit shall be served by sanitary sewer. Under no circumstances will a second unit be served by a septic tank system. (g) Either the existing main dwelling or the second unit is main- tained as the principal place of residence of the record owner of the lot. In the case of ownership by a corporation, partnership, trust or association, either the main dwelling or the second unit shall be the place of residence of an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a trustor, trustee or beneficiary of the trust, a member of the association, or an employee of any such organi- zation. (h) Either the second unit or the existing main structure is occupied as the principal residence of a person sixty- ive years of age or older. M The second unit is served by the same driveway access to the street as the existing main dwelling. 5/7/84/HST Muni 2 -2- The second unit may not be occupied by more than two people as permanent living quarters. W If the second unit is attached to the main dwelling, both the second unit and the main dwelling must be served by a common entrance. (1) If the second unit is detached from the main dwelling, the lot upon which the second unit is located must be at least 1.6 times the minimum site area prescribed for the zoning district applicable to such lot. m) The second unit shall comply with such other conditions or standards which, in the judgment of the City Planning Commission, are necessary or appropriate to mitigate possible adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Sec. 16A.5 - Inspections. (a) Prior to the public hearing on the use permit, an inspection of the property shall be conducted to determine that the proposed second unit, and any main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, will comply with all applicable building, health, fire and zoning codes. If a use permit is granted, a further inspection to determine such compliance shall be conducted after any construction or alteration work is completed. (b) Each second unit and each main dwelling to which a second unit will be attached by a common wall, shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshall or his designated representative prior to the public hearing for the use permit. Any recommendations by the Fire Marshall shall be a condition for the granting of a use permit. Such recommendations may include the connection of the second unit to an existing or proposed remote alarm system installed in the main dwelling. Sec. 16A.6 - Findings Required for Use Permit. Subject to the numerical limitation prescribed in Section 16A.7, the City Planning Commission may grant an application for a second unit use permit as applied for or in modified form, if, on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the Commission makes all of the findings set forth in Section 16.6 of this Ordinance and all of the following additional findings: (a) The proposed second unit complies with the standards described in Section 16A.4. (b) The proposed second unit will not unreasonably interfere with the privacy otherwise available to residents, of adjoining properties. 5/7/84/1-iST Muni 2 -3- (c) The proposed second unit is designed to the compatible with the exterior appearance and character of the existing main dwelling. (d) The proposed second unit is designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood in terms of form, bulk, height, material and landscaping. (e) The proposed second unit will not cause unreasonable noise, traffic congestion, parking congestion or overload existing public facilities or utilities. Sec. 16A.7 - Limitation on Number of Use Permits. (a) During the first year after the effective date of this Article,. a maximum number of twenty (20) use permits for second units may be granted. Prior to the first anniversary of such effective date, the City Council shall review the impacts of the second units established under such use permits. A public hearing shall be conducted for this purpose. The City Council shall then determine .the limitation, if any, on the number of use permits for second units to be granted during .the next successive year .or such longer period of time as may be specified until the next review by the City Council. The numerical limitation may be increased, decreased or retained by the City Council, based upon its review of impacts caused by the creation of new second units and legalization of existing second units. (b) During any period of time in which a limitation on the number of use permits for second units is imposed, all applications for such use permits shall be date stamped and consecutively numbered when received and permits shall be granted in the order of receipt. The Director of Community Development, or his representative, may decline to receive any application which is not accompanied by payment of the application fee and all information and documents described in Section 16.3 of this Ordinance. If a use permit. is granted by the Planning Commission and the matter is thereafter appealed to the City Council, the use permit shall still be included within the numerical limitation unless and until the granting thereof is reversed by the City Council on appeal. If the application for such use permit is denied by the Planning Commission, such application shall not be included within the numerical limitation notwithstanding any appeal to the City Council; provided, however, in the event a use permit is granted by the City Council on appeal, such use permit shall have priority over applications granted subsequent to the date on which the City Council renders its decision. Sec. 16A.8 = IJx i_p ration of Use Permit. °cond unit permit issued pursuant to this Ai matically expire five (5) years from the date of i 5/7/84/HST Muni 2 -4- change of ownership of the property on which the herein, the term "change of ownership" small mean any conveyance or transfer of an ownership interest or interests PXoPPr1lnv_ In the aLTezreLate, tittv percent 01 the entire limited to, the .transfer of an equitable interest pursuant to a land contract. (b) Either before or after the expiration date, a new application for a second unit use permit may be filed pursuant to this Article and shall be subject to all of the provisions and standards contained herein; provided, however, if the application is filed prior to or within sixty 60 days after the expiration date, the use permit shall -not be subject to or, included within any numerical limitation established under Section 16A.7. Sec. 16A.9 - Recordation of Use Permit. The original second unit use permit shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder for Santa Clara County, California. All of the restrictions applicable to such use permit shall be set forth therein, together with the expiration date as provided in Section 16A.8. Sec. 16A.10 - Revocation of Use Permit. In addition to the grounds for revocation of a use permit as set forth in Section 16.11 of this Ordinance, the Planning Commission may revoke any use permit for a second unit upon a finding that: (a) The second unit has failed to comply with any of the applicable standards contained in Section 16A.4; or (b) The owner of the property has failed to establish the second unit within a reasonable time after the granting of the use permit; or (c) The second unit has been eliminated through alteration of the structure in which such unit was contained; or (d) Any of the findings required under paragraphs (b) or (e) of Section 16A.6 can no longer be made. Sec. 16A.11 - Legalization of Existing Second Units. (a) Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the effective date of this Article, the owner of any lot containing a second unit established prior to such effective date shall either discontinue such unit or apply for a use permit pursuant to this Article. (b) In the case of applications for legalization of existing second units established more than six 6 months prior to the effective date of this Article, the Planning Commission shall have 5/7/84/HST Muni 2 -5- authority to modify the standards set forth in paragraphs (b), (i), (k) and (1) of Section 16A.4 and the Commission may grant a variance pursuant to Article 17 of this Ordinance with respect to the standards set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 16A.4, provided the Commission is able. to make all of the other findings required under Section 16A.6 for the existing second unit.._ (c) Use permits for legalization of existing second units granted within one year after the effective date of this Article shall not be subject to or included within the numerical limitation prescribed in Section 16A.7. Sec. 16A.12 - Illegal Second Units. The establishment or continuance of a second unit without a use permit is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute an infraction and a public nuisance. Any violation of this Article 16A shall be subject to the penalties as provided in Article 2.5 of the Saratoga City Code." follows: follows: follows: follows: as follows: SECTION 2: Section 2.3(g) is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3 to read as "(g) One second unit, under a use permit granted pursuant to Article 16A of this Ordinance." SECTION 3: Section 3.3(1) is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3 to read as "(1) One second unit, under a use permit granted pursuant to Article 16A of this Ordinance, except in the R -1- 10,000 District." SECTION 4: Section 3.6 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as "Not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on each site, unless a use permit for a second unit has been granted pursuant to Article 16A of this Ordinance." SECTION 5: Section 3B.4(j) is hereby added to Ordinance NS -3 to read as "(j) One second unit, under a use permit granted pursuant to Article 16A of this Ordinance." SECTION 6: Section 11.2(a) of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read "(a) One- family dwellings. Two spaces, located in a garage or carport, for each dwelling unit except .a second unit established under a use permit granted pursuant to Article 1GA of this 5/7/84/HST Muni 2. -6- follows: Ordinance, which shall comply with the parking requirement, specified in Section 16A.4(e)." SECTION 7: Section 16.1 of Ordinance NS -3 is hereby amended to read as "A conditional use is not a matter. of right, and the. Planning Commission may deny a use permit for a use listed as conditional use if it finds that the proposed use will adversely affect existing uses in the immediate neighborhood, or will adversely affect surrounding property and its occupants or its anticipated permitted use or uses. A conditional use may be permitted by a use permit to have different site area, density, structure height, distances between structures, site coverage, front, side and rear yard minimums, off - street parking requirements, other than as listed under the specific regulations for unconditional permitted uses in the zoning district in which it lies; provided, however, no modification of such regulations shall be made in the case of a use permit for a second unit granted pursuant to Article 16A of this Ordinance except as specifically provided in paragraph (b) of Section 16A.11." SECTION 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council.of the City of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses or phrases may be held invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 9: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing Ordinance was regularly introduced and after the waiting time required by law, was thereafter passed and adopted this day 5/7/84/1 ST lViuni 2 -7- of , 1984, by the following vote: AYES: N OES: ABSENT: MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ATTEST: CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA 5/7/84/1-1ST Muni 2 -8-