HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-12-14 Planning Commission Agenda PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 3
October 22, 2014
Draft Minutes 5
Application ELN14-0005; 18594 Ravenwood Drive (397-43-
040); Brett & Katherine Dawson (Owner)/Steve Howard
Construction (Applicant) - The applicant requests Planning
Commission approval to remodel an existing 2,072 square foot,
one story, single-family home which encroaches into both the
left and right side setback areas. The project would include a
765 square foot addition which would conform to all setbacks.
Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan(408) 868-1235.
Staff Report 7
Attachment 1 - Resolution 11
Attachment 2 - Arborist Report 15
Attachment 3 - Development Plans 21
Applications PDR14-0013, ARB14-0030; 19421 San Marcos
Road ; APN 397-13-017; Wenting Li & Yan Jiang (Applicant) -
The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to
construct a new 5,909 square foot two story single-family home
with a 1,172 square foot basement. The project would also
include the construction of an 817 square foot one story
detached secondary dwelling unit. The net site area is 48,007
square feet and the property is zoned R-1-40,000. Staff Contact:
Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235
Staff Report 27
Attachment 1 - Resolution 34
Attachment 2 - Arborist Report 38
Attachment 3 - Public Hearing Notice 50
Attachment 4 - Neighbor Notification Forms 51
Attachment 5 - CalGreen Checklist 55
Attachment 6 - Development Plans 62
Application PDR14-0021; 15220 El Camino Grande / 397-08-
038; Calderon - The applicant is proposing an 873 square foot
addition to an existing home. The remodeled home and
accessory structures will have a total floor area of 4,924 square
feet. The addition includes a new entry feature that will be 26
feet in height. No protected trees are requested for removal.
Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230.
staff report 75
Attachment 1 - PC Resolution 80
Attachment 2 - Geotechnical Clearance Memo 84
Attachment 3 - Arborist Report 85
Attachment 4 - PC Notice 90
Attachment 5 - Neighbor forms 91
Attachment 6 - Plans 92
1
Application CUP09-0014; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd / 386-
30-039; Time-Space Investment Development LLC; Pursuant to
City Code Section 15-55.100, the Planning Commission may
modify or delete any conditions of a conditional use permit or
impose any new conditions in order to preserve the public
health, safety or welfare, or to prevent the creation or
continuance of a public nuisance, or where such action is
necessary to preserve or restore any of the findings set forth in
City Code Section 15-55.070. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick
(408) 868-1230.
11-12-14 Staff Report 103
Attachment 1 - signed resolution 2009 108
Attachment 2 -2009 Staff Report 114
Attachment 3 - Trip Generation Letter 2014 121
Attachment 4 -traffic collisions 2010-2014 123
Attachment 5 - 11-12-14 Notice 124
Attachment 6 - neighbor letter 125
Application CUP14-0007; 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; Our
Lady of Fatima Villa - Pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.100,
the Planning Commission may modify or delete any conditions
of a conditional use permit or impose any new conditions in
order to preserve the public health, safety or welfare, or to
prevent the creation or continuance of a public nuisance, or
where such action is necessary to preserve or restore any of the
findings set forth in City Code Section 15-55.070. Staff Contact:
Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230.
Staff Report 126
Attachment 1 - 2014 CUP Resolution 132
Attachment 2 - COA comparison chart 139
Attachment 3 - ZOA 14-0001 Ordinance 143
Attachment 4 - 11-12-14 Notice 148
Attachment 5 - Resolution of Approval DR-99-052 149
Attachment 6 - Resolution of Approval UP-99-021 156
Attachment 7 - Resolution of Approval 02-042 159
Application GPA14-0006, ZOA14-0004, (City Wide)- 2015-2023
General Plan Housing Element Implementation Ordinance
including Conforming Amendments to the Land Use Element.
Staff Contact. Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235
Staff Report 163
Att. 1 - Resolution 168
Att. 1A - Recommended Changes to Chapter 15 170
Att. 1B - Land Use Element Conforming Amendments 178
Att. 2 - 2015 - 2013 draft Housing Element 180
2
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777
FRUITVALE AVENUE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 22, 2014
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items
Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters
not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such
items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under
Planning Commission direction to Staff.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an “Appeal Application” with the City Clerk
within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Application ELN14-0005; 18594 Ravenwood Drive (397-43-040); Brett & Katherine Dawson
(Owner)/Steve Howard Construction (Applicant) - The applicant requests Planning Commission approval
to remodel an existing 2,072 square foot, one story, single-family home which encroaches into both the left
and right side setback areas. The project would include a 765 square foot addition which would conform to
all setbacks. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan(408) 868-1235.
Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 14-015 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants and their representatives
have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for
up to three minutes. Applicants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing
statements.
1. Applications PDR14-0013, ARB14-0030; 19421 San Marcos Road ; APN 397-13-017; Wenting Li & Yan
Jiang (Applicant) - The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a new 5,909
square foot two story single-family home with a 1,172 square foot basement. The project would also
include the construction of an 817 square foot one story detached secondary dwelling unit. The net site area
is 48,007 square feet and the property is zoned R-1-40,000. Staff Contact: Chris Riordan (408) 868-1235
3
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-051 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
2. Application PDR14-0021; 15220 El Camino Grande / 397-08-038; Calderon - The applicant is proposing
an 873 square foot addition to an existing home. The remodeled home and accessory structures will have a
total floor area of 4,924 square feet. The addition includes a new entry feature that will be 26 feet in height.
No protected trees are requested for removal. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230.
Recommended action:
Adopt Resolution No. 14-050 approving the project subject to conditions of approval.
3. Application CUP09-0014; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd / 386-30-039; Time-Space Investment
Development LLC; Pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.100, the Planning Commission may modify or
delete any conditions of a conditional use permit or impose any new conditions in order to preserve the
public health, safety or welfare, or to prevent the creation or continuance of a public nuisance, or where
such action is necessary to preserve or restore any of the findings set forth in City Code Section 15-55.070.
Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick (408) 868-1230.
Recommended action:
Review the conditional use permit and determine whether any action is necessary. If the Commission
directs staff to undertake revisions to the Conditional Use Permit, staff will return at a future meeting with
updated conditions, following notice to the public.
4. Application CUP14-0007; 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road; Our Lady of Fatima Villa - Pursuant to City
Code Section 15-55.100, the Planning Commission may modify or delete any conditions of a conditional
use permit or impose any new conditions in order to preserve the public health, safety or welfare, or to
prevent the creation or continuance of a public nuisance, or where such action is necessary to preserve or
restore any of the findings set forth in City Code Section 15-55.070. Staff Contact: Cynthia McCormick
(408) 868-1230.
Recommended action:
Approve Resolution 14-049 (Attachment 1) approving an updated Conditional Use Permit and associated
conditions for CUP 14-0007.
5. Application GPA14-0006, ZOA14-0004, (City Wide)- 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element
Implementation Ordinance including Conforming Amendments to the Land Use Element. Staff Contact.
Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235
Recommended action:
Recommend approval to the City Council of a General Plan Housing Element Implementation Ordinance
and Conforming Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element.
PLANNING STAFF/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of
the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on November 6, 2014 at the City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added
to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp.
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
4
ACTION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
October 22, 2014
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777
FRUITVALE AVENUE
ROLL CALL
PRESENT Commissioners Leonard Almalech, Wendy Chang, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Pragati
Grover, Dede Smullen, Tina Walia, Chair Mary-Lynne Bernald
ABSENT None
ALSO PRESENT James Lindsay, Community Development Director
Michael Fossati, Planner
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSION & PUBLIC
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approve Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 8, 2014
Action:
ALMALECH/GROVER MOVED TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 8, 2014 MINUTES. MOTION
PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN,
WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. APPLICATION PDR14-0010; 18645 McFarland Ave. (389-14-015); Mahmoud Khorashadi -
The project is to construct a new one-story residence, two-car garage, and attached secondary
dwelling unit. The height of would be no taller than 21 feet. Planning Commission design review
is required because the project consists of a new single-story residence over 18 feet in height. No
protected trees are being proposed for removal. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212.
Action:
ALMALECH/WALIA MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO A DATE UNCERTAIN.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER,
SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
2. APPLICATION PDR11-0003 & VAR11-0001; 21794 Heber Way (503-31-067); Eric Keng /
Steve Sheng – The project is a Design Review and Variance to construct a new two-story
residence with a three-car garage on a hillside lot. The height will be no taller than 26 feet from
average grade. The variance is required because the applicant is proposing a 97 foot front setback
(when 131 foot setback is required) and a 20 foot and 30 foot side setback (when a 45 foot side
setback is required). No protected trees are being proposed for removal. This meeting is
continued from the September 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. Staff Contact: Michael
Fossati (408) 868-1212.
5
Action:
WALIA/GROVER MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE JANUARY 14, 2015
MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS,
GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
PLANNING STAFF/COMMISSION COMMUNICATION
- Staff reviewed the November meeting schedule with the Commission.
- The Commission moved the Swim Center (12260 Saratoga Sunnyvale) application to the
November 12, 2015 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
WALIA/GROVER MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 9:25 PM. MOTION PASSED. AYES:
ALMALECH, BERNALD, CHANG, FITZSIMMONS, GROVER, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE
6
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: November 12, 2014
Application: ELN14-0005
Location / APN: 18594 Ravenwood Drive / 397-43-040
Owner/Applicant: Brett & Katherine Dawson/Steve Howard Construction
Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan
18594 Ravenwood Drive
SITE
7
18594 Ravenwood Drive / ELN14-0005
Page 2 of 4
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval to remodel an existing 2,072 square foot, one
story, single-family home which encroaches into both the left and right side setback areas. The
project would include a 765 square foot addition which would conform to all setbacks. The
proposed work will result in expenditure of approximately 49% of the estimated construction cost of
the existing structure, which requires approval by the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-015 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Sections 15-65.050(b).
PROJECT DATA:
Net Site Area: 10,160 SF
General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (M-10)
Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-10,000)
Proposed Allowed/Required
Site Coverage
Buildings
Driveway
Walkway
Pools and Patio
Total Site Coverage
3,213 sq. ft.
400 sq. ft.
265 sq. ft.
2,150 sq. ft.
6,028 sq. ft. (59%)
60% Maximum
(6,096 square feet)
Floor Area
First Floor & Porch
Garage
Pool Cabana
Storage Shed-Pool Equip. Enclosure
Total Floor Area
2,468 sq. ft.
369 sq. ft.
264 sq. ft.
127 sq. ft.
3,228 sq. ft.
3,370 sq. ft. Maximum
Height
15’-2”
26 feet Maximum
Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
25’-8”
5’-10’’
5’-11’’
37’-3”
25’
8’
8’
25’
8
18594 Ravenwood Drive / ELN14-0005
Page 3 of 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Project Description: The applicant is proposing an addition to, and remodel of, a legal non-
conforming one-story, approximately 15-feet tall, single-family residence located at 18594
Ravenwood Drive. The existing left (western) side setback is 5’-10” and the right (eastern) side
setback is 5’-11”. The required side setbacks for this site are eight feet because the site width (80-
feet) does not conform to the minimum 85-foot site width in the R-1-10,000 district.
The existing house is 2,072 square feet and the proposed addition is 765 square feet for a total of
2,837 square feet. The addition would be located at both the front and the rear of the structure and
will conform to all setbacks. The existing walls which encroach into the side setbacks are to
remain. The existing exterior materials of the residence are both wood siding and smooth stucco.
The remodeled structure will include both cedar shake siding, wood siding, and smooth stucco.
The 78 square foot pool equipment enclosure and the 49 square foot storage shed attached to the
eastern side of the structure are to remain. An existing concrete patio, swimming pool, hot tub, and
264 square foot pool cabana are located in the rear yard and there are no proposed changes to these
structures.
Trees: An existing 18’ magnolia tree is located on the left side of the property, near the area of the
front addition, and is proposed for removal. This is the only tree on the site that would be impacted
by the project. The City Arborist has reviewed the tree and has determined that it can be removed
as part of the project. The appraised value of this tree is $4,650 and new trees equaling this amount
are to be planted on site. The arborist report states that at least two of the trees are to be planted in
the front yard and at least one of the new trees should reach a height at maturity of at least 30 feet.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The property owner posted a sign in front of the
property, notifying neighbors of the application for a building permit. No comments have been
received as of the writing of this report.
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
Pursuant to City Code Section 15-65.050(b), major repair and alteration of a nonconforming
structure may be permitted if the Planning Commission is able to make the following
determinations:
(1) The repair and/or alteration will accommodate a conforming use. This finding may be
made in the affirmative because the project includes a residential addition where all portions of
the addition will conform to the City Code.
(2) The repair and/or alteration does not increase the degree of noncompliance, or otherwise
increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the requirements of this Chapter.
This finding may be made in affirmative in that the existing walls that encroach into the setbacks
are to remain and the area of the addition will conform to all setback requirements. In addition,
the existing roof structure is to remain and there will be no increase in roof height in the areas of
encroachment.
9
18594 Ravenwood Drive / ELN14-0005
Page 4 of 4
(3) The repair and/or alteration do not effectively extend or perpetuate the useful life of any
particular feature or portion of the structure which is nonconforming. This finding may be
made in the affirmative in that the portions of the structure including the walls and roof structure
which are nonconforming because they encroach into the side setback areas are to remain. Work
to the western side encroaching wall will be limited to new exterior siding and new and relocated
windows.
Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This
exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to
that exemption applies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-015 approving the project, subject to
conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Arborist Report
3. Development Plans (Exhibit "A")
10
RESOLUTION NO: 14-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR AN ALTERATION TO A NON-CONFORMING
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT
18594 RAVENWOOD DRIVE, SARATOGA CA 95070
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2014 an application was submitted by Steve Howard
Construction on behalf of Brett and Katherine Dawson requesting approval for the alteration of a
legal non-conforming single-family residence. The existing structure has a legal non-conforming
side setback along both sides of the residence that does not conform to the eight foot
requirement. The addition will conform to the city code. No significant structural changes will
occur to the exterior wall or roof structure where the non-conforming setback occurs.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt.
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2014, the Planning Commission held a meeting on the
subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and other
interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the
construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies;
Conservation Element Goal 2 and Land Use Element Goal 1 which states that the City shall
preserve the City’s existing character which includes small town residential, rural/semi-rural areas
and open spaces areas; Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect
the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new
development; and Land Use Element Policy 1.1 that the city shall continue to be predominantly a
community of single-family detached residences.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the repair and/or
alteration will accommodate a conforming use; the repair and/or alteration does not increase the
degree of noncompliance, or otherwise increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the
requirements of this Chapter; and the repair and/or alteration does not effectively extend or
perpetuate the useful life of any particular feature or portion of the structure which is
nonconforming.
11
Resolution No. 14-015
Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the removal of one
protected tree meets the criteria established in Section 15-50.080(a).
Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves ELN14-0005 and
ARB14-0005 located at 18594 Ravenwood Drive subject to the Findings, and Conditions of
Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 12th day of
November 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
12
Resolution No. 14-015
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ELN14-005 / ARB14-0005
18594 RAVENWOOD DRIVE / 397-43-040
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this
project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting
all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant
with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community
Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it
shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or
its equivalent.
2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this
approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This
approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all
processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all
processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is
maintained).
3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference.
4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action
on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done
or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting
on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate
agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and
Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney.
5. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A",
and as conditioned below. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in
13
Resolution No. 14-015
writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the
changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code.
6. Statement of Acknowledgment of Legal Nonconforming Status: The property Owner shall
record a Statement of Acknowledgment of Legal Nonconforming Status, satisfactory to the
Community Development Director, specifying the limits of any expansion and/or intensification
of the non-conforming structure.
7. Non-Conforming Structure Limitations. In no event shall the cumulative expenditures for
repairs and/or alterations on any nonconforming structure exceed fifty percent of the
estimated construction cost of the structure prior to such repairs and/or alterations, unless
such structure is changed to a conforming structure or otherwise satisfies the standards set
forth by City Code.
8. City Arborist. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated February 24, 2014 are hereby
adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans. This
includes, but is not limited to, all tree related conditions set forth above and the following
standard conditions of approval:
a. Tree Bond. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit, the Project Applicant or Owner shall
obtain and submit to the Community Development Department a Tree Bond in favor of the
City in the amount of $4,650 to guarantee the replacement of any removed trees or
rehabilitation of any damaged trees in a manner satisfactory to the City Arborist.
b. Release of Tree Bond. Prior to the City’s inspection for final approval of the completed
Project, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with all conditions of
approval related to trees. The Tree Bond required above shall be released after the planting
of required replacement trees, a site inspection by the City Arborist finding compliance with
all tree-related conditions contained in this Resolution, and payment of any outstanding City
Arborist fees.
9. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted
to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the
following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department.
b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the
Building Division.
c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages.
d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall
represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Approval.
14
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application #: ARB14-0005
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 18594 Ravenwood Drive
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Brett and Katherine Dawson
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-43-040
Email:
steve@stevehowardconstruction.com
johnmingo@verizon.net
Report History:
Report #1
Date:
Plans received February 4, 2014
Report completed February 24, 2014
PROJECT SCOPE:
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to add on to their house to the front and rear, and
remodel the interior.
STATUS: Approved with conditions by City Arborist.
This project has clearance from the arborist to proceed with the conditions of approval listed in
Attachment #3.
PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF:
Tree bond Required - $4,650 - See Attachment #1, Tree Data
Tree fencing Not Required
Tree removal
Permitted w/ building permit
Tree #1 approved for removal once building permits have been
issued.
Replacement trees Required
Install before final inspection. See the Findings section below.
FINDINGS:
Tree Removals
Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and
specific tree removal criteria met. One southern magnolia (#1) is in conflict with the addition in front
of the house, and meets the City’s criteria allowing it to be removed and replaced as part of the
Page 1 of 2
15
18594 Ravenwood Drive
project, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment #2 contains the tree removal
criteria for reference.
Magnolia #1 is the only tree potentially impacted by the proposed project. It grows in the front yard,
and will be about a foot away from the addition. It is in fair health, and is a species that has an
aggressive root system. It is also a species that requires regular irrigation to perform well, and the
tree in this yard appears somewhat stressed. This tree would likely succumb to the impacts of
construction if left in place. If that did not happen, it could damage the new foundation. Removal of
this tree and replacement with new trees on the property would be consistent with the Tree
Regulations, and would provide the homeowner with trees that are better adapted to the local climate
and less likely to cause damage to the house foundation.
The table below summarizes which of the tree removal criteria are met for this tree. The magnolia
meets the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced as part of the project. The tree
removal criteria are attached to the end of this report for reference.
Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met
Tree # Criteria met Criteria not met
1 1, 2, 7, 9 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
Replacement Trees:
The total appraised value of tree #1 is $4,650. New trees equal to this appraised value will be
required as a condition of the project. At least two trees should be planted in the front yard. The rest
may be planted anywhere on the property. One tree should reach a height at maturity of 30 feet or
more. Replacement values for new trees are listed below.
New Construction
Based on the information provided, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of
new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
#1 – Plan review and tree information
#2 – Tree removal criteria
#3 – Conditions of approval
#4 – Map of site showing tree locations and protective fencing
Replacement Tree Values:
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
IMPORTANT
This entire report, including attachments, shall be copied onto a plan
sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”, and included in the final set of plans.
Page 2 of 2
16
18594 Ravenwood Drive Attachment #1
PLAN REVIEW:
Architectural Plans reviewed:
Preparer: Elaine Lee Design
Date of Plans: January 13, 2014
Sheet A1 Site Plan and Cover Sheet
Sheet A2 Floor Plan
Sheet A3 Elevations
Sheets A4 Elevations and Sections
TREE DATA:
Tree Data: Collected by City Arborist
Table 1: Appraised Value
Species Trunk
Diameter
Canopy
Spread Health Structure Site Contri-
bution
Place
-ment
Appraised
value
Tree #1: Southern magnolia, Magnolia grandiflora
18 20 ft. 60 60 80 70 70 $4,650
Species rating = 90%
Appraised values were calculated using the Trunk Formula Method and according to the
Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. This was used in conjunction with the Species Classification and
Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004.
Table 2: Construction Impacts and Suitability for Preservation
Number Species
Trunk
Diameter
(inches)
Condition
Intensity of
Construction
Impacts
Suitability
for
Preservation
Southern magnolia
1 Magnolia grandiflora 18 Fair High Low
17
18594 Ravenwood Drive Attachment #2
TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA
Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article
15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If
findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and
replacement during construction.
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to
existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services;
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property;
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and
the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes;
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal
would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the
general welfare of residents in the area;
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry
practices;
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on
the protected tree;
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose
and intent of this Article;
(8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes
of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010; and
(9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is
no other feasible alternative to the removal.
Page 1 of 1
18
18594 Ravenwood Drive Attachment #3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Once the project is approved by the City arborist and planning, this entire arborist report shall
be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set
of plans.
2. Tree Protection Security Deposit - $4,650
a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080.
b. Shall be for tree(s) #1.
c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department
before obtaining Building Division permits.
d. May be in the form of a savings account, a certificate of deposit account or a bond.
e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project.
f. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City
Arborist.
3. Tree Protection Fencing: Not Required
4. No protected tree authorized for removal pursuant to this project may be removed until the
issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project.
5. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for
protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work.
6. Tree #1 meets the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced once Building
Division permits have been obtained.
7. New trees equal to $4,650 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and
occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species.
8. At least 2 trees shall be planted in the front yard. The rest may be planted anywhere on the
property, as long as they do not encroach on existing trees.
9. At least one new tree shall reach a height at maturity of 30 feet or more.
10. Replacement values for new trees are listed below.
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
11. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to have the tree protection security
deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final inspection.
Page 1 of 1
19
18594 Ravenwood Drive Legend
Tree Canopy
1
Tree #1 approved for removal
with building division permit.
Replacement trees required
before final inspection. See
Attachment #3.
Attachment #4
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: November 12, 2014
Application: PDR14-0013, ARB14-0030
Location / APN: 19421 San Marcos Road / 397-13-017
Owner/Applicant: Wenting Li & Yan Jiang
Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan
19421 San Marcos Road
SITE
27
Page 2 of 7
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a
new 5,909 square foot two story single-family home with a 1,172 square foot basement. The
project would also include the construction of an 817 square foot one story detached secondary
dwelling unit. The net site area is 48,007 square feet and the property is zoned R-1-40,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-051 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section
15-45.060(a)(3).
PROJECT DATA:
Gross/Net Site Area: 48,007 SF
Average Site Slope: 5%
General Plan Designation: RVLD
Zoning: R-1-40,000
Grading: 20 cubic yards (15 cut and 5 fill)
Proposed Allowed/Required
Proposed Site Coverage
Residential Footprint/Main Residence
Front Porch
Balconies/Patio
Veranda
Lightwell
Walks & Patio
Existing Pool
New Pool & Deck
Second Dwelling Unit
Driveway
Total Proposed Site Coverage
4,696 sq. ft.
139 sq. ft.
282 sq. ft.
667 sq. ft.
169 sq. ft.
1,840 sq. ft.
800 sq. ft.
2,448 sq. ft
1,187 sq. ft.
2,400 sq. ft.
14,628 sq. ft. (30.4%)
18,482 sq. ft.
[16,802 sq. ft. + 10%
(1,680 sq. ft.) increase
for a deed restricted
secondary
dwelling unit]
Floor Area
Main House
First Floor
Second Story
Garage
Secondary Dwelling Unit
Total Floor Area
3,974 sq. ft.
1,213 sq. ft.
722 sq. ft.
817 sq. ft.
6,726 sq. ft.
6,798 sq. ft.
[6,180 sq. ft. + 10%
(618 sq. ft.) increase for
a deed restricted
secondary
dwelling unit]
Height (Residence)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
Total Proposed Height
95.6
97.8
96.7
122.7
(26.00 ft.)
26 Feet
28
Page 3 of 7
Height (Second Dwelling)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
Total Proposed Height
96.00
97.50
96.75
116.42
(19.67 Ft.)
26 Feet
Setbacks
Main House
Front
Left
Right
Rear
Second Dwelling Unit
Front
Left
Right
Rear
110’
20’
40’-6”
54’
30’
20’
100’+
100’+
30’
20’
20’
50’
30’
20’
20’
50’
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site Description: The 48,007 square foot project site is located at 19421 San Marcos Road. The
average slope of the site is 5% with an average grade change of five feet from the southeast
corner of the site to its northeast corner. Surrounding uses include a parking lot and tennis courts
of West Valley College to the north and single-family homes on the remaining three sides which
are located on sites of similar size as the subject site. Site access is provided by a private
driveway that connects to San Marcos Road. A combination of wood and chain link fencing
surround the project site. Existing mature landscaping screens the site from adjacent properties.
The site is not visible from any public streets.
An existing 3,260 square foot one story single-family home and an 888 square foot detached
garage are located near the northeast corner of the site. An existing swimming pool and
equipment shed are located to the south of the existing residence. An additional shed is located to
the south of the swimming pool. A putting green is located near the front of the driveway. All
existing structures, with the exception of the swimming pool, are proposed for removal.
A total of 37 protected trees potentially impacted by the project were reviewed by the City
Arborist. These include Coast live oaks, Coast redwoods, California black walnut, and Mexican
fan palms. All trees are in fair or good condition with the exception of one Black walnut in poor
condition.
Project Description and Architectural Style: The project would include the construction of a
new two story single-family main residence and a secondary dwelling unit. The 5,187 square
feet main residence would be 26 feet tall with a 722 square foot attached garage. The 1,172
square feet basement would be located below grade and is not included in the project’s allowable
floor area. The project also includes a 817 square feet detached secondary dwelling unit located
approximately 65 feet south of the main residence. Both structures would have a consistent
architectural style.
29
Page 4 of 7
The residence would have a wide symmetrical building footprint with the second story situated
in the center of the building footprint with projecting one story projections on opposite sides. The
hipped roof would be covered with brown colored clay tiles. The exterior of the residence would
be covered in cement plaster with a smooth finish. A cultured stone veneer would accent the
columns of the front entrance as well as the base of the left side of the front elevation. Exterior
windows and doors would be a combination of both square and arched windows. A second story
balcony with wrought iron railings supported by pre-cast stone columns would be located on the
front elevation. The residence would include two gas fireplaces, one located in the family room
and the other in the living room. The decorative chimney cap, gutters, and downspouts would be
constructed of copper.
Secondary Dwelling Unit: The 817 square foot, one story, 19.7 feet tall secondary dwelling unit
would be located approximately 65 feet south of the main residence. This one bedroom building
with a great room and a full kitchen would have the same architectural style and exterior
materials as proposed for the main residence. A carport for one vehicle would be constructed on
the left side of the second unit.
Saratoga City Code Section 15-56.030(d) allows a one-time ten percent increase in site coverage
and allowable floor area if an applicant agrees to a deed restriction that would restrict the rental of a
second unit to below market rate (BMR) households. A condition has been added to the project
requiring this deed restriction be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. The provision of
the BMR second unit would allow the applicant to construct an additional 618 square feet of floor
area on the site above the maximum allowable floor area of 6,180 square feet as previously
discussed. In addition, the 16,802 square foot maximum site coverage would also be increased by
ten percent for total allowed site coverage of 18,482 square feet.
Landscaping: The proposed landscape plan illustrates that the project will feature flowering
plants, groundcover, and grasses. Two maple trees would be planted near the front of the
residence. The circular driveway as well as the driveway to the secondary unit would be
composed of pavers. Three rows of Italian cypress trees would be planted along the southern
property line and an additional row along the eastern property line to enhance privacy. The
existing swimming pool would be remodeled into a decorative pond and a new pool would be
constructed behind the residence. There is minimal existing landscaping behind the secondary
dwelling unit to minimize views from rear facing windows into the adjacent site – staff has
discussed this with the applicant and they have agreed to a condition of approval that additional
landscaping be added to the area behind the second unit.
Materials and Colors:
Detail Colors and Materials
Exterior Tan colored stucco and trim
Pre-Cast Column & Trim Natural Concrete Color
Windows Brown colored vinyl “wood clad” windows
Garage Door Wood Carriage Style – Natural Wood Stain
Wrought Iron Trim Gray Colored
30
Page 5 of 7
Cultured Stone Veneer Brown
Chimney, Gutters, Downspouts Copper
Driveway Calstone Pavers (Quarry Tuscan Gold)
Roof Two Piece Clay Tile
Trees: A total of 37 protected trees potentially impacted by the project were reviewed by the
City Arborist. These include Coast live oaks, Coast redwoods, California black walnut, and
Mexican fan palms. All trees are in fair or good condition.
Two protected trees are requested for removal to construct the project. These include one 14.5
inch Japanese maple located behind the existing residence and one 22 inch Mexican fan palm
located in front of the existing residence. Both of these trees are in conflict with the proposed
building location. Though not in conflict with the project, a 33 inch Black walnut tree in poor
condition located near the northeast corner of the site would also be removed.
The City Arborist has determined that all the trees proposed for removal meet the criteria
allowing removal and replacement as listed in the arborist report. Remaining protected trees in
the vicinity of the project will be protected during its duration.
Details of the arborist findings and descriptions of the tree to be removed are included in the
Arborist report which is included as Attachment #2.
Residential CalGreen Measures: The project will meet the minimum CalGreen standards for a
new home. The Residential CalGreen Measures Checklist is included as Attachment #5.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant submitted four (4) Neighbor
Notification Forms signed by adjacent property owners. None of the forms included negative
comments related to the project. Copies of the neighbor notification forms are included as
Attachment #4.
The adjacent neighbor to the south at 19431 San Marcos Road met with staff to express their
concerns related to possible construction related impacts to the shared common driveway as well
as possible impacts to their own private driveway from construction vehicles using it to
turnaround. To ensure maintenance of both the public and private driveways, staff is
recommending a condition of approval that the applicant videotape the surface of the driveways
prior to the start of construction and would be required to make any construction related repairs
prior to building permit final. The applicant shall also install a sign near the driveway of 19431
San Marcos Road advising contractors to not use the private driveway as a turnaround area.
A Public Notice was also sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. No additional
concerns have been brought to the City’s attention as of the writing of this staff report.
31
Page 6 of 7
FINDINGS
Design Review Findings - The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless
it is able to make the following findings. These findings are in addition to and not a substitute for
compliance with all other Zoning Regulations (which constitute the minimum requirements, as
provided in City Code Section 15-05.050).
1. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. This finding can be made in the
affirmative because the proposed development and grading is located in a predominantly level
area and is concentrated towards the center of the site thereby preserving the sites existing
contours. Grading for the site will be primarily limited to construction of the basement and
contouring the site to direct drainage to landscaped areas and detention facilities.
2. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations).
If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and
native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal
of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be
minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the project has been designed to reduce impacts to a minimum number
of protected trees. The 37 trees that were inventoried as being potentially impacted include
Coast live oaks, Coast redwoods, California black walnut, and Mexican fan palms. The City
Arborist has determined that the three trees proposed for removal meet the criteria allowing
removal and replacement as listed in the arborist report. The remaining protected trees in
the vicinity of the project will be preserved and protected during the duration of the project.
3. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are
designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the 1.1 acre size
of the parcel, the distance from the subject project to adjacent structures, and existing and
proposed vegetation and trees would screen views of both the proposed main residence and
secondary unit from adjacent properties. Privacy impacts associated with the second story
balcony of the main residence would be reduced by the distance of the front setback and
existing and proposed landscaping along the southern and western property lines. Most of the
windows of the main residence are located on the front and rear elevations and windows on the
side elevations have been reduced in size and number. The project includes a condition of
approval that the applicant plant additional landscaping behind the proposed secondary
dwelling unit to further reduce privacy impacts to the adjacent neighbor to the west. The
project would not impact any identified community viewsheds.
4. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in
scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the overall design, height, materials, and location of building features for both
the main residence and the secondary unit will avoid the perception of excessive bulk and the
Mediterranean architectural theme of the project and the use of architecturally true elements
helps unify the building façades. The facades of the buildings are well articulated with jogs in
the building lines with varying height of roof elements, architectural projections, and rooflines.
32
Page 7 of 7
The elevations are softened by the use of varying materials to include earth toned smooth
finished stucco, cultured stone veneer, and concrete. The views from homes on adjacent sites
are screened by existing and proposed landscaping.
5. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the hardscape in the front setback area is limited to a small
portion of the driveway which is composed of permeable pavers. The remaining area of the
front setback is will be landscaped with lawn, flowering plants, and trees.
6. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties
to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the location of
the nearest existing residence is located at a distance of more than 100 feet and that all
proposed landscaping would be located in close proximity to the development so there would
be no shadowing that could impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy.
Mature trees surround the development but because adjacent properties are of similar square
footage and have large setbacks there would not be an unreasonable impact on adjoining
properties.
7. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the
Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made
in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and
techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding
unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above.
8. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts
to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance
with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable to the project as the site is not
classified as a hillside lot.
Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This
exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to
that exemption applies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-051 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review 5. Calgreen Checklist
2. Arborist Report dated October 1, 2014 6. Development Plans (Exhibit A)
3. Public Hearing Notice
4. Neighbor Notification Forms
33
RESOLUTION NO: 14-051
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR14-0030 AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB14-0030
LOCATED AT 19421 SAN MARCOS ROAD
WHEREAS, on May 27, 2014, an application was submitted by Wenting Li & Yan Jiang
requesting Design Review approval to construct a new two story home, a secondary dwelling unit,
and related site improvements located at 19421 San Marcos Road The project has a total floor area
of 6,726 square feet. The height of the proposed residence is approximately 26 feet and the height
of the secondary dwelling unit is approximately 19.6 feet. The site is located within the R-1-40,000
Zoning District (APN 397-13-017).
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt.
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant,
and other interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3
(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of one
single-family residence in a residential area.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies:
Land Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that
the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent
surroundings; Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require
that landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a
residence prior to issuance of permits; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the
City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual
impact of new development.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and
improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project follows the natural
contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints;
preserves protected trees; is designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining
properties and to community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural
elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes
34
Resolution No. 14-051
hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the
neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize
solar energy; and is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0009 and
ARB14-0030 located at 19421 San Marcos Road, subject to the Findings, and Conditions of
Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 12th day of
November 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
35
Resolution No. 14-051
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this
project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting
all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant
with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community
Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it
shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or
its equivalent.
2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this
approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This
approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all
processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all
processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is
maintained).
3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference.
4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action
on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done
or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting
on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate
agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and
Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney.
5. Site Drainage. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage,
including but not limited to complying with the city approved stormwater management plan.
The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by
the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not
36
Resolution No. 14-051
be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara
County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department.
Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by
the building department.
6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A"
dated stamped October 23, 2014. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be
submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans
highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City
Code.
7. All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated July 16, 2014 are hereby adopted as
conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the Approved Plans.
8. The landscaping plan shall be modified, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Department and prior to building permit issuance, to include additional landscaping behind the
secondary dwelling unit to screen offsite views from its rear facing window into the adjacent
property to the west.
9. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall videotape the surface of the shared
driveway that provides access from the site to San Marcos Road as well as the driveway
entrance of 19431 San Marcos Road. A copy of the recording shall be retained by the
Community Development Department. Any damage to the either driveway caused by project
related construction shall be repaired by the applicant prior to building permit final. The
applicant shall also install a sign near the driveway of 19431 San Marcos Road advising
contractors to not use the private driveway as a turnaround area.
10. Building Division Submittal. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to
the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the
following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department.
b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the
Building Division.
c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages.
d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall
represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design
Review Approval.
37
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application No: ARB14-0030
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 19421 San Marcos Road
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Wenting Li and Yan Jiang
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-13-014-7
Email: bjjyca@gmail.com
Report History:
Report 1
Date:
Plans received June 12, 2014
Report completed July 16, 2014
Report 2 – This report replaces report 1 Revised plans received September 29, 2014
Report completed October 1, 2014
PROJECT SCOPE:
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to demolish the existing house and garage, and build a
new two story house with basement and attached garage, and a second unit. The driveway will be
reconfigured, and the pool will be modified to become a pond.
Two trees protected by Saratoga City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. They
include one Japanese maple (tree 319) and one Mexican fan palm (tree 343). A third tree (black
walnut tree 349) is recommended for removal due to its poor condition. These trees meet the criteria
allowing removal as part of the project.
STATUS: Approved by City Arborist to proceed with planning and building review, with
attached conditions.
PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF:
Tree bond –
Required - $75,000
For trees 325, 328, 329, 342, 343, 344, 352, 353, 354, 355,
356, 361, 376, and 401.
Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map.
Tree removals – Trees 319, 343 and 349 are permitted for removal once
building division permits have been obtained.
Replacement trees – Required = $3,910, for trees 319, 343 and 349.
1
38
19421 San Marcos Road
FINDINGS:
Tree Removals
Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and
specific tree removal criteria met. Attachment 3 contains the tree removal criteria for reference.
Two trees (Japanese maple 319 and Mexican fan palm 343) protected by Saratoga City Code Section
15-50.050 are requested for removal to construct the project. In addition, one black walnut (tree 349)
in poor condition is recommended for removal by Robert Booty. These trees meet the City’s criteria
allowing them to be removed and replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have
been obtained. Table 1 below shows a summary of tree removal criteria that are met, allowing
removal and replacement as part of the project.
Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met
Tree No. Criteria met Criteria not met
319 , 343, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 3, 5, 8
349 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8
Of the 62 inventoried trees, 25 are not protected by City Code. These trees may be removed at any
time without a permit. Refer to the May 21, 2014 report by Robert Booty, for trees that are not
protected by Saratoga City Code. Table 2 in Attachment 2 lists trees that are protected by City Code.
The following paragraphs provide a more detailed discussion of how each criterion is met, allowing
a tree’s removal.
The palm is in the footprint of the proposed new home, and the Japanese maple grows against the
existing house and right outside the proposed new house, and cannot survive demolition of the house
and construction of the new foundation (criterion 1). The black walnut is in poor condition,
consisting of a trunk with sprouts. No scaffold branches grow from the trunk and the canopy is
greatly reduced. The proposed driveway will impact most of the root system for the walnut, and this
species has a poor – moderate tolerance for construction impacts, and a tendency to die following
completion of the project.
If the Japanese maple is retained and the house was designed around it, it could cause damage
(criterion 2) because of its proximity to structures. There are many trees on site that are in better
condition than these, and the retained trees provide shade and privacy to the property (criterion 4).
The alternative to removing these trees is to design the project to preserve them. Other trees better
suited to preservation may be sacrificed if these trees are retained and preserved (criterion 6).
Removal of these trees and replacement with new trees is consistent with the Tree Regulations
(criterion 7). Removal of these trees provides economic and other enjoyment of the property when
there is no feasible alternative (criterion 9).
The lot is flat, so erosion control is not an issue (criterion 3). These trees are not too close to other
trees for good forestry practices (criterion 5). Public safety is not a concern as this is private property
(criterion 8).
2
39
19421 San Marcos Road
Replacement Trees
New trees equal to the appraised value of trees 319, 343 and 349, which is $3,910, will be required
as a condition of the project. Replacement trees may be of any species and planted anywhere on the
property as long as they do not crowd existing trees that have been retained. Replacement values for
new trees are listed below.
New Construction
Based on the information provided, and with conditions in this report, this project complies with the
requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees per Section 15-50.120 of the
City Code.
Tree Preservation Plan
This arborist report, together with the submitted arborist reports dated May 21, 2014 and July 3,
2014, once included in the final set of plans, satisfies the requirement for a Tree Preservation Plan
under Section 15-50.140 of the City Code. All reports shall be copied onto plan sheets and titled
“Tree Preservation”.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Plans Reviewed
2 – Tree Data
3 – Tree Removal Criteria
4 – Conditions of Approval
5 – Map of Site showing tree locations
6 – Map of Site showing protective fencing
Replacement Tree Values:
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
3
40
19421 San Marcos Road Attachment 1
PLAN REVIEW:
Architectural Plans reviewed:
Preparer: TDH Design
Date of Plans: April 2014, Revised September 2014
Sheet S Proposed Site Plan
Sheet L Conceptual Landscape and Irrigation Plan
Sheet 1 First and Second Floor Plans
Sheet 2 Basement Floor Plan
Sheet 3 Elevations
Sheet 4 Sections
Sheet 6 Second Unit Floor Plan and Elevation
Civil Plans reviewed:
Preparer: LE Engineering
Date of Plans: September 20, 2013
Sheet BT Boundary Survey and Topographic Map
Sheet C1 Title Sheet
Sheet C2 Grading and Drainage Plan
Sheet C3 Grading Details
4
41
19421 San Marcos Road Attachment 2
TREE DATA:
Two arborist reports were submitted for this project. In addition, I made one site visit to the
property on July 1, 2014. During my site visit, a visual inspection from the ground was
performed in order to obtain canopy spreads for trees and assess the condition of each tree.
Table 2 on the next page compiles information from the two arborist reports and the site
visit.
Preparer: Robert Booty, Arborist OnSite
Date of report: May 21, 2014
This report provided an inventory of trees, a map of tree locations and numbers, and
recommendations on tree protection during construction. Each tree was marked with a
numbered aluminum tag for ease of identification on site.
The report inventoried 62 trees, 37 of which are protected by Saratoga City Code. Protected
trees included 20 coast live oaks, 4 coast redwoods, 1 California pepper, 3 California black
walnuts, 4 Mexican fan palms, 1 Hollywood juniper, 1 valley oak, 1 Italian stone pine, 1
Japanese maple, and 1 Monterey pine.
Two trees protected by Saratoga City Code (Japanese maple 319 and Mexican fan palm
343) are requested for removal to construct this project. A third tree (California black
walnut 349) is recommended for removal by Robert Booty due to its poor condition. They
are shaded in the table on the next page.
Preparer: Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist – appraised values
Date of report: July 3, 2014
A report dated July 3, 2014, from Walter Levison provided appraised values on specific
trees as requested. Appraised trees grow close enough to proposed work that they are
potentially impacted by construction of the new house and surrounding landscape.
Appraised values were calculated by Walter Levison using the Trunk Formula Method and
according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, published by the International
Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000. This was used in conjunction with the Species
Classification and Group Assignment, published by the Western Chapter of the ISA, 2004.
5
42
19421 San Marcos Road Attachment 2
Table 2: Selected tree data from arborist reports and site visit.
No.
Tree
Tag
No. Species
DBH
(inches)
Canopy
spread
(feet) Condition
Appraised
value
1 201 Coast live oak 9 15 Good Not provided
2 300 Coast live oak 16 50 Good Not provided
3 311 Coast live oak 10 10 Good Not provided
4 316 Coast live oak 11 10 Good Not provided
5 319 Japanese maple 5.5, 5, 4 10 Fair $1,130
6 323 Coast redwood 22 20 Fair Not provided
7 324 Coast redwood 21 15 Fair Not provided
8 325 Coast live oak 29 40 Good $16,500
9 326 Coast live oak 17 30 Good Not provided
10 327 Coast live oak 22 30 Good Not provided
11 328 Valley oak 21 50 Good $16,000
12 329 Coast live oak 14 30 Good $3,230
13 332 Hollywood juniper 8, 7 12 Fair Not provided
14 335 Mexican fan palm 17 15 Good Not provided
15 337 Mexican fan palm 17 15 Good Not provided
16 338 Mexican fan palm 17 15 Good Not provided
17 342 California black walnut 35 30 Fair $2,470
18 343 Mexican fan palm 22 15 Good $740
19 344 Monterey pine 27 30 Good $890
20 345 Coast live oak 11 15 Fair Not provided
21 346 Coast live oak 8 10 Fair Not provided
22 347 Coast live oak 22 30 Good Not provided
23 348 Coast live oak 24 30 Good Not provided
24 349 California black walnut 33 20 Poor $2,040
25 350 Coast live oak 14 12 Good Not provided
26 351 Coast redwood 14 15 Good Not provided
27 352 California pepper 10, 5.5 25 Fair $580
28 353 Coast live oak 17 35 Good $5,600
29 355 Coast live oak 5, 4 10 Fair $1,720
30 356 California black walnut 25 35 Fair $2,160
31 357 Coast live oak 18 30 Good Not provided
32 358 Coast redwood 8 10 Fair Not provided
33 359 Coast live oak 10 15 Good Not provided
34 361 Coast live oak 22 45 Good $10,200
35 376 Coast live oak 11 20 Good $2,190
36 401 Italian stone pine 32 35 Fair $11,300
37 402 Coast live oak 9 15 Fair Not provided
6
43
19421 San Marcos Road Attachment 3
TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA
Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article
15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If
findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and
replacement during construction.
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or
proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a
Fallen tree.
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements
or impervious surfaces on the property.
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the
diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes.
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would
have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general
welfare of residents in the area.
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry
practices.
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the
protected tree.
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and
intent of this Article.
(8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this
ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010
(9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no
other feasible alternative to the removal.
(10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the
requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed
and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation.
7
44
18421 San Marcos Road Attachment 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1.It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the
information in the arborist reports for the project and implement the required conditions.
2.All recommendations in the submitted arborist reports dated May 21, 2014 and July 3, 2014
shall be conditions for the approved project.
3. The submitted arborist reports shall be copied onto a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”,
and included in the job copy set of plans.
4. This arborist report shall also be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final job copy
set of plans.
5.Tree Protection Security Deposit - $75,000
a.Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080.
b.Shall be for tree(s): 325, 328, 329, 342, 343, 344, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 361, 376, 401.
c.Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department
before obtaining Building Division permits.
d. May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond.
e.Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project.
f.May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City
Arborist.
6.Tree Protection Fencing:
a.Shall be installed as shown on the attached map.
b.Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site.
c.Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch
diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10
feet apart.
d.Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR
REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408)
868-1276”.
e.Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection
fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division
permits.
f.Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final
inspection.
g.If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to
arrange a field meeting.
7.The designated Project Arborist shall be Robert Booty, of Arborist OnSite, unless otherwise
approved by the City prior to receiving Planning approval.
8.The Project Arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading activities and
monthly thereafter.
8
45
18421 San Marcos Road Attachment 4
9.The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within 15 feet of trees 325, 328, 329,
343, 344, 353, 356, 359, 376 and 401.
10. Pines 344 and 401 shall be pruned only during cold weather between November and
February to protect them from attack by beetles.
11. Following completion of the work around trees, and before a final inspection of the project,
the applicant shall provide a letter to the City from the Project Arborist. That letter shall
document the work performed around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and
provide information on the condition of the trees.
12. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be
removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building
division for the approved project.
13. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for
protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work.
14. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities
include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching,
installation of utilities, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including
soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking.
15. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the
supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards.
16. Trees permitted for removal shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices,
and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height,
location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. The
value of the removed trees shall be calculated in accordance with the ISA Guide for Plant
Appraisal.
17.Trees 319, 343 and 349 are approved for removal once building permits have been issued.
18.New trees equal to $3,910 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and
occupancy of the new home.
19. Replacement values for new trees are listed below.
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
20.New trees may be of any species and planted anywhere on the property as long as they do
not encroach on retained trees.
21. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half
of the canopy of oak trees on site.
9
46
18421 San Marcos Road Attachment 4
22. Trees shall be irrigated as needed to maintain good health during construction. This shall be
guided and monitored by the Project Arborist.
23. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and
have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final
inspection.
10
47
Attachment 5
19421 San Marcos Road
Tree Locations from arborist report dated May 21, 2014
11
48
Attachment 6
19421 San Marcos Road
Legend
Tree Canopy
Tree Protection
Fencing
12
49
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on:
Wednesday, the 12th day of November 2014, at 7:00 p.m.
The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The
public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga
Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please
consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures.
APPLICATION/ADDRESS: PDR14-0013, ARB14-0030 / 19421 San Marcos Road
OWNER: Wenting Li and Yan Jiang
APN: 397-13-017
DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct an approximately
6,180 square foot 26 feet tall two-story single-family dwelling and a 618 square foot secondary
dwelling unit. The net site area is 48,007 square feet and is zoned R-1-40,000. Design Review
approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section
15-45.060.
The project would include the removal of three protected trees. These include a 14.5 inch
Japanese maple tree and a 22 inch Mexican fan palm that are in fair condition but are in conflict
with the project. A 22 inch Black Walnut tree is being removed due to its poor condition.
Replacement tree with a value of at least $3,910 will be required.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information
to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should
be filed on or before Monday, November 3, 2014.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject
of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in
preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S.
Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a
project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this
notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone
in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project.
Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP
Senior Planner
(408) 868-1235
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: November 12, 2014
Application: Design Review PDR14-0021
Location / APN: 15220 El Camino Grande / 397-08-038
Owner/Applicant: Calderon
Staff Planner: Cindy McCormick, Planner, AICP
15220 El Camino Grande
Page 1 of 5
75
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing an 873 square foot addition to an existing
home. The remodeled home and accessory structures will have a total floor area of 4,924 square
feet. The addition includes a new entry feature that will be 26 feet in height. No protected trees are
requested for removal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 14-050 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
Design review approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section
15-45.060.
PROJECT DATA:
Site Area: 99,753 sq. ft.
Average Slope: 24.3%
Grading: Minimal
General Plan Designation: Residential Very Low Density (RVLD)
Zoning: Single-Family Residential (R1-40,000)
Proposed Allowed/Required
Site Coverage
Residential Footprint
Driveway
Walkways
Pool
Guest House
Shed
Other pervious surfaces
Total Site Coverage
Front Yard Hardscape
4,120 sq. ft.
4,180 sq. ft.
3,686 sq. ft.
756 sq. ft.
601 sq. ft.
120 sq. ft.
51 sq. ft.
13,514 sq. ft. (13.6%)
434 sq. ft. (13.8%)
35% Maximum
50% Maximum
Floor Area
House
Double Height Entry
Enclosed Porches
Garage
Guest House
Shed
Total Floor Area
3,250 sq. ft.
143 sq. ft.
410 sq. ft.
528 sq. ft.
497 sq. ft.
96 sq. ft.
4,924 sq. ft.
6,300 sq. ft. Maximum
Height (Residence)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
134.5’
137.5’
136’
162’ (26’)
26 feet Maximum
Application No. PDR 14-0021; 15220 El Camino Grande / 397-08-038 Page 2 of 5
76
Primary Dwelling Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
1st Story
158’
54’
52’
157’
1st Story
30’
20’
20’
50’
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing an 873 square foot addition to an existing 2,520 square foot home.
The entry feature, which has a 21 foot tall ceiling, contributes another 127 square feet towards
the floor area. No changes are proposed to the existing detached 528 square foot garage and 497
square foot guest house that is located to the front and left of the main dwelling. The total floor
area of all structures and enclosed areas is 4,924 square feet. No protected trees are requested for
removal.
Neighborhood Context: The property is located in a residential neighborhood which includes a mix
of one and two story homes. The home located to the left of the subject property is a two-story
home. The home located to the right of the property is a one-story home.
Site Design: The existing home is located on a hillside lot with steep natural slopes just beyond the
perimeter of the lot. The addition will generally be located in an area that has previously been
graded for an existing deck and walkways, which minimizes the need for additional grading. No
portion of the addition would be located on slopes over 30%. Geotechnical clearance was received
on October 15, 2014 (Attachment 2).
Building Design: The addition will match the existing grayish -green colored wood siding. The
design includes new stonework on each side of the home. The applicant is asking for more
stonework than originally proposed, as reflected in the revised elevations (Exhibit A). While the
additional stone may appear “expansive” in some areas, the home is centered on a large lot with
large setbacks and is screened by mature trees. With the exception of the 127 square foot entry,
the eave lines will be retained and will be consistent with the home to the right and lower than
the home to the left, as shown in the streetscape on page ST1 of the plans. The 26 foot tall entry
has been designed to bring more light into the home while evoking a more rural character to the
otherwise traditional styled home. The visual impact of the large crawl space below the home
would be minimized through the use of wood siding.
Landscape Design: The hillside lot is primarily undeveloped. Much of the front setback area is
covered with trees, with minimal hardscape other than the driveway.
Detail Colors and Materials
Exterior Grayish-Green color to match existing wood siding
Window Trim Cream colored wood trim
Front Door Medium brown stained wood door
Roof Weathered bronze colored standing seam metal roof
Application No. PDR 14-0021; 15220 El Camino Grande / 397-08-038 Page 3 of 5
77
Trees: No trees protected by Saratoga City Code are requested for removal. However, one blue
oak is in poor condition and would qualify for removal with a tree removal permit if the
applicant wished to remove it independently from the project. Additionally, the applicant is
required to adequately protect any protected trees that could be impacted by the project, per the
Arborist Report (Attachment 3).
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: A public notice was sent to property owners within
500 feet of the site. The property owner also distributed notification forms to adjacent neighbors.
One form was received without comment (Attachment 5).
DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS:
The findings required for issuance of a Design Review approval pursuant to City Code Article 15-
45 are set forth below. Staff believes that the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support the
required findings:
(a) Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. The project meets this finding because
the 873 square foot addition will require a minimal amount of grading due to its location on a
previously graded and relatively level area of the site.
(b) All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). If
constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and native
trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any
smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be minimized
using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. The project meets this finding because no
protected trees are proposed for removal. One blue oak is in poor condition and would
qualify for removal with a tree removal permit if the applicant wished to remove it
independently from the project. All ordinance protected trees potentially impacted by
construction are required to be adequately protected per Arborist recommendations.
(c) The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are
designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds. The project meets this finding because the main dwelling is located
towards the center of the property with larger than required setbacks, thereby minimizing
impacts on the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. Furthermore,
only the entrance is proposed to be 26 feet in height while the remainder of the home is
approximately 17 feet in height from average grade.
(d) The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale
with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. The project meets this finding because
homes in the neighborhood are of similar size and height. The entry is an architectural feature
that is appropriate given the size of the lot while the entry window is in proportion to the
front door below. Furthermore, the home is surrounded by mature trees that help minimize
the perception of mass.
Application No. PDR 14-0021; 15220 El Camino Grande / 397-08-038 Page 4 of 5
78
(e) The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. The project meets this
finding because only 14% of the front setback area is covered with hardscape, leaving
approximately 86% of the front setback with trees and other natural landscaping.
(f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to
utilize solar energy. The project meets this finding because the proposed development is
located towards the center of the property with larger than required setbacks, thereby
minimizing shadows on adjacent properties which might affect their ability to utilize solar
energy. The high entry windows allow light into the home which might otherwise be blocked
by mature trees surrounding the home.
(g) The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential
Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. The project meets this finding because
the site is developed with minimal impervious surfaces; windows and doors are architecturally
appropriate; the entry is in scale with other homes in the neighborhood; and the home is setback
from the street and from adjacent properties.
(h) On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to
ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with
Section 15-13.100. The project meets this finding because the home is generally single-story
in height with the exception of the entry which is a relatively small area of the home’s
footprint. Larger than required setbacks help minimize the perception of bulk, while exterior
siding colors and materials blend with the natural terrain. The design also minimizes the visual
impact of crawl space areas.
Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This
exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to
that exemption applies.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval
2. Geotechnical Clearance
3. Arborist Clearance
4. Public Notice
5. Neighbor Comment Forms
6. Development Plans (Exhibit "A")
Application No. PDR 14-0021; 15220 El Camino Grande / 397-08-038 Page 5 of 5
79
RESOLUTION NO: 14-050
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION PDR14-0021
FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 15220 EL CAMINO GRANDE / 397-08-038
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2014 an application was submitted for Design Review approval
of an 873 square foot addition to an existing home. The remodeled home and accessory structures
will have a total floor area of 4,924 square feet. The addition includes a new entry feature that will
be 26 feet in height. No protected trees are requested for removal. The site is located within the R1-
40,000 Residential Zoning District.
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt.
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant,
and other interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the
construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land
Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that new
construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings
and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides that the City shall protect the existing rural
atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that site development
follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the
property’s natural constraints; no protected trees are requested for removal; the height of the
structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid
unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; the
overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the
structure itself and with the neighborhood; the landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front
setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape;
development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize
80
Resolution No. 14-050
solar energy; the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to
ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section
15-13.100; and the design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the
Residential Design Handbook.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR14-0021
located at 15220 El Camino Grande subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached
hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 12th day of
November 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
81
Resolution No. 14-050
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR14-0021
15220 EL CAMINO GRANDE / 397-08-038
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this
project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting
all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant
with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community
Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it
shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or
its equivalent.
2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this
approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This
approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all
processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all
processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is
maintained).
3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference.
4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action
on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done
or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting
on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate
agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold harmless and
Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney.
82
Resolution No. 14-050
5. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those
features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans denominated Exhibit "A",
and as conditioned below. All proposed changes to the Approved Plans must be submitted in
writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the
changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code.
6. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the City Engineer, including but
not limited to public works and geotechnical requirements, as applicable.
7. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the City Arborist, including but not
limited to tree protective fencing and tree protection bond submittal, as applicable, prior to
issuance of building permits.
8. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the Santa Clara County Fire
Department, as applicable.
9. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the Sewer District, as applicable,
prior to issuance of building permits.
10. Building Division Submittal. The owner/applicant shall agree to all conditions required by the
Saratoga Building Department. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted
to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the
following:
a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A”
on file with the Community Development Department.
b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the
Building Division.
c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages.
d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall
represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design
Review Approval.
83
Memorandum of Geotechnical Clearance Conditions
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cynthia McCormick, Project Planner, Community Development Department
CC: Calderon, Filemon and Susan (Owner & Applicant)
FROM: Iveta Harvancik, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Geotechnical Clearance Conditions for GEO14-0013 on El Camino Grande, 15220
DATE: October 16, 2014
1. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated. Results of the Geotechnical Plan
Review should be submitted to the City for review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
building or grading permits.
The following items should be performed prior to final (as-built) project approval:
2. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage
improvements, and excavations for retaining walls and foundation prior to the placement of
steel and concrete. The consultant should inspect piers during drilling to confirm that
adequate embedment into in-place bedrock has been achieved. The results of these
inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project
Geotechnical Engineer in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to
final (as-built) project approval. 3. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant’s review of the project prior to Zone Clearance. 4. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
84
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application No: ARB14-0039
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 15220 El Camino Grande
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Susan Calderon
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 397-08-038
Email: smcalderon@earthlink.com
Report History:
Report 1
Date:
Plans received August 26, 2014
Report completed September 19, 2014
Report 2 – This report replaces report 1 Amended arborist report received
October 2, 2014
Report completed October 8, 2014
PROJECT SCOPE:
The applicant has submitted plans to the City to add on the house on two sides.
STATUS: Approved by City Arborist to proceed with planning and building review, with
conditions.
PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF:
Tree bond – Required - $28,000
For trees 1, 5 and 6.
Tree fencing – Required – See attached map for locations.
Tree removals – None requested or permitted.
Replacement trees – None required.
FINDINGS:
Tree Removals
No trees protected by Saratoga City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. Tree 7
is not protected by City Code, and may be removed at any time without a permit.
1
85
15220 El Camino Grande
Tree 2 is a blue oak in poor condition. It would qualify for removal with a tree removal permit if the
applicant wished to remove it independently from the project.
New Construction
Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements
for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code.
Tree Preservation Plan
The submitted arborist report, once copied onto a plan sheet and included in the plans, satisfies the
requirement for a Tree Preservation Plan under Section 15-50.140 of the City Code.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Plans and arborist report reviewed
2 – Conditions of approval
3 – Map of Site showing locations of trees and protective fencing
IMPORTANT
The submitted arborist report prepared by Nigel Belton, dated July 5,
2014 and amended on October 2, 2014, shall be copied onto a plan sheet,
titled “Tree Preservation”, and included in the final set of plans.
This report and attachments shall also be copied onto a plan sheet.
2
86
15220 El Camino Grande Attachment 1
PLAN REVIEW:
Architectural Plans reviewed:
Preparer: Mosher Associates Architects
Date of Plans: June 23, 2014
Sheet 1 Title Page
Sheet 2.1 Site Plan
Sheet 2.2 Landscape Plan
Sheet 3 Floor Plan
Sheet 4 Existing Conditions and Demolition Plan
Sheets 5 and 6 Elevations
No civil plans were provided for review.
TREE INFORMATION:
Arborist Report reviewed:
Preparer: Nigel Belton, Consulting Arborist
Date of Plans: July 5, 2014 and amended October 2, 2014
An arborist report was submitted for this project. It inventoried eight trees and provided tree
protection recommendations for the project. The amended report included Saratoga tree
protection requirements and appraised values for trees. Inventoried trees included four coast
live oaks (trees 1, 5, 6, and 8) and three blue oaks (trees 2 – 4).
No trees protected by Saratoga City Code are requested for removal to construct this
project. One tree that is not protected by City Code (tree 7) is in conflict with the proposed
addition and may be removed at any time without a permit.
I made one site visit to the property on September 19, 2014 to review the trees and the
proposed project.
3
87
15220 El Camino Grande Attachment 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The designated Project Arborist for this project shall be Nigel Belton, Consulting Arborist.
2. All conditions in the arborist report dated July 5, 2014 and amended October 2, 2014 shall be
conditions of approval for this project.
3. A Tree Protection Security Deposit:
a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080.
b. Shall be for tree(s) 1, 5 and 6.
c. May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond.
d. May be released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City
Arborist.
4. Tree Protection Fencing:
a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map.
b. Shall meet specifications in submitted arborist report.
c. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR
REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408)
868-1276”.
d. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection
fencing once it has been installed.
e. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to
arrange a field meeting.
5. No protected tree authorized for encroachment pursuant to this project may be encroached
upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved
project.
6. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for
protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work.
7. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. These activities
include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching,
equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and
equipment/vehicle operation and parking.
8. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and
have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final
inspection.
4
88
1
Attachment 3
Legend
Tree Canopy
Tree Protection
Fencing
Straw Wattle
2
4
15220 El Camino Grande
3
5
6
8
Tree 7 not protected 7
5
89
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following Public Hearing on:
Wednesday, November 12, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.
The Public Hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue.
Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday
through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us
regarding Friday office closures.
ADDRESS/APN: 15220 El Camino Grande / 397-08-038
OWNER/ APPLICANT: Susan Calderon
APPLICATION: PDR14-0021
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing an 873 square foot addition to
an existing home. The remodeled home will have a total floor area of 4,924 square feet. The
addition includes a new entry feature that will be 26 feet in height.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the meeting.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject
of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in
preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S.
Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a
project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this
notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone
in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project.
Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP
(408) 868-1230
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
CUP 09-0014; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: November 12, 2014
Permit Type: Conditional Use Permit (CUP 09-0014)
Location / APN: 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd / 386-30-039
Owner: Time-Space Investment Development LLC
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review the conditional use permit and determine whether any action
is necessary. If the Commission directs staff to undertake revisions to the Conditional Use Permit,
staff will return at a future meeting with updated conditions, following notice to the public.
Pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.100, the Planning Commission may modify or delete any
conditions of a conditional use permit or impose any new conditions in order to preserve the public
health, safety or welfare, or to prevent the creation or continuance of a public nuisance, or where
such action is necessary to preserve or restore any of the findings set forth in City Code Section 15-
55.070 (below). A conditional use permit may be revoked by the Planning Commission upon a
determination that the holder of the permit has failed to comply with any condition thereof or has
violated any applicable provision of City Code.
15-55.070 - Findings for issuance of permit.
(a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
(b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
(c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this Chapter.
(d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in
the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the
occupants thereof.
Page 1 of 5
103
CUP 09-0014; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
HISTORY:
On October 14, 2009 (continued from 8/12/09) the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to review a design review and conditional use permit application for an indoor swimming facility.
The existing building was to be remodeled and reduced in size by approximately 4,151 square feet
to accommodate 20 additional parking spaces. The Traffic Impact Analysis report concluded that
the project would not have a significant impact at either signalized study intersection; that
installation of a traffic signal at the unsignalized intersection would not be warranted based on
project traffic volumes; and the project would not have a significant impact on any of the
reviewed freeway segments 1. The application was approved 6-1. The Use Permit Conditions of
Approval are included as Attachment 1.
Following a site visit to the adjacent property at 12250 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road in 2013, however,
the Commission requested a review of the facility’s use permit. On November 13, 2013, the
Commission requested the following information be brought back to the Commission:
• Traffic analysis to monitor circulation at the driveway entrance and exit for unsafe conditions
• Review whether the conditions of approval had been met
• Review traffic and accident reports for the vicinity
SITE DATA:
Net Site Area: Approximately 44,866 square feet
General Plan Designation: CR (Commercial Retail)
Zoning: CV (Commercial-Visitor)
Site Description: Land uses surrounding the site are commercial uses to the south, west, and
northwest and residential uses to the east and northeast.
Description of Uses: The facility includes office space, an exercise equipment area, and a
mechanical room in the front of the building. The swimming pool area is located in the center of the
building while the reception lobby entrance is located at the rear of the building. The facility offers
swimming lessons and lap swimming at various times of the day. If approved for earlier hours,
there would be no swim lessons before 9:00 am. Only adult lap swimming would occur earlier in
the morning. Additional detail on the facility is provided below and on the next page.
Business Hours: The approved hours of operation for the business were 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,
with a condition that the Community Development Department could approve a change to the
hours (to as early as 5:00am) if an updated Traffic Impact Analysis indicates that no significant
1 The study included the analysis of p.m. peak hour traffic conditions at the following locations: the signalized
intersection at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Seagull Way; the signalized intersection at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
and Prospect Road, the unsignalized intersection at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Kirkmont Drive; the freeway
segment at SR85 between Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; and the freeway segment at SR85
between Saratoga Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Page 2 of 5
104
CUP 09-0014; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
impacts would result from the revised hours of operation. The results of that analysis, which has
only recently been prepared, are provided below.
Morning Traffic Analysis: The applicant has provided a letter from Hexagon Transportation
Associates, dated November 5, 2014 (Attachment 3) demonstrating that during the three count
days, the total number of trips ranged from 4 to 27 in the 6 AM – 9 AM period. The highest
observed hour was found to be from 8 AM to 9 AM (ranging from 1 to 13 trips).
Day 6 – 7 am 7 – 8 am 8 – 9 am Total
6 – 9 am
Wednesday 10/29/14 4 5 12 21
Thursday 10/30/14 0 3 1 4
Friday 10/31/14 7 7 13 27
Per Hexagon, the trip generation count associated with lap swimming between 6:00 am and 9:00
am is “negligible” and “the impact of those trips on the surrounding streets and intersections can
be assumed to be minimal.” Hexagon also indicated that no additional traffic analysis is
necessary. The City’s traffic consultant Fehr & Peers, concurred with the findings in the
November memorandum and do not have any comments that require additional analysis.
Morning Parking: If approved for earlier operating hours, the existing conditions of approval
restrict parking to the front parking lot between the hours of 5:00am and 7:00 am. While there was
some discussion as to how this could be achieved, the condition of approval did not include
language regarding the mechanism for assuring this condition would be met.
Parking and Site Circulation: The site includes 50 parking spaces, in accordance with the 2009
Traffic Study and Peer Review 2. Vehicles enter the site through the northern (right side)
driveway and exit the driveway through the southern driveway. Vehicles can queue up along the
northern drive aisle while waiting to park their vehicle or drop off participants.
Landscaping: The site includes landscaping at the front of the property and in-between the building
and the rear parking lot. The landscaping primarily consists of low-water use shrubs, bark, and
potted trees. The landscaping is similar to that provided on other commercial properties in the area.
Mechanical Equipment: The original plans called for locating the mechanical equipment on the
roof of the newer portion of the building. The plans also showed the proposed roof equipment being
screened over the new roof. However, the applicant later decided to locate the mechanical
equipment within the interior of the building. The main mechanical room is located in the older
portion of the building. Vents from the mechanical room protrude from the previously existing roof
top and can be seen from the front parking lot and entry drive aisle. The vents are not currently
screened.
2 The Parking and Circulation Study recommended a parking rate of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building
area which is equal to 50 on-site parking spaces for a 12,500 square foot building.
Page 3 of 5
105
CUP 09-0014; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
Traffic Collisions: The Planning Commission asked staff to get a list of traffic reports for Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road in the vicinity of the facility. Over the past 5 years, there have been five (5)
reported collisions (one for each year). The Traffic Investigator from the Santa Clara County
Sheriff’s Office Traffic Division indicated that none of the five collisions were associated with any
vehicles entering or exiting the swim center lot. A summary of the collisions in provided in
Attachment 4.
Additional Potential Traffic Analysis: The City’s traffic consultant has provided a proposal to
evaluate current traffic conditions at the site. The field observations would assess both site access
and on-site circulation, as well as peak period turning movements at the driveways providing site
ingress and egress. As suggested previously by the Planning Commission, the analysis would
occur over several days. The proposal covers 10 hours of counts spread over five weekdays in a
three week period and 4.5 hours on a Saturday for a total of 14.5 hours. The cost of the 6-day
counts and associated analysis is $6,500. Staff believes that the cost would need to be absorbed
by the City of Saratoga and proposes that, if it proceeds, the cost should be split between the
Planning Commission budget and staff budget for planning services. The cost could be reduced
by limiting the analysis to fewer days.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: A public notice was sent to property owners within
500 feet of the site (Attachment 5). Staff has received letters of concern from Mr. and Mrs. Ye at
12236 Kirkdale Drive, whose home is located at the rear of the project site. Mr. and Mrs. Ye are
concerned about noise and lights in the rear parking lot, privacy due to fence height between his
property and the swim center, and landscaping between his property and the swim center. This
neighbor proposed several ways that the owner of the swim center could address his concerns
including building an 8-foot tall masonry wall (or increasing the height of the fence to 8 feet)
between his property and the swim center, adding a five-to ten-foot wide landscape buffer of
trees between his property and the swim center, limiting parking along the fence between his
property and the swim center to facility staff, educating patrons about minimizing noise to
adjacent neighbors, adding motion sensor and shield to the light fixture in the rear parking lot,
and installing a gate at the entrance and exit (Attachment 6).
Otherwise, staff has not received any letters or communications of complaints from neighbors
over the five years the swim club has been in operation.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff is seeking the Commission’s input and direction regarding whether any action is warranted
regarding the Conditional Use Permit.
1. Based on the 2010-2014 traffic incident report and supplemental trip generation count, Staff
believes that the traffic associated with the use is reasonable.
2. Staff believes that the neighbor to the rear has valid concerns, some of which could be met by
enforcing parking to the front parking area prior to 7:00 am. The applicant has, however, met
original conditions regarding landscaping and fencing, and staff does not believe that it is
appropriate or necessary to require further remedies (other than suggested below).
Page 4 of 5
106
CUP 09-0014; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
3. Staff believes that the applicant has generally been compliant with the conditions of the
Conditional Use Permit, with the exception of the early lap swimming hours, and
possibly a need to screen the mechanical vents at the front of the roof.
a. One option for restricting parking to the front parking lot could be to add a condition
of approval that the rear entrance be locked until 7:00 am, forcing patrons to enter the
building through the front door between 6:00am and 7:00am.
b. The conditions of approval could also be updated to require screening to minimize
visibility of the vents.
If the Commission directs staff to undertake revisions to the Conditional Use Permit, staff will
return at a future meeting with updated conditions, following notice to the public.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. October 14, 2009 Resolution of Approval.
2. October 14, 2009 Staff Report
3. 6:00 am to 9:00 am Trip Generation Count, dated November 5, 2014
4. 2010-2014 Traffic Collisions Summary
5. Public Notice
6. Correspondence from neighbor at 12236 Kirkdale Drive
Page 5 of 5
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. CUP 09-0014 & PDR 09-0015
Location: 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd
Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) & Design Review (PDR)
Applicant: Time-Space Investment Development LLC
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP
Meeting Date: 10/14/09
APN: 386-30-039 Department Head:
John Livingstone, AICP
12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
114
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY:
Application filed: 06/04/09
Public Hearing (continued): 08/12/09
Application complete: 09/30/09
Notice published: 09/29/09
Mailing completed: 10/01/09
Posting completed: 10/08/09
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting Design Review (PDR) approval and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
for an indoor swimming facility for both adults and children in the Commercial-Visitor (CV)
zoning district. The facility would operate in an existing building that will be reduced in size to
accommodate 50 parking spaces. A Parking and Circulation study, Traffic Impact Analysis, and
Peer Review was completed for the project to determine potential traffic impacts and the peak
parking demand for the proposed use.
Per City Code Section 15-35.010, in order to alleviate or prevent traffic congestion and shortage of
parking spaces, the number of parking spaces prescribed by the Planning Commission, shall be in
proportion to the need for such facilities created by the particular type of use. Standard practice for
determining the required numbers of parking spaces has been based on a Traffic Study performed
by an applicant’s traffic engineer and a Peer Review of the Traffic Study by the City’s traffic
consultant.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The project is Class 1 categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Article 19, and Section 15301. This
exemption allows for minor modifications involving negligible expansion of use and no exception
to that exemption applies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and
approve the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit with required findings and conditions by
adopting the attached Resolution.
PERMANENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Staff is not recommending any permanent conditions of approval.
115
CUP 09-0014 / PDR 09-0015; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
\ 3
PROJECT DATA
ZONING: CV (Commercial-Visitor)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR (Commercial Retail)
PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 44,866 square feet
TENANT SPACE: Proposed 12,487 square feet (currently 17,555 square feet)
FORMER USE: The project is proposed to be located in an existing building currently/formerly
occupied by a florist shop which is a permitted retail use.
SURROUNDING LAND USES: Land uses surrounding the site are commercial uses to the south, west,
and northwest. Residential uses to the east and northeast are screened by landscaping.
Swimming Pools/Parking: City Code Section 15-06.160 defines swimming pools as a community
facility. Per City Code Section 15-35.030(g), community facilities require one space for each
employee and such additional number of spaces as may be prescribed by the Planning Commission.
116
CUP 09-0014 / PDR 09-0015; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
\ 4
PROJECT DISCUSSION
Background
The project was originally scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 2009
but was continued to allow the applicant time to obtain a traffic study to determine potential
traffic impacts from the project. The applicant was originally proposing both a swim facility and an
educational facility in a 17,821 square foot building which included an addition to the rear of the
building. However, based on the results of the Traffic Study, the applicant has significantly scaled
back the project. The Traffic Study is included as Attachment #3 and is discussed below.
Proposed Project
The use would operate as an indoor swimming facility for children and adults. The swim facility
would be located in an existing building that would be reduced in size by approximately 4,151
square feet to accommodate 20 additional parking spaces needed for the project. The site plan
proposes 50 parking spaces, in accordance with the Traffic Study and Peer Review.
An upper loft area within the existing roof structure that is used for storage would be removed (this
area is noted as a “second floor” on the plans). The applicant would also remove an existing storage
shed and cooler at the rear of the building. Demolition of a portion of the rear of the building would
increase the rear setback and would help reduce potential noise impacts to neighboring residences.
The facility would operate with 5 to 10 employees, depending on scheduled activities. The
applicant has indicated that there would be no formal events (e.g., organized swim competitions)
that would significantly increase traffic or the need for additional parking. An example of the
programs offered at the facility is included as Attachment #7, based on a similar facility operated by
the applicant in Fremont.
Proposed hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The applicant would like to consider
opening earlier in the morning. However, since the Parking and Circulation Study and Traffic
Impact Analysis (TIA) did not consider the morning peak between 7:00 am and 9:00 am, these
reports would need to be updated to include the additional analysis. A condition of approval has
been added to the resolution stating that the proposed hours of operation could be increased to open
earlier if the updated TIA indicates that no significant impacts would result from the revised hours
of operation.
Traffic and Parking
The applicant submitted a Parking and Circulation Study completed by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, Inc. (Attachment #4). A Peer Review was completed by Fehr & Peers Transportation
Consultants to validate the adequacy and appropriateness of the assumptions used by the
applicant’s traffic engineer for the project analysis and recommendations (Attachment #5).
117
CUP 09-0014 / PDR 09-0015; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
\ 5
Since published parking demand rates and trip generation rates were not currently available for
the proposed use as a swimming pool facility, Hexagon surveyed two swim center sites in the
Bay Area to develop a parking rate of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area.
Therefore, and as confirmed by Fehr & Peers, a 12,500 square foot building would require 50 on-
site parking spaces. Furthermore, the use would generate approximately 69 inbound trips (and 69
outbound trips) at peak period. It is expected that some of these participants would be dropped-off
rather than park their vehicle at the facility.
Based on the number of trips generated by the project, Fehr & Peers recommended the applicant
provide a more extensive analysis of the trip generation. The Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) Congestion Management Agency for Santa Clara County VTA requires any project that is
estimated to generate over 100 peak-hour trips to complete a Transportation Impact Analysis
(TIA). Per Fehr & Peers, the TIA must analyze any potential impacts at the signalized
intersections of Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/Seagull Way and Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road/Prospect
Road, as well as impacts to the unsignalized intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at
Kirkmont Drive.
Per Fehr & Peers recommendation, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by Hexagon,
the applicant’s engineer, for the project. The impacts of the project were evaluated in accordance
with the City of Saratoga’s level of service standards and the VTA Congestion Management
Program (CMP) level of service standards. The study included the analysis of PM peak hour
traffic conditions at the following locations: the signalized intersection at Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road and Seagull Way; the signalized intersection at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Prospect
Road, the unsignalized intersection at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Kirkmont Drive; the
freeway segment at SR85 between Saratoga Avenue and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road; and the
freeway segment at SR85 between Saratoga Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
From the analysis, Hexagon concluded that the project would not have a significant impact at
either signalized study intersection; that installation of a traffic signal at the unsignalized
intersection would not be warranted based on project traffic volumes; and the project would not
have a significant impact on any of the study freeway segments according to CMP standards for
freeway operation.
Furthermore, per the applicant’s traffic engineer’ recommendation, the inbound and outbound
access driveways should be reversed, as now reflected on the site plan. The applicant’s traffic
engineer indicates that this would provide increased vehicle queuing space (approximately 4
vehicles) within the shared two-way center left-turn lane on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, which
would be beneficial to serve inbound vehicles waiting for gaps in the opposing flow of traffic on
northbound Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to turn left into the site.
Fehr & Peers completed a Peer Review of the TIA and concurred with the findings. A copy of the
Fehr & Peers memorandum is included as Attachment
118
CUP 09-0014 / PDR 09-0015; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
\ 6
Colors and Materials
The applicant proposes to upgrade the exterior of the building by replacing the existing dilapidated
metal siding with Thick Fog tan colored stucco and River Rock brown colored trim. New
mechanical equipment would be placed on the roof and screened by using the recycled metal
siding from the walls and painting it Twilight Taupe to compliment the new exterior colors. A
new True Brown colored awning would replace the existing awning over the entrance.
Energy Efficiency
The applicant intends to install solar panels on the roof to generate solar energy to supply power
for the building and heated indoor pools.
Landscaping/Fencing
The applicant has proposed to maintain the existing landscaping in the front of the building which
is currently in good condition. The applicant would add new landscaping between the rear of the
building and the rear parking area.
An eight foot (8’) high concrete wall currently separates the property from residential uses to the
north. Furthermore, a solid wood fence, approximately five to eight feet (5’- 8’) in height currently
separates the rear of the property from residential uses to the east. The existing fence and wall help
minimize noise impacts and screen the subject property from residents to the east and north of the
property. The applicant has proposed to replace the dilapidated chain link fencing with new chain
link fencing in a clear galvanized finish.
Signage
The applicant is not proposing any signage at this time. The applicant would remove the existing
non-conforming free-standing monument sign at the front of the property along Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road. If any signage is proposed in the future, the applicant would be required to submit a sign
permit application for review and approval.
Neighbor Correspondence
Public notice was sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the project (attachment 2). The
applicant also notified adjacent businesses and residents. As of the writing of this staff report, staff
received one letter from an adjacent neighbor at 12222 Kirkdale Drive who indicated that there are
already learning centers in the area and she does not support the project (attachment 3). Staff left
this neighbor a voicemail regarding the elimination of the educational facility from the proposal but
has not heard back from the neighbor as of the writing of this staff report.
119
CUP 09-0014 / PDR 09-0015; 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
\ 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find this application exempt from CEQA and
approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review with required findings
and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval.
2. Newspaper Notice, Mailed Notice, Address Labels, Mailing Affidavit
3. Neighbor Letter & Neighborhood Notification Forms
4. Traffic Study (prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.)
5. Peer Review (prepared by Fehr and Peers)
6. Traffic Impact Analysis (prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.)
7. Memorandum (prepared by Fehr and Peers)
8. Swim Program example
9. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A”.
10. Color Board, Exhibit “B”
11. Fire Department comments, Exhibit "C”.
120
November 5, 2014
Mr. Yorke Lee
Time Space Group
12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
Saratoga, CA 95070
Re: Results of Morning Trip Generation Count for the Swim Center at 12230 Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Road in Saratoga, California
Dear Mr. Lee:
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. completed a count of the trip generation at your existing
swim center at 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road in Saratoga, California. The swim center opens
at 6 AM to accommodate some patrons who want to swim laps. We counted the trips in and out of
your driveway between 6 AM and 9 AM. Your current use permit starts at 9 AM. Therefore, you
need to amend your use permit to cover the 6 AM – 9 AM period. We understand that you do not
intend to offer swimming lessons before 9 AM, and, therefore, the only early morning activities will
be lap swimming.
The results of our trip generation counts show only a small amount of activity in the morning. For
some reason, the Thursday of the count period had very little activity compared to Wednesday
and Friday. On Wednesday, there were 4 trips from 6 AM to 7 AM, 5 trips from 7 AM to 8 AM, and
12 trips from 8 AM to 9 AM. The corresponding numbers on Friday were 7, 7, and 13.
Saratoga Swim Center Morning Trip Generation
6-7 AM 7-8 AM 8-9 AM
Day Trips Trips Trips
Wednesday 10/29 4 5 12
Thursday 10/30 0 3 1
Friday 10/31 7 7 13
Average 4 5 9
Traffic studies usually are based on the highest-generating hour in the morning, which in this case
was found to be 8 AM to 9 AM. During this period, the swim center was found to generate 12 trips
on Wednesday and 13 trips on Friday. For some reason, Thursday was low, and there was only
trip during this time period.
121
Mr. Yorke Lee
November 5, 2014
Page 2 of 2
The swim center morning peak-hour trip generation of 12-13 trips is negligible, and the impact of
those trips on the surrounding streets and intersections can be assumed to be minimal. Therefore,
it is our opinion that no additional traffic analysis is necessary.
If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
Gary K. Black
President
122
Traffic Collission Report
The Traffic Investigator from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office Traffic Division reviewed the
collisions database for the past 5 years in the vicinity of the parking lot entrance to the swim school.
The Traffic Investigator indicated that none of the incidents below were associated with any vehicles
entering or exiting the swim center lot.
Below is a brief summary of the recorded incidents within the past five years:
• 12-16-2010: Collision in which a car ended up on center divider from southbound side close to
Jakes Pizza.
• 04-12-2011. Collision occurred at the intersection of Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd and Kirkmont Drive.
• 05-03-2012. Collision occurred on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road in front of Peets Coffee when driver
did not stop for stopped traffic.
• 11-21-2013. Collision occurred at the intersection of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd and Kirkmont Drive.
• 10-21-2014. Man on his bicycle riding northbound at Kirkmont Drive was nearly sideswiped by
car. No contact but rider fell over.
123
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on:
Wednesday, the 12th day of November 2014, at 7:00 p.m.
The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The
public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga
Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please
consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures.
APPLICATION: CUP 09-0014
ADDRESS: 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
APPLICANT/OWNER: Time-Space Investment Development LLC
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will be reviewing the conditions of approval for the
uses associated with the property at 12230 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The existing swim center
(“Saratoga Star Aquatics”) received conditional use permit approval in 2009.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information
to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, which go out the week before the
hearing, written communications should be filed before 10:00 a.m. Monday, November 3, 2014.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject
of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in
preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S.
Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a
project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice,
we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your
Community has as much information as possible concerning this project.
Cindy McCormick
Planner
(408) 868-1230
124
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in
Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.
Get Adobe Reader Now!
125
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: November 12, 2014
Application: Conditional Use Permit (CUP14-0007)
Location / APN: 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Applicant: Our Lady of Fatima Villa
Staff Planner: Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution 14-049 (Attachment 1) approving an updated
Conditional Use Permit and associated conditions for CUP 14-0007.
Pursuant to City Code Section 15-55.100, the Planning Commission may modify or delete any
conditions of a conditional use permit or impose any new conditions in order to preserve the public
health, safety or welfare, or to prevent the creation or continuance of a public nuisance, or where
such action is necessary to preserve or restore any of the findings set forth in City Code Section 15-
55.070 (below). A conditional use permit may be revoked by the Planning Commission upon a
determination that the holder of the permit has failed to comply with any condition thereof or has
violated any applicable provision of City Code.
15-55.070 - Findings for issuance of permit
(a) That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the
Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
(b) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
(c) That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this
Chapter.
(d) That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or anticipated uses in the
immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect surrounding properties or the
occupants thereof.
Page 1 of 6
126
HISTORY:
The property has been occupied by institutional uses since before the City was incorporated. The
current assisted living facility and associated uses initially received design review and conditional
use permit approval on October 11, 2000 (Attachments 5 & 6) and August 28, 2002 (Attachment
7). The City Council rezoned the property with a residential-planned-combined zoning designation
(R1-10,000-PC) on November 5, 2014 following review and a recommendation of approval from
the Planning Commission on October 8, 2014 (Attachment 3). The City Council also directed the
Planning Commission to review the CUP conditions for applicability with the current operations of
the site and the concerns of the neighbors. The rezoning conditions are included in Attachment 3.
SITE DATA:
Underlying Zoning Designation: Medium Density Residential (R1-10,000)
Overlay Zoning Designation: Planned-Combined (P-C)
General Plan Designation: Community Facility (CFS)
Site Area: 3.075 acres
Site Description:
The 3.08 acre project site consists of three adjoining parcels; one parcel occupied by the assisted
living facility, one parcel used for parking, and one parcel adjacent to Oak Street that is occupied
by “Fireman’s Hall”—a building used for offices and public meeting rooms. Surrounding uses
include residential homes, commercial businesses, and other community and institutional
facilities such as a church, a museum, and a book store.
Description of Uses:
The facility provides 24-hour healthcare services including rehabilitation, assisted living, respite
care and skilled nursing care. In addition to offering public meeting space, the facility has food
services, transportation services, maintenance services (e.g., housekeeping and laundry), library
services, social and recreational activities, a chapel, a beauty salon, and associated offices for all
of the uses.
Existing and Approved Improvements:
Standards for the P-C district, including residential density, must be consistent with the General
Plan. Per the General Plan, building intensity of community facilities is evaluated through the
conditional use permit process. Through the use permit process, institutional uses may have
different site area, density, structure height, setbacks, and off-street parking and loading
requirements.
Table 1 of this staff report shows the development standards that were approved through past
permits and more recently the Residential-Planned-Combined zoning ordinance (Attachment 3).
For reference, Table 2 shows the standards for the R1-10,000 zoning district.
Page 2 of 6
127
Table 1 – Our Lady of Fatima Development Standards
Total Impervious Coverage 90,196 sq. ft. (67.3%)
Total Floor Area 68,955 sq. ft.
Maximum Building Height 30 feet
Building Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
32’
26’
16’
46’
On-Site Parking 68 spaces
Table 2 – R1-10,000 Standards
Total Impervious Coverage 60%
Total Floor Area 4,400 sq. ft.1
Maximum Building Height 26 feet
Building Setbacks
Front:
Left Side:
Right Side:
Rear:
25’
10’
10’
25’
On-Site Parking 68 spaces
Future Improvements:
The current development on the site is consistent with the standards and uses allowed by the
Conditional Use Permit and the PC-R1-10,000 zoning ordinance. Future improvements shall be in
conformity with the regulations of the City Code and as established by future permits and standards
of development approved by the City.
Conditional Use Permit and Conditions of Approval:
The assisted living facility and associated uses are currently subject to the conditions of approval in
Resolutions DR99-052, UP99-021, 02-042, and most recently 14-031. On October 15, 2014, the
Council directed the “Commission to review the terms of the current conditional use permit for
Fatima Villa.”
1 Each zoning district has a maximum floor area allowance regardless of lot size.
Page 3 of 6
128
Attachment 1 provides a new resolution (14-049) and use permit (CUP 14-0007), that would
supersede Resolutions DR99-052, UP99-021, and 02-042. The original resolutions and conditions
of approval are provided in Attachments 5-7.
The conditions have been amended by staff to reflect the proposed changes to the parking lot,
feedback from the applicant and the neighbors at the October 15th City Council meeting, and
discussion by members of the City Council at the October 15th City Council meeting.
A comparison chart has been provided cross-referencing the previous conditions of approval with
the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 2). The following is a summary of the
proposed revisions. Staff believes that the conditions as modified meet the intent of the original
conditions and the concerns of the neighbors while being more applicable to the current conditions
and operations of the site.
• Conditions related to the construction of the buildings have been eliminated since they are no
longer applicable.
• Conditions related to the uses and development standards have been consolidated.
• Conditions related to fencing and landscaping have been generalized based on current city code.
• Conditions related to stormwater, geology, and tree removals (other than trees affected by
construction of the parking lot) have been generalized based on current city code.
• Conditions related to the fire department, building department, public works department, and
City Arborist have been generalized.
• Conditions related to below market rate housing has generally stayed the same.
• Conditions related to truck deliveries has generally stayed the same.
• Conditions related to laundry facility operations have generally stayed the same, with an
exception for health and safety needs.
• Conditions related to the emergency generator have generally stayed the same.
• Conditions related to site circulation have generally stayed the same and have been
consolidated.
• Conditions related to providing a phone number for neighbor complaints has been broken down
into emergencies and non-emergencies.
• Conditions related to “evening shift” parking are recommended to be amended, as follows:
UP02-042 CUP14-0007
Install signs at the upper lot facing the
fence saying "No staff parking between
2:00 PM and 6:00 AM"
“No staff parking” signs shall be posted along
the fence and perimeter of the upper parking lot.
Chain off the upper parking lot adjacent
the neighbors yards at the garage at 5:00
PM and reopen at 6:00 AM
Signs shall be posted restricting parking along
the fence and perimeter of the upper parking lot
to “residents only” or “guests only between the
hours of 6:00 AM to 5:00 PM” **
**The applicant is requesting that the specified hours be removed from this condition.
Page 4 of 6
129
• Conditions related to the construction parking management plan are recommended to be
amended, as follows:
UP02-042
A construction period traffic and parking management plan.
The applicant shall implement the following construction period traffic and parking
management plan.
Workers will car pool from the shop of origin to West Valley College, limiting the on-site
trucks to fewer than 20 per day.
The applicant shall inform the neighbors in the vicinity of West Valley College of the 10
parking spaces that are to be rented to the applicant for the duration of the construction period.
The neighbors closest to the rented spaces shall be made aware of the increased activity and
their concerns shall be reasonably addressed.
The Our Lady of Fatima facility has a maximum of 28 day shift staff members who will car
pool or use public transportation so that a maximum of 14 parking spaces will be used for this
purpose during the day.
During construction no public events will be held on site.
A construction period compliance-monitoring plan that will provide status reports to an
appointed liaison member of the Planning Commission. The reports should be provided every
sixty days once construction commences and should conclude sixty days from project final.
The Planning Commission liaison shall submit progress reports to the Community
Development Department every 60 days once the project is underway and a final report sixty
days after the project is concluded
CUP14-0007
A parking management plan, signed by the applicant and the owner of the facility providing
off-street parking, shall be approved by an appointed liaison member of the Planning
Commission.
The applicant shall provide status reports to the Commission liaison once construction of the
parking lot commences and following completion of the parking lot.
During construction no public events shall be held on site.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: A public notice was sent to property owners within
500 feet of the site (Attachment 4). No comments have been received regarding CUP14-0007 as
of the writing of this staff report.
Page 5 of 6
130
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 14-049 Approving CUP 14-0007
2. Conditions of Approval Comparison Chart
3. ZOA14-0001 Ordinance
4. Public Notice
5. DR99-052 Resolution of Approval (to be superceded)
6. UP99-021 Resolution of Approval (to be superceded)
7. 02-042 Resolution of Approval (to be superceded)
Page 6 of 6
131
RESOLUTION NO. 14-049
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP14-0007
LOCATED AT 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD
(517-10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034)
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2000 and August 28, 2002, Our Lady of Fatima Villa
received design review and conditional use permit approval (DR99-052, UP99-021, and 02-042)
for an institutional facility located at 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers 517-10-015, 517-10-009, and 517-10-034).
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2014, the City Council directed the Commission to review
the terms of the current conditional use permit for Fatima Villa. The foregoing is described as the
“Project” in this Resolution.
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2014 the City Council approved an ordinance applying a
Residential-Planned-Combined (R1-10,000-PC) zoning designation to the three adjoining parcels
located at 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road (APN #s 517-10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034).
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt.
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the subject permit, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant, and
other interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The existing
uses were previously approved pursuant to a conditional use permit and negative declaration. All
impacts at that time were found to be insignificant for the purposes of CEQA and that determination
has not changed. Furthermore, “existing facilities” are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R. Section 15301).
Section 3: The project is consistent with the Saratoga General Plan Policies LU 4 in that the
City shall continue to provide sufficient land area for public, quasi-public and similar land uses in
Saratoga.
Section 4: The project is consistent with Saratoga City Code Section 15-55.070 in that the
proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance
and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and the proposed location of the
132
Resolution No. 14-049
conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity; and the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this Chapter; and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect
existing or anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely affect
surrounding properties or the occupants thereof.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves CUP 14-0007
replacing the previous use permits approved by Resolution #s DR99-052, UP99-021, and 02-042,
for the project located at 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, subject to the Conditions of Approval
attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 12th day of
November 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
Page 2 of 7
133
Resolution No. 14-049
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CUP 14-0007
OUR LADY OF FATIMA VILLA; 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 517-10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for
this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval
documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by
the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the
Community Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent.
3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this
approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This
approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all
processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid
in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on
the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or
made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner
relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by
the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required
Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval
as to form and content by the City Attorney.
Page 3 of 7
134
Resolution No. 14-049
6. Continuing jurisdictions of Planning Commission and Director. The Planning Commission
and Director, as applicable shall, in all cases, retain continuing jurisdiction over each conditional
use permit and may at any time, either independently or in response to an application or request
to do so, modify or delete any conditions of a conditional use permit or impose any new
conditions if the Commission or Director determines that such action is necessary in order to
preserve a substantial right of the applicant, or to preserve the public health, safety or welfare, or
to prevent the creation or continuance of a public nuisance, or where such action is necessary to
preserve or restore any of the findings set forth in City Code Section 15-55.070.
7. Non-Compliance / Revocation of conditional use permit. A conditional use permit may be
revoked by the Planning Commission upon a determination that the holder of the permit has
failed to comply with any condition thereof or has violated any applicable provision of City
Code. Violations of the City's laws and regulations may be subject to an Administrative
Citation and fines pursuant to Saratoga City Code Article 3-30
8. Allowed Uses. All permitted and conditional uses per City Code Section 15-16.030 are
allowed. Additional permitted uses include those listed in the description of uses (Exhibit C).
No other use shall be established or changed upon the property unless approved pursuant to
City Code Article 15-16 and Section 15-16.060(a).
9. Site Coverage, Height and Floor Area of Structures. The total permitted site coverage,
approved on the basis of Exhibits A and B, is 90,196 square feet. The total permitted floor
area of all structures, approved on the basis of Exhibit B, is 68,955 square feet. The
maximum permitted height of any structure, approved on the basis of Exhibit B, is 30 feet.
No other structures or site coverage shall be permitted unless approved pursuant to City
Code.
10. Setbacks. All required setbacks shall be per City Code Section 15-12.090 for the R1-10,000
zoning district. No structure shall be permitted in any easement.
11. Fence. A six-foot tall solid fence shall be constructed between the subject property and the
properties at 14500 Oak Street and 14510 Oak Street. All fencing on the property shall comply
with City Code Article 15-29.
12. Maintenance of landscaped areas. Per City Code Section 15-80.030, the site shall be
planted with materials suitable for screening or ornamenting the site, whichever is
appropriate, and plant materials shall be replaced as needed to screen or ornament the site.
Landscaped areas shall be watered, weeded, pruned, fertilized, sprayed or otherwise
maintained by the owner as may be prescribed by the Community Development Director.
13. Parking.
a. Upper Parking Lot.
i. Signs shall be posted restricting parking along the fence and perimeter of the upper
parking lot to “residents only” or “guests only between the hours of 6:00 AM to 5:00
PM”.
ii. “No staff parking” signs shall be posted along the fence and perimeter of the upper
parking lot.
Page 4 of 7
135
Resolution No. 14-049
b. Lower Parking Lot. The 10-car parking area fronting Oak Street shall be maintained with
pervious pavers, per the City Arborist’s recommendation.
c. Parking Lot Construction. The upper parking lot shall be constructed, and maintained as
shown on Exhibit A and as approved by the City Arborist.
i. Tree Removal and Replacement. A maximum of seven trees has been approved for
removal to construct the upper parking lot. New trees equal in value to the removed trees
are required and may be planted anywhere on the property, per the Arborist Report dated
October 1, 2014.
ii. Arborist Reports. The arborist report, submitted by David Lazcko of Ian Geddes and
Associates on behalf of the applicant and dated September 19, 2014, shall be included in
the final set of building plans. The City arborist report, dated October 1, 2014, shall also
be included in the final set of building plans. The applicant shall comply with all
recommendations in both arborist reports, including but not limited to tree protective
fencing, tree replacement, and tree protection guarantee.
iii. Parking Management Plan. A parking management plan, signed by the applicant
and the owner of the facility providing off-street parking, shall be approved by an
appointed liaison member of the Planning Commission. The applicant shall provide
status reports to the Commission liaison once construction of the parking lot
commences and following completion of the parking lot. During construction no
public events shall be held on site.
14. Site Circulation
a. Saratoga-Los-Gatos Entrance/Exit. Signs shall be maintained prohibiting vehicles from
making left-hand turns onto Saratoga-Los Gatos Road when exiting the facility.
b. Oak Street Exit. Vehicles may exit the facility from the driveway adjacent to Oak Street.
Signs shall be maintained prohibiting vehicles from entering the facility via Oak Street.
15. Truck Deliveries. A sign shall be located at the entrance to the property, indicating that
"Truck deliveries will be accepted only between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM".
16. Trash. The applicant shall provide recycle bins in an enclosed area of the kitchen (or
garage), which will be taken out only between 8:30 AM and 4:00 PM.
17. Laundry.
a. Hours. With the exception of health and safety needs that cannot wait until normal hours,
the allowed hours of operation for laundry shall be from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM on
weekdays and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekends. In addition, the facility staff will make
a good faith effort to have the dryer portion of the weekend hours commence at 9:30 AM
and to have the total operation completed on weekends by 4:00 PM.
b. Dryer Type and Location. Large capacity dryers shall be maintained to minimize the
number of laundry loads each day. The through-wall exhaust fan shall be located on the
northwest wall of the building and the dryer exhaust path shall terminate at the north end
of the building to minimize noise and privacy impacts on adjoining properties.
18. Emergency Generator. No emergency or stand-by generator shall be allowed in any
required front, side or rear setback area. All emergency or stand-by generators shall be
required to meet all applicable requirements of the City Code, including Article 7-30
Page 5 of 7
136
Resolution No. 14-049
concerning noise. The emergency generator shall only be tested at 1:00pm when needed, and
the applicant shall incorporate a CMU barrier to screen generator noise.
19. 24-hour Emergency Phone Number. A phone number shall be provided for emergencies
24-hours per day.
20. Non-Emergency Phone Number. A phone number shall be provided for non-emergency
questions and concerns during normal business hours.
21. Below Market Rate Housing. Ten (10) studio units within the facility shall be designated as
affordable housing units and shall meet low income housing guidelines. Preference will be
given to Saratoga residents and this fact will be incorporated in language for the brochures
that advertise the facility.
22. Tree Removal.
a. Seven trees are approved for removal to construct the upper parking lot. New trees equal in
value to the removed trees are required and may be planted anywhere on the property, per
the Arborist Report dated October 1, 2014.
b. Except as otherwise provided in City Code Section 15-50.060, no person shall remove,
damage, prune, or encroach upon, or cause to be removed, damaged, pruned, or encroached
upon any protected tree without first having obtained a tree removal, pruning or
encroachment permit from the City authorizing the proposed action.
23. Stormwater. Each lot and building site shall be graded to drain all stormwater and other surface
waters to the nearest storm drain or other drainage outlet approved by the Building Official. All
runoff from roofs, decking, paving and other surface water collectors, whether natural or
artificial, may be required by the Building Official to be centrally collected and drained through
enclosed pipe or other conduit to on-site or off-site drainage outlets or storm drains. Disposition
of on-site stormwater shall be consistent with the requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Urban
Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (NPDES) as defined in Article 15-06 of the Zoning Code.
24. Geology Report. Application for a grading permit shall be accompanied by two sets of plans
and specifications, and supporting data consisting of a soils engineering report and
engineering geology report. The plans and specifications shall be prepared and signed by an
individual licensed by the State to prepare such plans or specifications when required by the
Building Official. Recommendations included in the soils engineering report and the
engineering geology report shall be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications. When
approved by the Building Official, specific recommendations contained in the soils engineering
report(s) and the engineering geology report(s), which are applicable to grading, may be
included by reference.
25. The owner/applicant shall agree to all requirements of the Saratoga Building Department, as
applicable.
26. The owner/applicant shall agree to all requirements of the Public Works Department and the
City Engineer, as applicable, including but not limited to geotechnical clearance conditions.
Page 6 of 7
137
Resolution No. 14-049
27. The owner/applicant shall agree to all requirements of the City Arborist, as applicable.
28. The owner/applicant shall agree to all requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department,
as applicable.
Page 7 of 7
138
Our Lady of Fatima - Conditional Use Permit
Proposed Consolidation of Use Permits DR99-052, UP-99-021, 02-042
Original CUP Language
CUP14-0007
DR 99-052
The development shall be located and constructed per Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference.
# 9 and #10
The 10-car parking area fronting Oak Street shall be constructed using pervious pavers, per the Arborist's recommendation. This shall be reflected on the plans.
# 13b
All of the conditions of UP-99-021 shall be adhered to.
See below
Prior to submittal for Building permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance:
Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page.
The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or licensed Land Surveyor verifying size and slope of lot, as well as proposed floor area and cross sections.
Cross sections shall call out the height of the structure as measured from existing grade. Maximum height of the structure shall be 33 feet from existing grade.
The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the
approved plans."
Four (4) sets of complete grading plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page.
All applicable recommendations of the City Arborist shall be shown on the grading plans.
deleted
All recommendations of the City Arborist's Report dated October 25, 1999 shall be met. This includes, but is not limited to:
The Arborist Report shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site plans.
Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction."
A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount of $ 79,833 pursuant to the report and
recommendation by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site.
Prior to Final Occupancy approval, one 48-inch box, one 36-inch box and one 15-gallon native trees shall be planted as replacements. The 48-inch box tree shall have a trunk diameter of no less than 4-inches.
The 36-inch box trees shall have a trunk diameter of no less than 3-inches. Diameters are measured 1 foot above grade.
Prior to Final Occupancy approval, the City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, replacement trees having
been planted, the bond shall be released.
Any future landscaping shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Arborist's recommendations.
# 27
No Ordinance-size tree shall be removed (with the exception of trees #2, 27, 28, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44 &:45) without first obtaining a Tree Removal Permit.
# 22
No structure shall be permitted in any easement.
# 10
No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height.
# 11
A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction-Best Management Practices shall be included on the plans. If all
storm water cannot be retained on site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan.
# 23
Prior to final occupancy all landscaping shall be installed per the approved plan.
# 12
1
139
DR 99-052 continued
CUP14-0007
Applicant shall install a wet barrel fire hydrant, supplied from the existing 8" water main feed to site. Connection shall be after the existing back flow prevention device and provide a fire hydrant, within the
court, 2-2 ½" &1-4" outlets.
An improved walking surface (sidewalk) is required from the east side (Redwood grove) to the main entrance driveway at Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. An accessible, improved walking surface from the east
side of the project site to the main access driveway is required. An egress/access walkway is required to the SE side garden and patio areas.
An improved walking surface is required from the east side (Redwood grove) to the existing sidewalk that parallels Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. A walkway is required for emergency egress to the east from the
garden and patio areas.
Applicant shall provide fire apparatus access to the plaza court area. Design and arrangement of access, including access widths, heights, turning radius and bearing weight of plaza surface to comply with Fire
Code.
The fire alarm system for the new project is required to be part of, and fully integrated with, the fire alarm system of the remaining skilled nursing facility. The fire alarm should be addressable type and
monitored by the Fire District dispatch center. Installation shall comply with City of Saratoga Ordinance 16-60.
The fire department connection for the new structures shall be located at the main entrance to the site from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The fire department connection for the sprinkler system of the new
structures shall be interconnected with the existing fire department connection for the SNF. For a single location, all required fire sprinkler service shall be supported.
A common, fire department, fire alarm system annunciation panel shall be provided at both the main lobby entrance and the west, covered entry to the plaza. The two panels shall independently indicate
operation of the fire alarm system, the specific individual devices, both within the new facility and existing SNF.
An emergency medical call system shall be provided throughout the combined existing and new structures. The medical call system shall cause a medical nurse/ALS response to any medical alarm initiated
within the complex. The system shall include pull-cord/button alarm initiating devices within each apartment/residence/studio, medical alarm light outside the entry door to the location, annunciation at the
attending residence and nurse stations and, with appropriate interface, alerting to the Fire District Dispatch Center of the condition.
The Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the Fire District for approval.
Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the garage and carport (2 heads per stall).
The designer/architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements.
The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final improvement plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage
improvements and design parameters for building foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The Project
Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall ensure that the final Grading and Drainage Plan clearly depicts the locations and extent of all proposed cuts and fills, and existing and proposed
basement areas. The results of the plan reviews shall be summarized by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the Public Works Department for
review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit.
The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project demolition and construction. The inspections shall
include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for fill keyways, and foundation construction prior to placement of
fill, steel and concrete. The Project Engineering Geologist shall prepare logs of basement wall excavations indicating materials encountered and the removal of unacceptable materials. The results of these
inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter(s), geologic logs and cross sections, and submitted to the Public Works Department for review
and approval prior to Finalization of Grading Permit.
The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the prior to project Zone Clearance.
The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other
soil related and/or erosion related conditions.
All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction-Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution.
# 24
# 26
# 3
# 5
# 23
Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any
proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
# 5
Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of
$250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation.
# 7
2
140
UP-99-021
CUP14-0007
The renovation shall be constructed as shown on Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. With the addition that the plans shall reflect exterior upgrading of the entire facility, including accessory structures to
compliment the renovation, subject to staff's approval
# 9
# 10
All conditions of DR-99-052 shall be adhered to.
See above
The emergency generator shall only be tested at 1p.m., when needed and applicant shall incorporate a CMU barrier to screen generator noise, subject to staff and City Arborist approval.
# 18
The entrance/exit to Saratoga-Los Gatos Road shall be modified as discussed in the staff report and per the City Traffic Consultant's approval.
# 14a
The exit onto Oak Street shall be maintained as an exit only. Appropriate signage as and modifications shall be installed as discussed in the staff report and subject to the City Traffic Consultant's approval.
# 14b
Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval as a Commission Item at a regular public meeting:
A plan to provide restricted Below-Market-Rate housing units to assist the City with compliance with State mandated affordable housing goals. This plan shall include an agreement to provide a first-
preference admittance program for Saratoga residents for both the BMR and Market-Rate units.
A plan to provide sound attenuation of the laundry facility. This plan shall include limitations on hours of all non-residential noise generating activities.
A construction period traffic and parking management plan.
A construction-period compliance monitoring plan that will provide status reports to an appointed liaison member of the Planning Commission. The reports should be provided every sixty days once
construction commences and should conclude sixty days from project final.
Measures to ensure that the evening-shift employees park as far away from adjoining residents as possible.
Designation of a 24-hour facility manager to respond to neighbor complaints.
See below
The Planning Commission shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the Use Permit and may, at any time, modify, delete, or impose any new conditions of the permit to preserve the public health, safety, and
welfare.
# 6 and # 7
Applicant agrees to hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City's defense of its actions in
any proceeding brought in any State or Federal court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
# 5
Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of
$250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation.
# 7
3
141
02-042
CUP14-0007
A plan to provide restricted below market rate housing to assist the City with compliance with State mandated affordable housing goals. This plan shall include an agreement to provide a first-preference
admittance program for Saratoga residents.
The plans indicate that there will be 10 studio units available within the facility that meet the low income housing guidelines. These units shall be designated as affordable housing units, which contribute to
meet the City's Affordable Housing obligation.
Preference will be given to Saratoga residents and this fact will be incorporated in language for the brochures that advertise the facility.
# 21
A plan to provide sound attenuation of the laundry facility. This plan shall include limitations on hours of all non residential noise generating activities.
The applicant shall implement the following measures to further reduce the noise in the vicinity of the laundry and trash area.
Change the hours of operation of the laundry from the current hours of 6:00 AM to 5:30 PM on weekdays to a reduced time period of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays. On weekends the laundry hours shall
be reduced further from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. In addition, the facility staff will make a good faith effort to have the dryer portion of the weekend hours commence at 9:30 AM and to have the total operation
completed on weekends by 4:00 PM.
Relocate the dryer exhaust ducts from the roof of the building to the interior of the building. The new exhaust path will terminate at the north end of the building, where the laundry building and an existing
fence and shed will help shield the property line from the noise, rather than on the roof, where there is a line of sight to the neighboring property's rear yard.
Replace the existing dryers with new ones. We understand that the new dryers have quieter drive systems and larger capacity than the existing ones. The larger capacity will result in a smaller number of
laundry loads each day.
Relocate a through-wall exhaust fan from the southwest wall to the northwest wall of the building to move it away from the residential property line.
The applicant will post a new sign at each entry saying, "Truck deliveries will be accepted only between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM".
The applicant will provide recycle bins in an enclosed area of the kitchen (or garage), which will be taken out only between 8:30 AM and 4:00 PM
# 17
# 15
# 16
A construction period traffic and parking management plan.
The applicant shall implement the following construction period traffic and parking management plan.
Workers will car pool from the shop of origin to West Valley College, limiting the on-site trucks to fewer than 20 per day.
The applicant shall inform the neighbors in the vicinity of West Valley College of the 10 parking spaces that are to be rented to the applicant for the duration of the construction period. The neighbors closest
to the rented spaces shall be made aware of the increased activity and their concerns shall be reasonably addressed.
Our Lady of Fatima facility has a maximum of 28 day shift staff members who will car pool or use public transportation so that a maximum of 14 parking spaces will be used for this purpose during the day.
During construction no public events will be held on site.
#13 c
A construction period compliance-monitoring plan that will provide status reports to an appointed liaison member of the Planning Commission. The reports should be provided every sixty days once
construction commences and should conclude sixty days from project final.
The Planning Commission liaison shall submit progress reports to the Community Development Department every 60 days once the project is underway and a final report sixty days after the project is
concluded.
#13 c
Measures to ensure that evening shift employees will park as far away from adjoining residents as possible.
The applicant shall implement the following measures to limit use of the rear parking lot.
Install signs at the upper lot facing the fence saying "No staff parking between 2:00 PM and 6:00 AM"
Chain off the upper parking lot adjacent the neighbors yards at the garage at 5:00 PM and reopen at 6:00 AM.
# 13a
Designation of 24-hourfacility manager to respond to neighbor's complaints.
Provided a 24-hour number to call with complaints.
Provide adjacent neighbors with a direct pager number to a person who is on call twenty-four hours a day seven days a week.
#19 & #20
Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any
proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project.
# 5
Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the violation, liquidated damages of
$250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation.
# 7
4
142
ORDINANCE __________
AN ORDINANCE REZONING
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 517-10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034
FROM R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (PLANNED COMBINED DISTRICT)
LADY OF FATIMA VILLA; 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Findings
1. Saratoga City Code Article 15-16 establishes the P-C (Planned Combined) District to provide
the City the authority to modify standards of development in an underlying zoning district so as
to achieve the following objectives:
a. To provide a means of guiding development or redevelopment of properties in areas of the
City that are uniquely suited for a variety of design and development patterns and standards.
b. To provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides a public
benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of the zoning
regulations. A public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings that exceed the
City's green building standards, provides community facilities that are open to the public, or
allows for innovative in-fill design.
c. To encourage innovative design in a development that achieves one or more specific goals
and policies of the General Plan that would otherwise not be attainable through strict
application of the zoning regulations.
2. A Planned Combined District may be combined with any zoning district upon the granting of a
change of zone in accord with the provisions of Article 15-16. A Planned Combined district shall
be designated by the symbol "P-C" following the zoning district designation with which it is
combined.
3. Community centers, private recreational centers, social halls, lodges, clubs, restaurants and
medical centers, to be used by the residents of the Planned Combined district and their guests are
the types of uses which may be established or changed upon the property with which the P-C
district is combined.
4. The City Council may by ordinance adopt a change of zone to a Planned Combined district as
applied for or in modified and/or conditional reclassification, as set forth in the Resolution of
Approval (Attachment 1).
5. Consistent with the General Plan standards for the P-C district, including residential density, the
City Council has authority to grant exceptions to the zoning regulations pertaining to
development standards (e.g., floor area, lot coverage, height) without compliance with the
provisions of Article 15-70 relating to variances. The City Council may require such
development to contain a common green and/or other common area features.
1
143
6. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission and City Council have each found that the change is
required to achieve the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance set forth in Section 15-05.020, and
following additional findings required in support of the rezoning to R-1-10,000 P-C:
a. That the proposed location of the Planned Combined district is in accord with the objectives
of the General Plan and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located.
b. That standards for the development will result in an aesthetic asset to the community and
produce an environment of stable and desirable character consistent with the overall
objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
c. That the uses in the development will complement each other and will not adversely affect
existing and proposed land uses in the vicinity or the public health, safety and welfare.
That the application of the combined district furthers two or more of the purposes
contained within Section 15-16.010 (as set forth above, particularly purposes (b) and (c)
under Finding 1 above).
7. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on October 15, 2014,
and after considering all testimony and written materials provided in connection with that
hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the reading thereof.
Therefore, the City Council hereby amends the City Code as follows:
Section 1. Adoption.
The Saratoga City Zoning Map is amended to conditionally rezone Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 517-
10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034 (also known as 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Saratoga,
California from R-1-10,000 TO R-1-10,000 P-C (Planned Combined District) subject to the
conditions specified in Attachment 1 hereto.
Section 2. Severance Clause.
The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause
and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section,
paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section,
paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City
Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective
of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this
ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated.
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act
The reclassification of the R1-10,000 zoning district to a R1-10,000 P-C Planned Combined district
will not have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore is not subject to CEQA. The
existing uses were previously approved pursuant to a conditional use permit and negative
declaration. All impacts at that time were found to be insignificant for the purposes of CEQA and
that determination has not changed. The additional lot coverage needed for improved site coverage
and parking is exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 11 “Accessory
Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of
small parking lots.
2
144
Section 4. Publication.
A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of
Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption.
Following a duly noticed public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 15th day of October, 2014, and was
adopted by the following vote on November 5th, 2014.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED: ATTEST:
_________________________________ _____________________________
EMILY LO CRYSTAL BOTHELIO
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
Saratoga, California Saratoga, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________________
RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY
3
145
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ZOA14-0001
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 517-10-015, 517-10-009, 517-10-034
LADY OF FATIMA VILLA; 20400 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, or grading for
this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval
documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by
the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the
Community Development Director.
2. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until
the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent.
3. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement, after the time the Resolution granting this
approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This
approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all
processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the processing fees have been paid
in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained).
4. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga Zoning Regulations incorporated herein by this reference.
5. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on
the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or
made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner
relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by
the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance from the Community Development Director, Owner
and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required
Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval
as to form and content by the City Attorney.
146
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6. All permitted and conditional uses per City Code Section 15-16.030 are allowed. Additional
permitted uses include those approved on the basis of the parking lot grading plan (Exhibit
A), existing site plan, floor plan, and elevations (Exhibit B), and description of uses (Exhibit
C). No other use shall be established or changed upon the property unless approved pursuant
to City Code Article 15-16 and Section 15-16.060(a).
7. The total permitted site coverage, approved on the basis of Exhibit A, is 90,196 square feet.
8. The total permitted floor area of all structures, approved on the basis of Exhibit B, is 68,955
square feet. The maximum permitted height of any structure, approved on the basis of Exhibit
B, is 30 feet.
9. No other structures or site coverage shall be permitted unless approved pursuant to City Code.
10. All required setbacks shall be per City Code Section 15-12.090 for the R-1-10,000 zoning
district.
11. Tree Removal and Replacement. Seven trees are approved for removal. New trees equal in
value to the removed trees are required and may be planted anywhere on the property, per the
Arborist Report dated October 1, 2014.
12. Arborist Review. The arborist report, submitted by David Lazcko of Ian Geddes and
Associates on behalf of the applicant and dated September 19, 2014, shall be included in the
final set of building plans., The City arborist report, dated October 1, 2014, shall also be
included in the final set of building plans. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations
in both arborist reports, including but not limited to tree protective fencing, tree replacement,
and tree protection guarantee.
13. Fence. A six-foot tall solid fence shall be constructed between the subject property and the
properties at 14500 Oak Street and 14510 Oak Street.
147
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on:
Wednesday, the 12th day of November 2014, at 7:00 p.m.
The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The
public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga
Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please
consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures.
APPLICATION: CUP14-0006
ADDRESS: 20400 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
APPLICANT/OWNER: Our Lady of Fatima Villa
DESCRIPTION: The Planning Commission will be reviewing and updating the conditions of
approval for the current uses and operating procedures at Our Lady of Fatima. Our Lady of
Fatima previously received conditional use permit approval in 2000 and 2002.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information
to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, which go out the week before the
hearing, written communications should be filed before 10:00 a.m. Monday, November 3, 2014.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject
of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor’s office annually, in
preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of-date information or difficulties with the U.S.
Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a
project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice,
we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your
Community has as much information as possible concerning this project.
Cindy McCormick
Planner
(408) 868-1230
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No.: GPA14-0006 & ZOA14-0004: 2015-2023 Housing Element Update
& Negative Declaration
Subject: Housing Element Implementation Ordinance including
Conforming Amendments to the Land Use Element
Applicant: City of Saratoga
Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan, AICP, Senior Planner
Meeting Date: November 12, 2014
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Recommend approval to the City Council of a General Plan Housing Element Implementation
Ordinance and Conforming Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element.
BACKGROUND:
On July 23, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft 2015-2023 Housing Element and
recommended adoption to the City Council. On August 20, 2014, the City Council conceptually
approved and authorized staff to submit the draft Housing Element to HCD for review. On October
14, 2014, HCD accepted the draft Housing Element as complete and stated that it was consistent
with the statutory requirements of State Housing Law. The City Council is scheduled to adopt the
Housing Element at their meeting of November 19, 2014.
Chapter 4 of the draft Housing Element includes the Policy Program of the Housing Element. These
policies describe specific actions necessary to address present and future housing needs and to meet
the specific requirements of State law. To implement some of the policies require modifications to
the City Code and amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element.
During HCD’s review of the draft Housing Element it was required that the City add an additional
policy action to amend the multi-family parking requirements in the CN(RHD) district. It was
determined by HCD that the existing parking requirements for multi-family developments of one
space within an enclosed garage plus 1.5 additional spaces on site per unit could be a constraint to
the development of affordable housing developments. The City is to consider removal of the
enclosed parking requirement and a reduction to the required guest parking as follows:
Policy Action 4-1.6: Amend Multi-Family Parking Requirements for Affordable Housing
Development in the CN(RHD) district
The City understands that parking requirements can be a constraint to development of
affordable housing. The City currently has reduced parking standards for one-bedroom units
and units that are exclusively occupied by seniors or students. To ensure that the existing
163
multi-family parking requirement is not a constraint to the development of affordable
housing in the CN(RHD) zone, for a project proposing affordable housing, the City shall
consider additional reductions to parking requirements for affordable and higher density
housing developments including removal of garage requirements and further reductions to
guest parking requirements.
Housing Element Implementation Ordinance
The attached draft Zoning Ordinance amendments (Attachment 1A) implement the policies
contained in the draft 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element. The table that follows is a
summary of the changes proposed in the Zoning Ordinance for Article 15-12 (R-1: Single Family
Residential Districts), Article 15-13 (HR: Hillside Residential District), Article 15-17 (R-M: Multi-
Family Residential Districts), Article 15-19 (C: Commercial Districts), Article 15-20 (R-OS:
Residential Open Space District), Article 15-35 ( Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities ), and
Article 15-56 (Second Dwelling Units).
Housing Element
Policy
Current Approach and Housing
Element Policy Action
Proposed Changes
Policy Action 4-1.1:
Amend
Commercial-
Neighborhood
(Residential) High
Density) Standards
The draft Housing Element identifies
the 6.12 acre commercial area on
Prospect Road zoned CN(RHD) as a
Housing Opportunity Site with a
potential capacity of 183 dwelling units.
The current CN(RHD) zoning district
regulations (Section 15-19.035) include
a minimum density of 20 dwelling units
per acre and an allowable building
height of 30 feet. These regulations
would not accommodate the number of
identified housing units.
The Planning Commission is currently
required to make specific findings for
proposed housing developments with
densities exceeding 20 dwelling units
per acre which would not be consistent
with the increases in the proposed
densities.
The proposed amendment to Section 15-
19.35(a)(1) would increase the minimum
allowed density from 20 units per acre to
30 units per acre and the proposed
amendment to Section 15-19.035(h) would
increase the maximum building height
from 30 feet to 35 feet.
Section 15-19.035(k) would be modified
so that only developments exceeding 40
dwelling units per acre would require
additional Planning Commission findings.
An associated amendment to the General
Plan Land Use Element would increase the
maximum number of building stories in the
CN(RHD) zoning district from two stories
to three stories.
Policy Action 4-1.6:
Amend Multi-
Family Parking
Requirements for
affordable housing
developments in the
CN(RHD) district.
The off-street parking requirements for
multi-family dwellings require one (1)
covered space within a garage plus 1.5
spaces (total of 2.5 spaces) for each
dwelling unit. The proposed Housing
Element identifies the existing parking
requirement as a possible constraint to
the construction of affordable housing
in the CN(RHD) zoning district and
The multi-family parking requirement
(Section 15-35.030(c)) would be modified
for affordable housing developments in the
CN(RHD) zoning district to only require
one (1) covered space (located in a garage
or carport) plus one (1) additional space on
site for each dwelling unit (total of 2
spaces).
2
164
Housing Element
Policy
Current Approach and Housing
Element Policy Action
Proposed Changes
provides that these requirements should
be reduced.
Policy Action 4-4.1:
Encourage
Development of
Second Dwelling
Units
The draft Housing Element estimates
that 35 second dwelling units could be
constructed within the planning cycle
which can be considered as affordable
units. The current second dwelling unit
regulations require that these units be a
minimum of 400 square feet in size and
the minimum lot size cannot be smaller
than the standard lot size for the
underlying zoning district. The Housing
Element identifies the existing second
unit regulations as a possible constraint
to the development of second units.
The proposed amendment to Section 15-
56.030(a) would reduce the minimum lot
size for a second dwelling unit to 90% of
the minimum standard for the underlying
zoning district.
Section 15-56.030(b) would be modified to
remove the minimum unit size for a second
dwelling unit. The maximum 1,200 square
feet second dwelling unit size will remain
unchanged.
Policy Action 4-4.2:
Zoning Code
Amendment for
Special Needs
Housing
The City Code permits ‘transitional and
supportive’ housing as a permitted use
only in the CN(RHD) zoning district.
Recent changes to State law require
such uses to be permitted uses in all
residential zones.
The City allows emergency shelters by
right in the CN(RHD) zoning district
but the City Code does not include
development standards to regulate their
operation. State housing law requires
that cities adopt standards for the
regulation and operation of emergency
shelters.
The proposed amendments would allow
Transitional and Supportive Housing as a
permitted use in R-1 districts (Section 15-
12.020(b)), HR Districts (Section 15-
13.030(b), RM Districts (Section 15-
17.020(c)), and R-OS Districts (Section
15-20.020(b)).
The proposed amendments regarding
emergency shelters would add Section 15-
19.035(m) [Development Standards for
Emergency Shelters] to the existing
CN(RHD) district regulations.
In conjunction with the Housing Element the City will consider adoption of conforming amendments
to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to ensure consistency with the Housing Element. These
are discussed below.
Land Use Element Conforming Amendments
The attached proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element (Attachment 1B) are
intended to ensure consistency between the Land Use Element and the 2015-2023 General Plan
Housing Element. The table that follows is a summary of the changes proposed to the Land Use
Element. These include amending the description of the Commercial Retail (CR) Land Use Category
to include the new zoning district near Prospect Road and Lawrence Expressway and revising Table
LU-1 (Land Use Categories) to include the same.
3
165
Topic Current Approach Proposed Changes
Description of
Commercial/Office
Land Use
Designations
The description of the
Commercial/Office land use
designation on page 12 in the
Land Use Element of the
General Plan limits the density
of mixed use development in
the commercial area near
Prospect Avenue and
Lawrence Expressway to a
minimum density of 20 units
per acre.
The proposed amendment would revise the text that
limits the density of the commercial area near
Prospect Avenue and Lawrence Expressway to a
minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre.
Overall Height Limit The description of the Overall
Height Limit on page 14 of
the Land Use Element of the
General Plan for structures in
Saratoga limits their height to
two stories with height
exceptions for the Village and
on sites with quasi-public uses
on slopes exceeding 10%.
The proposed amendment would revise the text so
that three story structures in the commercial area
near Prospect Avenue and Lawrence Expressway
would be one of the allowed exceptions to the two
story height limit.
Table LU-1
Land Use Categories
The existing text at the bottom
of Table LU-1 on page 16 of
the Land Use Element
provides information on the
City’s Overall Height Limit
and the density of Mixed Use
Development.
The proposed amendments would:
• state that an exception to the two story height
limit would be for three story structures in the
commercial area near Prospect Avenue and
Lawrence Expressway.
• state that mixed residential/commercial uses are
permitted on all commercially zoned lands, with
a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre, except
that the commercial area near Prospect Avenue
and Lawrence Expressway allows mixed use
development at a minimum of 30 dwelling units
per acre.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Environmental review was completed in the form of an Initial Study and it was determined that the
proposed adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element would not result in potential significant
impacts on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. A notice regarding the
opportunity to review the document and a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration was
published in the Saratoga News and the 30 day comment period took place between June 23, 2014
and July 22, 2014. The Planning Commission reviewed the Negative Declaration at their meeting of
4
166
July 23, 2014 and recommended approval to the City Council. The City Council is scheduled to
adopt the Negative Declaration along with the 2015-2023 Housing Element at their meeting of
November 19, 2014. The proposed zoning and General Plan amendments were considered as part of
the Housing Element approval and no further environmental review is necessary.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
The public participation component of the Housing Element’s development is described in Appendix
A of the draft Housing Element. This included two community Workshops, three Planning
Commission Study Sessions, and one Public Hearing. Notice of this meeting was properly posted
and published in the Saratoga News.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution for Approval
1A. Recommended Changes to Chapter 15 of the City Code
1B. Land Use Element Conforming Amendments
2. 2015-2023 draft Housing Element
5
167
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO: 14-052
Applications ZOA14-0004 and GPA14-0006
Housing Element Implementation
Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 15 of the City Code and Conforming
Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission finds and determines as follows with respect to
the above-described application:
WHEREAS, amendments to Chapter 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the Saratoga
City Code (Exhibit A) are intended to implement the policies contained in the 2015-2023
General Plan Housing Element and include changes to Articles 15-12 (R-1: Single Family
Residential Districts), 15-13 (HR: Hillside Residential District), 15-17 (R-M: Multi-Family
Residential Districts), 15-19 (C: Commercial Districts), 15-20 (R-OS: Residential Open
Space District), 15-35 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities), and 15-56 (Second
Dwelling Units).
WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element (Exhibit B) are
intended to ensure internal consistency between the General Plan Land Use Element and
the 2015-2023 General Plan Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2014, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed
Public Hearing on the legislation described above at which time all interested parties were
given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and argument. The Planning
Commission considered the amendments, staff report, correspondence, presentations from
the public, and all testimony and other evidence presented at the Public Hearing.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby
finds, determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein
by reference.
Section 2: Environmental review was completed in the form of an Initial Study on
which basis it was determined that the proposed adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing
Element and associated Policy Program would not result in potential significant impacts
on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared. A notice regarding the
opportunity to review the document and a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration
was published in the Saratoga News and the 30 day comment period took place between
June 23, 2014 and July 22, 2014. Staff has not received any comments directly relating
168
to the environmental review and intent to adopt the Negative Declaration.
Section 3: After careful consideration of the staff report and other materials,
exhibits and evidence submitted to the City in connection with this matter, the Planning
Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend to the City Council to amend
the City Code as shown in Exhibit A and the General Plan Land Use Element as shown in
Exhibit B.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 12h
day of November 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Mary-Lynne Bernald
Chair, Planning Commission
Attachment:
Exhibit ‘A’ – Proposed City Code Zoning Regulation Amendments
Exhibit ‘B’ – Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Amendments
2
Application No. ZOA14-0004
169
Attachment A
Housing Element Implementation Ordinance
Amendments to Saratoga City Code Articles, 15-12, 15-13,
15-17, 15-19, 15-20, 15-35, and 15-56
(Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined) and text to be deleted
is indicated in strikeout (e.g. strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged. )
1. Policy Action No.’s 4-1.1 & 4-4.2 Related Amendments to C-N (RHD) Development
Standards
15-19.035 C-N(RHD) District Regulations.
(a) Permitted uses. In addition to the permitted uses listed in Section 15-19.020(a) and 15-
19.030(a) of this Article, the following permitted uses shall also be allowed in a C-N(RHD)
district:
(1) Mixed-use development with a minimum residential density of twenty thirty dwelling
units per net acre and conforming to the design standards found in Article 15-58. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65583.2(i) any design review required for such development shall
not constitute a "project" under CEQA.
(2) Emergency shelters, transitional housing, single-room occupancy buildings, and
supportive housing for homeless individuals and families.
(b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses listed in Section 15-19.020(b) and
15-19.030(b) of this Article, the following conditional uses may also be allowed in a C-
N(RHD) district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15-55 of this Chapter:
(1) Drive-through services.
(2) Gasoline service stations; provided that all operations except the sale of gasoline and
oil shall be conducted within an enclosed structure.
[No changes to (c) through (g)]
(h) Height of structures. The maximum height of any structure in a C-N(RHD) district
shall be thirty thirty-five feet.
[No changes to (i) through (j)]
(k) Alternative standards for multi-family dwellings. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this Section, where multi-family dwellings will be located upon a site, the
project shall comply with the development standards set forth in Article 15-17 of this Chapter.
170
Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined) and text to be deleted is
indicated in strikeout (e.g. strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The density of development above twenty forty dwelling units per net acre shall be as
determined in each case by the Planning Commission, based upon its findings that:
(1) The project will not constitute overbuilding of the site; and
(2) The project is compatible with the structures and density of development on adjacent
properties; and
(3) The project will preserve a sufficient amount of open space on the site; and
(4) The project will provide sufficient light and air for the residents of the site and the
occupants of adjacent properties.
[No changes to (l)]
(m) Development standards for emergency shelters.
(1) Shelter Capacity. An emergency shelter for homeless persons shall contain no more
than twenty (20) beds and shall serve no more than twenty (20) persons nightly. The
physical size of the shelter shall not be larger than necessary for the number of persons the
shelter serves.
(2) Parking. On-site parking for residents shall be based on one space for every four
beds, and staff parking shall be based on one space for each employee on the maximum
staffed shift.
(3) Lighting. Adequate external lighting shall be provided for security purposes. The
lighting shall be stationary and designed, arranged and installed so as to confine direct rays
onto the premises and to direct light away from adjacent structures and public rights-of-
way. External lighting shall be of intensity compatible with the neighborhood.
(4) On-site Waiting and Intake Areas. An interior waiting and intake area shall be
provided which contains a minimum of 200 square feet. Waiting and intake areas may be
used for other purposes (excluding sleeping) as needed during operations of the shelter.
(5) Common Facilities. The development may provide one or more of the following
specific common facilities for exclusive use of the residents and staff, provided that such
facilities do not substantially increase the overall size of the shelter facility:
(a) Central cooking and dining room.
(b) Recreation room.
2
171
Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined) and text to be deleted is
indicated in strikeout (e.g. strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(c) Laundry facilities sized to serve only the occupants at the shelter.
(d) Other uses that are considered ancillary to the primary use such as office and
storage, not to exceed 10% of the total floor area of the shelter facility, exclusive of the
common facilities identified in subsections (a), (b), and (c) above.
(6) On-site Staff. At least one manager and one supporting staff member shall be on-site
during all hours of operation of the facility. Such manager and staff member must be
individuals who do not utilize the shelter's beds or other services and who reside off-site.
(7) Security. Security personnel shall be provided during operational hours whenever
clients are on the site. A security plan shall be submitted to the City and subject to
approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
(8) Concentration of Uses. No more than one emergency shelter shall be permitted
within a radius of 300 feet of another emergency shelter.
(9) Emergency Shelter Operations. The agency or organization operating the
emergency shelter shall comply with the following requirements:
(a) Hours of Operation. Clients shall only be on site and admitted to the facility between
5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
(b) Length of stay. Each emergency shelter resident shall be allowed to stay for no
more than 90 days (cumulative, not consecutive) in a 365 day period. Extensions up to a
total stay of 180 days in a 365-day period may be granted by the shelter provider if no
alternative housing is available.
(c) Management Plan. Prior to commencing operation, the shelter operator shall
provide a written management plan to the City which shall be subject to the Community
Development Departments approval. The shelter operator shall comply with the
management plan as approved by the Director and the management plan shall address:
hours of operation, admission hours and process, staff training, neighborhood outreach
and privacy, security, resident counseling and treatment, maintenance plans, residency and
guest rules and procedures, and staffing needs.
(d) Annual report. The shelter operator shall provide to the Community Development
Department an annual report of the use of the facility sufficient for the Director to make a
determination of compliance with the City's development standards for the use.
3
172
Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined) and text to be deleted is
indicated in strikeout (e.g. strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Policy Action No. 4-1.6 Related Amendments to Parking Requirements for
Affordable Housing Developments in the C-N(RHD) Zoning District
15-35.030 - Schedule of off-street parking spaces.
Off-street parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the following schedule:
Use Spaces Required
[No changes to (a) through (b)]
(c) Multi-family dwellings One covered space within a garage for each dwelling unit, plus one
and one-half additional spaces on the site for each dwelling unit;
with the following exceptions:
for dwelling units containing no more than one bedroom and for
housing developments occupied exclusively by seniors and students,
the required parking shall be one covered space within a garage for
each dwelling unit plus one-half additional space on the site for each
dwelling unit.; and
for affordable housing developments located within the C-N
(RHD) zoning district, the required parking shall be one
covered space plus one additional space on site for each dwelling
unit.
[No changes to (d) through (t)]
3. Policy Action No. 4-4.1 Related Amendments to Second Dwelling Unit Development
Standards
15-56.030 - Development standards.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 15-56.050, each second dwelling unit shall comply
with all of the following development standards:
(a) Lot size. The net site area of the lot upon which the second dwelling unit is located
shall not be less than ninety percent of the minimum standard prescribed for the district
applicable to such lot. Minimum standards for lots located in the HR Residential District are
determined per Section 15-13.060(a) of the City Code.
4
173
Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined) and text to be deleted is
indicated in strikeout (e.g. strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(b) Unit size and Use. The second dwelling unit shall be at least four hundred square feet
and shall not exceed one thousand two hundred square feet of living space, not including the
garage. If a second dwelling unit has a basement, the area of the basement is included as part
of the total maximum allowed.
[No changes to (c) through (i)]
4. Policy Action No. 4-4.2 Related Amendments to Transitional and Supportive
Housing
15-12.020 - Permitted uses.
The following permitted uses shall be allowed in the R-1 districts:
(a) Single-family dwellings.
(b) Transitional and Supportive Housing
(bc) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use, including
garages and carports, garden sheds, greenhouses, shade structures, recreation rooms, home
hobby shops, cabanas, structures for housing swimming pool equipment, one second dwelling
unit or one guest house.
(cd) Raising of fruit and nut trees, vegetables and horticultural specialties, not including
nurseries, greenhouses or storage of landscaping equipment products or supplies for
commercial uses.
(de) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article
15-40 of this Chapter.
(ef) Stables and corrals for the keeping for private use of one horse for each forty thousand
square feet of net site area; provided, however, that in the equestrian zone only, one additional
horse may be permitted on the first forty thousand square feet of net site area, and an
additional horse may be permitted for each additional forty thousand square feet of net site
area. All horses shall be subject to the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7-
20.220 of this Code.
(fg) Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests.
(gh) The keeping for private use of a reasonable number of domestic dogs, cats and other
small mammals, birds, fish and small reptiles, subject to the regulations as set forth in Article
7-20 of this Code, and subject also to the restrictions and standards prescribed in Section 15-
11.020(h) of this Chapter.
5
174
Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined) and text to be deleted is
indicated in strikeout (e.g. strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
(hi) Except as specified in Section 15-12.030, recreational courts, to be used solely by
persons resident on the site and their guests.
(ij) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular
telephone and other wireless communications, subject to design review under Article 15-46
15-13.030 - Permitted uses.
The following permitted uses shall be allowed in the HR district:
(a) Single-family dwellings.
(b) Transitional and Supportive Housing
(bc) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use, including
garages and carports, garden sheds, greenhouses, shade structures, recreation rooms, home
hobby shops, cabanas, structures for housing swimming pool equipment and one guest house.
(cd) Raising of vegetables, field crops, fruit and nut trees and horticultural specialties, and
the processing of such products as are so raised or grown on the premises.
(de) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article
15-40 of this Chapter.
(ef) Stables and corrals or the keeping for private use of not more than two horses on a
site. The minimum net site area shall be forty thousand square feet for one horse and eighty
thousand square feet for two horses, except that in the equestrian zone only, a second horse
may be kept if the net site area is at least forty thousand square feet. All horses shall be subject
to the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7-20.220 of this Code.
(fg) Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests.
(gh) The keeping for private use, of a reasonable number of domestic dogs, cats and other
small mammals, birds, fish and small reptiles, subject to the regulations as set forth in Article
7-20 of this Code, and subject also to the restrictions and standards prescribed in Section 15-
11.020(h) of this Chapter.
(hi) Public parks, trails and other publicly owned open spaces.
(ij) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular
telephone and other wireless communications, subject to design review under Article 15-44
6
175
Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined) and text to be deleted is
indicated in strikeout (e.g. strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
15-17.020 - Permitted uses.
The following permitted uses shall be allowed in the R-M districts:
(a) Single-family dwellings.
(b)Multi-family dwellings.
(c) Transitional and Supportive Housing
(cd) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use, including
garages and carports, garden sheds, greenhouses, shade structures, recreation rooms, hobby
shops, cabanas and structures for housing swimming pool equipment.
(de) Raising of fruit and nut trees, vegetables and horticultural specialties, not including
nurseries, greenhouses or storage of landscaping equipment, products or supplies for
commercial uses.
(ef) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article
15-40 of this Chapter.
(fg) Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests.
(gh) The keeping for private use of a reasonable number of dogs, cats and other small
mammals, birds, fish and small reptiles, subject to the regulations as set forth in Article 7-20
of this Code, and subject also to the restrictions and standards prescribed in Section 15-
11.020(h) of this Chapter.
(hi) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular
telephone and other wireless communications, subject to design review under Article 15-44
15-20.020 - Permitted uses.
The following permitted uses shall be allowed in the R-OS district:
(a) Single-family dwellings. No more than one dwelling unit shall be located on each lot.
(b) Transitional and Supportive Housing
(bc) Accessory structures located on the same lot as a permitted use and not exceeding a total
floor area of two hundred fifty square feet, including detached garages and carports, garden
sheds, greenhouses, shade structures, recreation rooms, home hobby shops, cabanas, structures
for housing swimming pool equipment and one guest house. Accessory structures for
7
176
Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined) and text to be deleted is
indicated in strikeout (e.g. strikeout). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
agricultural uses such as stables, barns, hay covers and storage sheds shall not exceed a total of
one thousand six hundred square feet.
(cd) Agricultural uses such as raising of vegetables, field crops, vines, fruits, and nut trees, and
horticultural specialties, and the processing of such products.
(de) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article 15-
40 of this Chapter.
(ef) Stables, corrals, and pastures for the keeping of horses for private use. The minimum net
site area shall be one acre for each two horses kept on the site. All horses shall be subject to
the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7-20.220 of this Code.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 16-80.030(a) of this Chapter, no stable or corral
shall be located closer than thirty feet from any interior property line of the site or any
structure for human habitation. Setbacks from perennial or intermittent streams shall be
sufficient to avoid any discharge or mud slide into the stream. Any stable, corral or pasture
which is fifty feet or less from any perennial or intermittent stream bank shall require the
approval of the City Engineer and/or Santa Clara Valley Water District. The property owners
shall comply with the mitigation measures pursuant to the Water District and/or the City
Engineer's requirements. In addition, the natural grade of a corral shall not exceed an average
slope of fifteen percent.
(fg) Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests. Pools shall
be constructed subject to the standards provided in Section 15-20.050(g)(5) and Section 15-
80.030
(gh) The keeping for private use of a reasonable number of domestic dogs, cats, sheep, goats,
and other small mammals, birds, fish and small reptiles, subject to the regulations as set forth
in Article 7-20 of this Code, and subject also to the restrictions and standards prescribed in
Section 15-11.020(h) of this Chapter.
(hi) Public parks, trails and other publicly owned open spaces.
- End of Amendments–
8
177
Attachment 1B
Proposed Conforming Amendments
City of Saratoga General Plan Land Use Element
The following amendments to the Land Use Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan (dated
June 6, 2007) are intended to ensure internal consistency between the Land Use Element and the
2015-2023 Housing Element of the General Plan to be adopted concurrently with these amendments.
1. The discussion of the “Commercial/Office” land use designations on page 12 of the General Plan
is revised as shown below. Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g.,
bold double-underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout (e.g. strikeout). Text in
standard font remains unchanged.
Commercial/Office Commercial land is broken into two general subcategories. Densities and
intensities of uses permitted in these subcategories are as follows:
• Commercial Retail (CR): There are five main commercial areas in the City with this
designation. The main commercial areas include Downtown Big Basin Way (including
Neale’s Hollow), Argonaut Shopping Center, the Gateway, Quito Shopping Center and
the Center at Prospect and Lawrence (including nearby Big Tree Center). These
commercial areas serve the community and/or their immediate neighborhood. They are
not regional in orientation and tend to be located in relatively small complexes.
Maximum intensity of building coverage is 60% of net site area, except as regulated by
an applicable specific plan. Commercial uses in the downtown Village Area are
regulated by the Village Specific Plan (adopted in 1988 and as may be revised by City
Council from time to time), including building coverage and height. Where a new
commercial development is to be located adjacent to or across from an established
single-family or multi-family residential use, appropriate landscape buffers shall be
required that are at least equal to the setbacks of the adjacent residential district. No
single tenant of said development shall exceed 15,000 square feet of floor area. The
commercial area near Prospect and Lawrence is suitable for high density mixed use
development with a minimum density of 20 30 units per net acre and for emergency
shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing for homeless individuals and
families.
2. The discussion of the “Overall Height Limit) on page 14 of the General Plan is revised as shown
below. Text to be added is indicated in bold double-underlined font (e.g., bold double-
underlined). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
Overall Height Limit
No structures in Saratoga shall be over two stories in height except that three story
structures are allowed in the commercial area near Prospect Avenue and Lawrence
Expressway to implement the policies of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and the
maximum height of structures located within the Saratoga Village Area boundary (as
defined by the Saratoga Village Area Plan, adopted in1988), shall be regulated by the
development standards of the Village Area Plan, as may be revised by City Council from
178
time to time. Public schools and community colleges may be exempt from this height
restriction. On sites used for quasi-public uses, a three story structure will be allowed
provided the slope underneath the three-story area is 10% or more and a stepped pad is
used.
3. The existing text at the bottom of Table LU-1 on page 16 of the Land Use Element which
provides information on the City’s Overall Height Limit and the density of Mixed Use
Development is amended as set forth below. Text to be added is indicated in bold double-
underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined). Text in standard font remains unchanged.
• Overall Height Limit – No structure permitted over two stories in height except for three
story structures in the commercial area near Prospect and Lawrence to implement the
polices of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and structures located within the Saratoga
Village boundary (as defined by the Saratoga Village Area Plan, (1988) which shall be
regulated by the “Village Plan”) or for quasi-public uses, a three-story structure is allowed
provided the slope underneath the three-story area is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used.
•• Mixed residential/commercial uses are permitted in all commercial lands, with a
maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre except the commercial area near Prospect Avenue
and Lawrence Expressway which allows mixed use development at a minimum of 30
dwelling units per acre excluding density bonuses for very low-income, low-income, or
senior housing. The residential portion shall not exceed 50% of the total floor area, ( 850 sq.
ft. for a one-bedroom unit-1,250 sq. ft. for a two-bedroom unit), with an increase of 10% of
the total floor area permitted for the site, for projects that provide below-market-rate housing.
Total site coverage may also be increased by 10% for a project containing below market-rate
housing.
2
179
October 2014
2015-2023
Housing Element
This element established goals,
policies, and implementation
measures to assist the City of
Saratoga in planning for the housing
needs of the community.
180
Prepared for:
City of Saratoga Planning Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
Prepared by:
Metropolitan Planning Group
579 Clyde Ave, Suite 340
Mountain View, CA 94043
CITY OF SARATOGA HOUSING ELEMENT 2015-2023
181
October 2014 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1-1
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1
B. Purpose And Content ................................................................................................ 1-1
C. Housing Element Update Process ............................................................................ 1-1
D. State Law And Local Planning .................................................................................. 1-2
E. Housing Element Organization ................................................................................. 1-4
F. Citizen Participation ................................................................................................... 1-6
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis ............................................................................................. 2-1
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2-1
B. Community Profile ...................................................................................................... 2-1
1. Population Trends And Characteristics ................................................................ 2-1
2. Employment Trends ................................................................................................ 2-5
3. Household Characteristics ...................................................................................2-10
4. Housing Inventory And Market Conditions .........................................................2-15
B. Housing Needs ...........................................................................................................2-28
1. Households Overpaying For Housing ..................................................................2-28
2. Overcrowding .......................................................................................................2-29
3. Units At-Risk Of Conversion ...................................................................................2-29
4. 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation .................................................2-30
5. Special Needs Groups ..........................................................................................2-30
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints And Resources ......................................................................... 3-1
A. Governmental Constraints And Resources ............................................................. 3-1
1. Land Use Controls .................................................................................................. 3-1
2. Density Bonus Ordinance .....................................................................................3-18
3. Institutional Facilities And Nursing Homes ...........................................................3-18
4. Emergency Shelters, Transitional And Supportive Housing, And Single-Room
Occupancy Units ......................................................................................................3-19
5. Adequate Sites For Emergency Shelters/Transitional/Supportive Housing .....3-20
6. Second Dwelling Units ..........................................................................................3-21
7. Housing For Persons With Disabilities ....................................................................3-22
8. Building Codes And Enforcement .......................................................................3-23
182
October 2014 ii
9. On And Off-Site Improvements ...........................................................................3-24
10. Development Fees ..............................................................................................3-25
11. Local Processing And Permit Procedures .........................................................3-31
12. Measure G ...........................................................................................................3-35
13. Environmental And Infrastructure Constraints ..................................................3-36
B. Non-Governmental Constraints ...............................................................................3-41
1. Vacant And Underutilized Land ..........................................................................3-41
2. Land Prices .............................................................................................................3-41
3. Construction Costs ................................................................................................3-41
4. Mortgage And Rehabilitation Financing ............................................................3-41
C. Resources ...................................................................................................................3-43
1. Community Development Block Grant Program ..............................................3-43
2. Community Services Grant ..................................................................................3-44
3. Energy Conservation ............................................................................................3-45
Chapter 4: Policy Program ............................................................................................................ 4-1
A. Policy Action Areas ..................................................................................................... 4-1
B. Policy Actions ............................................................................................................... 4-1
Appendix A: Community Outreach ............................................................................................. A-1
A. Introduction ................................................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources .................................................................................... B-1
A. Sites To Accommodate The 2014-2022 Rhna .......................................................... B-1
1. Projects In Process .................................................................................................. B-2
2. Sites Capacity To Meet Regional Share Goals ................................................... B-3
3. Sites Summary ....................................................................................................... B-12
B. Assisted Units “At-Risk” Of Conversion ..................................................................... B-13
1. Inventory Of At-Risk Units ..................................................................................... B-14
2. Preservation And Replacement Costs ............................................................... B-14
3. Resources For Preservation ................................................................................. B-16
Appendix C: Past Performance .................................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D: Glossary Of Terms .................................................................................................... D-1
183
October 2014 iii
Table of Exhibits
Table 1-1. State Housing Element Requirements .................................................................... 1-2
Table 2-1. Regional Population Trends 2000-2010 .................................................................. 2-2
Table 2-2. Population Growth 1990-2010 ................................................................................. 2-2
Table 2-3. Age Distribution 2000, 2010, and 2012 ................................................................... 2-4
Table 2-4. Racial and Ethnic Distribution 2000-2010 ............................................................... 2-5
Table 2-5. Jobs in Saratoga by Industry 2007-2011 ................................................................. 2-6
Table 2-6. Major Employers in Saratoga, 2013 ........................................................................ 2-7
Table 2-7. Occupations of Residents by Industry 2000-2011.................................................. 2-8
Table 2-8. Labor Trends in Saratoga ......................................................................................... 2-9
Table 2-9. Job Projections ....................................................................................................... 2-10
Table 2- 10. Total Households .................................................................................................. 2-11
Table 2-11. Household Tenure in Saratoga ............................................................................ 2-11
Table 2-12. Persons per Household ......................................................................................... 2-11
Table 2-13. Household Size Distribution .................................................................................. 2-12
Table 2-14. Household Income Distribution ........................................................................... 2-12
Table 2-15. Income Limits by Category ................................................................................. 2-13
Table 2-16. Household Income Level by Tenure ................................................................... 2-13
Table 2-17. Countywide Median Household Income in 2011 ............................................. 2-14
Table 2-18. Bay Area Wages for Select Occupations - 2013 ............................................... 2-15
Table 2-19. Number of Housing Units in Saratoga and Santa Clara County ..................... 2-16
Table 2-20. RHNA Housing Achievements ............................................................................. 2-16
Table 2-21. Unit Size by Tenure ................................................................................................ 2-17
Table 2-22. Housing Inventory by Unit Type ........................................................................... 2-18
Table 2-23. Unit Type by Tenure .............................................................................................. 2-18
Table 2-24. Occupied Units by Tenure ................................................................................... 2-19
Table 2-25. Vacancy Rates ..................................................................................................... 2-19
Table 2-26. Age of Housing Stock ........................................................................................... 2-20
Table 2-27. Units Lacking Complete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities .................................... 2-21
Table 2-28. Median Housing Value ........................................................................................ 2-21
Table 2-29. Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units .......................................................... 2-22
Table 2-30. Median Sales Price ............................................................................................... 2-22
Table 2-31. Saratoga Home and Condominium Sales Price Jan. – Dec. 2013 ................. 2-23
Table 2-32. 2013 Maximum Affordable Housing Cost (Moderate Income), Santa Clara
County ....................................................................................................................................... 2-25
Table 2-33. Saratoga 2014 Rental Survey .............................................................................. 2-26
Table 2- 34. Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income ........................................ 2-26
Table 2- 35. 2013 Maximum Affordable Rents, Santa Clara County .................................. 2-27
Table 2-36. Owner Household Overpayment by Household Income Level ...................... 2-28
184
October 2014 iv
Table 2-37. Renter Household Overpayment by Household Income Level ...................... 2-29
Table 2-38. Overcrowded Households .................................................................................. 2-29
Table 2-39. Regional Housing Needs Allocation ................................................................... 2-30
Table 2-40. Senior Households by Age Group and Tenure .................................................. 2-31
Table 2-41. Senior Income Distribution (Householder Over 65) ........................................... 2-31
Table 2-42. Poverty Rates among Senior Age Groups ......................................................... 2-32
Table 2-43. Residents 65 and Over with at Least One Disability ......................................... 2-33
Table 2-44. Large Households by Tenure ............................................................................... 2-34
Table 2-45. Units by Number of Bedrooms ............................................................................. 2-35
Table 2-46. Female-Headed Households .............................................................................. 2-35
Table 2-47. Female Headed Households below Poverty Level ........................................... 2-36
Table 2-48. Persons with at Least One Disability ................................................................... 2-37
Table 2-49. Persons Ages 18-64 with Disabilities by Type ...................................................... 2-37
Table 2-50. Persons with Developmental Disabilities in Saratoga ....................................... 2-37
Table 2-51. Living Situation of Persons with a Developmental Disability in Santa Clara
County ....................................................................................................................................... 2-38
Table 2-52. Low Income Households ...................................................................................... 2-40
Table 2-53. Renter Housing Problems by Income Level ....................................................... 2-41
Table 2- 54. Owner Housing Problems by Income Level ...................................................... 2-42
Figure 2- 1. Population Growth ................................................................................................. 2-3
Table 3-1. General Plan Residential Land Use Designations ................................................. 3-2
Table 3-2. Residential uses – Permitted & Conditionally Permitted....................................... 3-6
Table 3-3. Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements ...................................................... 3-8
Table 3-4. Summary of Multiple Family Residential Zoning Requirements ......................... 3-14
Table 3-5. Summary of Mixed-Use Development Standards ............................................... 3-15
Table 3-6. Residential Parking Requirements ........................................................................ 3-16
Table 3-7. Homeless Facilities near Saratoga ........................................................................ 3-20
Table 3-8. Street Widths ........................................................................................................... 3-24
Table 3-9. Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014 ....................................... 3-26
Table 3-10. Typical Development Fees Comparison Single-Family and Multiple-Family . 3-31
Table 3-11. Local Development Processing Time ................................................................. 3-32
Table 3-12. Typical Development Processing Timelines by Development Type ............... 3-35
Table 3-13. Construction Cost Estimates ................................................................................ 3-41
Table 3-14. Home Purchase and Improvement Loans - 2012 ............................................. 3-42
Table 3-15. Santa Clara County CDBG and HOME Funded Programs .............................. 3-44
Figure 3-1. Mortgage Rates -2013........................................................................................... 3-43
Table 4-1. Housing Element Quantified Objectives 2015-2023 ............................................ 4-12
185
October 2014 v
Appendices Exhibits and Tables
Exhibit B-1. Housing Opportunity Sites ...................................................................................... B-6
Table B-1. Approved Units ......................................................................................................... B-2
Table B-2. Approved Subdivisions ............................................................................................. B-3
Table B-3. Vacant Land Inventory ............................................................................................ B-4
Table B-4. Prospect Road Candidate C-N(RHD) Sites............................................................ B-5
Table B-5. Village Sites Inventory .............................................................................................. B-8
Table B-6. Gateway Sites Inventory ........................................................................................ B-10
Table B-7. Fellowship Plaza Retirement Community ............................................................. B-11
Table B-8. Sites Summary ......................................................................................................... B-13
Table B-9. Publicly Assisted Rental Housing ........................................................................... B-14
Table B-10. Annual Rent Subsidies Required to Preserve At-risk units ................................. B-15
Table B-11. Replacement Costs of At-Risk Units .................................................................... B-16
Table C-1. Evaluation of 2007-2014 Housing Element Past Performance ........................... C-1
Table C-2. Progress in Achieving Housing Element Quantified Objectives 2007-2014 .... C-12
186
October 2014 vi
187
October 2014 1-1
Chapter 1: Introduction
A. Introduction
The Housing Element of the General Plan identifies and analyzes existing and projected
housing needs and contains the official policies for the preservation, conservation,
rehabilitation, and production of housing in the city of Saratoga. This Housing Element
covers the Planning Period from January 2015 through June 2023.
B. Purpose and Content
The Housing Element addresses housing
opportunities for current and future
Saratoga residents through 2023 and
provides the primary policy guidance for
local decision making related to housing.
The Housing Element is the only General
Plan Element that requires review and
certification by the State of California.
The Housing Element provides a detailed
analysis of the city’s demographic,
economic, and housing characteristics as required by State law. The Housing Element
also evaluates the City’s progress in implementing the 2007-2014 policy program and
actions related to housing production, preservation, conservation, and rehabilitation.
Based on community housing needs, available resources, housing
constraints/opportunities, and analysis of past performance, the Housing Element
identifies goals, objectives, and action programs that address existing and projected
housing needs in Saratoga.
C. Housing Element Update Process
The California State legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and
suitable living environment for every Californian as a State-wide goal. Local planning
programs play a critical part in achieving this goal. Therefore, the Legislature mandates
that all cities and counties prepare a Housing Element as part of their comprehensive
General Plans.
188
October 2014 1-2
D. State Law and Local Planning
1. Consistency with State Law
The Housing Element is one of the seven Elements of the General Plan required by State
law (Sections 65580 to 65589.89 of the California Government Code). Each jurisdiction’s
Housing Element must contain “identification and analysis of existing and projected
housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled
program actions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.” The
Housing Element plans for the provision of housing for all segments of the city’s population.
Section 65583 of the Government Code sets forth specific requirements regarding the
scope and content of each Housing Element. Table 1-1 summarizes these requirements
and identifies the applicable sections of the Housing Element where these requirements
are addressed.
Table 1-1. State Housing Element Requirements
Table 1-1
State Housing Element Requirements
Required Housing Element Component Reference
A. Housing Needs Assessment
1. Analysis of population trends in Saratoga in relation to
countywide trends
Chapter 2
2. Analysis of employment trends in Saratoga in relation to
regional trends
Chapter 2
3. Projections and quantification of Saratoga’s existing and
projected housing needs for all income groups
Chapter 2
4. Analysis and documentation of Saratoga’s housing
characteristics, including:
Chapter 2
a. Overpayment Chapter 2
b. Overcrowding Chapter 2
c. Housing conditions Chapter 2
5. Analysis of land suitable for residential development Appendix B
6. Analysis of governmental constraints upon housing Chapter 3
7. Analysis of nongovernmental constraints upon housing Chapter 3
8. Analysis of special housing needs Chapter 2
9. Analysis of emergency shelters Chapter 3
10. Analysis of assisted housing developments that are eligible to
change from low-income housing during the next 10 years
Appendix B
189
October 2014 1-3
Table 1-1
State Housing Element Requirements
Required Housing Element Component Reference
B. Goals and Policies
11. Identification of Saratoga’s goals, quantified objectives and
policies relative to the maintenance, improvement and
development of housing
Chapter 4
C. Implementation Program
12. Identification of adequate sites which will be made
available through appropriate action to accommodate a
variety of housing types for all income levels
Appendix B
13. Identification of programs to assist in the development of
adequate housing to meet the needs of low and
moderate-income households
Chapter 4
14. Identification of opportunities to remove governmental
constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing
Chapter 4
15. Identification of opportunities to remove constraints and/or
provide reasonable accommodations for housing for
persons with disabilities
Chapter 4
16. Identification of opportunities to conserve and improve the
condition of the existing affordable housing stock
Chapter 4
17. Identification of programs to promote housing opportunities
for all persons
Chapter 4
18. Identification of programs to address the potential conversion
of assisted housing development to market-rate housing
Chapter 4
2. General Plan Consistency
The California Government Code (Section 65300.5) requires internal consistency among
each Element of the General Plan. The General Plan Elements shall provide an integrated,
internally consistent, and compatible statement of policy. The City of Saratoga
continuously reviews the General Plan for internal consistency when updates or
amendments occur. The City has reviewed the other Elements of the General Plan and
determined that the Housing Element is internally consistent.
3. Relationship to Other Plans and Programs
The Housing Element identifies goals, objectives, policies, and actions for the 2015-2023
Planning Period that directly addresses existing and future housing needs in Saratoga.
City plans and programs work to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Housing Element.
190
October 2014 1-4
E. Housing Element Organization
The City of Saratoga’s Housing Element is organized into four parts:
x Introduction: Explains the purpose, process and content of the Housing Element.
x Housing Needs Analysis: Describes the demographic, economic and housing
characteristics of Saratoga as well as existing and future housing needs.
x Resources and Constraints Analysis: Analyzes the actual and potential
governmental and non-governmental constraints to the maintenance,
preservation, conservation and development of housing.
x Housing Policy Program: Details specific policies and programs the City will carry
out over the Planning Period to address Saratoga’s housing goals.
Supporting background material is included in the following appendices:
x Appendix A: Community Outreach Summary
x Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
x Appendix C: Review of the 2007-2014 Housing Element Performance
x Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms
Acronyms used in this document include:
ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments
ACS: American Community Survey
ADA: Americans with Disability Act
AMI: Area Median Income
APN: Assessor’s Parcel Number
BMPs: Best Management Practices
CalFHA: California Housing Finance Agency
CALTRANS: California Department of Transportation
CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
CCRC: California Community Reinvestment Corporation
CDBG: Community Development Block Grant
CDD: Community Development Director
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CHAS: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
CIP: Capital Improvement Program
DIF: Development Impact Fee
DOF: Department of Finance for State of California
DU/AC: Dwelling Unit per Acre
DU/ac: Dwelling units per acre
DU: Dwelling Unit
EDD: California Employment Development Department
191
October 2014 1-5
ELI: Extremely Low Income
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHA: Fair Housing Act of 1998
GMI: Gross Monthly Income
HCD: Department of Housing and Community Development
HH: Household
HMDA: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
HOA: Homeowners Association
HUD: Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development
LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission
LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit
MFI: Median Family Income
MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization
NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PG&E: Pacific Gas & Electric
RHNA: Regional Housing Need Allocation
RTP: Regional Transportation Plan
SARC: San Andreas Regional Center
SASCC: Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council
SNF: Skilled Nursing Facility
SPA: Sectional Planning Area
SRO: Single Room Occupancy
STF: Summary Tape File (U.S. Census)
SVILC: Silicon Valley Independent Living Center
TDM: Transportation Demand Management
TOD: Transit-Oriented Development
TSM: Transportation Systems Management
WCP: Water Conservation Plan
Zoning Acronyms Used
A: Agricultural
CFS: Community Facility
C-H: Commercial Historic
CH-1: Commercial Historic District 1
C-N(RHD): Commercial Neighborhood High Density Residential
CN: Commercial Neighborhood
CR: Commercial Retail
C-V: Commercial Visitor
M-10: Medium Density Residential
M-12.5: Medium Density Residential
192
October 2014 1-6
M-15: Medium Density Residential
OS-H: Hillside Open Space
P-A: Professional and Administrative Office
R-1: Single-Family Residential
RLD: Low Density Residential
R-M: Multi-Family Residential
RVLD: Very Low Density Residential
F. Citizen Participation
The Housing Element was developed through the combined efforts of City staff and
consultants, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Citizen input was received
through public workshops and public hearings conducted by consultants, the Planning
Commission and the City Council. Notices for these workshops and hearings were
published on the City’s website and posted at City Hall and other public facilities. In
addition, housing stakeholder-organizations involved in the development of housing or
representing the interests of lower income and special needs households were contacted
directly to participate in public workshops.
1. Community Workshops and Public Study Sessions
The following community workshops were advertised and open to the general public:
x Study Session #1: January 21, 2014 – Planning Commission
x Workshop #1: February 25, 2014, Joan Pisani Community & Senior Center
x Workshop #2: March 11, 2014, Joan Pisani Community & Senior Center
x Study Session #2: March 25 – Planning Commission
x Study Session #3: June 24, 2014 – Planning Commission – Draft Housing Element
Review
During the community workshops, participants were provided with an overview of the
Housing Element update process and content. Participants were then asked to identify
and discuss challenges, opportunities and resources related to housing in Saratoga.
Comments received through the outreach activities have been considered in the
development of the Housing Policy Program provided in Chapter 4 of this document. A
summary of the comments is provided in Appendix A of the Housing Element.
193
October 2014 2-1
Chapter 2: Housing Needs Analysis
A. Introduction
When preparing the Housing Element, jurisdictions must evaluate both existing and future
housing needs for all segments of the population.
This section analyzes demographic,
economic and housing characteristics that
influence the demand for and availability of
housing. The analyses form a foundation for
developing programs and policies that seek
to address identified housing needs
according to income, tenure and special
needs groups.
Primary data sources utilized in this analysis
include the 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census, the California Department of Finance (DOF), the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG). These data sources are the most reliable for assessing existing
conditions and provide a basis for consistent comparison with historical data and for
making forecasts.
B. Community Profile
1. Population Trends and Characteristics
Housing needs are generally influenced by population and employment trends. This
section provides a summary of the changes to the population size, age and racial
composition of the city.
a. Historical, Existing and Forecast Growth
The city of Saratoga is one of 15 cities in the County of Santa Clara. The 2010 Census
reports a population of 1,781,642 in Santa Clara County. Table 2-1 shows the population
of other Bay Area counties relative to Santa Clara. Santa Clara County experienced a
higher percent change in population growth compared to the cumulative regional
population growth rate in the Bay Area.
Single Family Residence
194
October 2014 2-2
Table 2-1. Regional Population Trends 2000-2010
Total Population
Numerical
Change
Percent
Change
2000 2010 2000 to 2010 2000 to 2010
Santa Clara County 1,682,585 1,781,642 99,057 6%
Alameda County 1,443,741 1,510,271 66,530 5%
Contra Costa County 948,816 1,049,025 100,209 11%
Marin County 247,289 252,409 5,120 2%
Napa County 124,279 136,484 12,205 10%
City and County of San
Francisco 776,733 805,235 28,502 4%
San Mateo County 707,161 718,451 11,290 2%
Solano County 394,542 413,344 18,802 5%
Sonoma County 458,614 483,878 25,264 6%
Bay Area Total 6,783,760 7,150,739 366,979 5%
State of California 33,871,648 37,253,956 3,382,308 10%
Source: Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
According to the U.S. Census, Saratoga experienced a 7 percent population increase
between 1990 and 2000, and less than 1 percent increase between 2000 and 2010.
Table 2-2 compares Saratoga’s population growth trends with those of the County.
Despite a slower growth rate over the past decade, ABAG predicts that growth rates will
increase and the city will have nearly 3,000 more residents in 2040. In 2013, The California
Department of Finance estimated Saratoga’s population to be 30,706. Figure 2-1 shows
population growth projected by ABAG.
Table 2-2. Population Growth 1990-2010
Total Population 1990-2000 Growth 2000-2010 Growth
1990 2000 2010 Number Percent
Change Number Percent
Change
Saratoga 28,061 29,843 29,926 1,782 6% 83 <1%
Santa Clara
County Total 1,497,577 1,682,585 1,781,642 185,008 12% 99,057 6%
Source: Census 1990, via 2014-2009 Saratoga Housing Element; Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area
Housing Elements
195
October 2014 2-3
Figure 2- 1. Population Growth
Source: ABAG
b. Age Composition
Between 2000 and 2010, Saratoga experienced a proportional decline in the younger and
prime working age population groups and a proportional growth in older age groups. The
number of residents of “Preschool” (0-4 years) and “School” (5-17 years) age decreased
over the decade. The majority of Saratoga’s working age population, “Prime Working”
(25-54 years) age, experienced a decrease from 41 percent of the population in 2000 to
37 percent in 2010. Saratoga’s “Retirement” (55-64 years) age and “Senior Citizen” (65+
years) age populations increased over the decade. In 2000 these age groups combined
to make up 29 percent of the population. In 2010 they had grown to 35 percent of the
population. The growing proportion of older residents and the decreasing proportion of
younger residents was reflected in the higher median age in 2010 (47.8 years) compared
with that of 2000 (43.2 years).
29,843 29,926
30,800
31,900
32,700
28,000
28,500
29,000
29,500
30,000
30,500
31,000
31,500
32,000
32,500
33,000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
196
October 2014 2-4
Table 2-3. Age Distribution 2000, 2010, and 2012
2000 2010 2012
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Preschool
(0-4 years) 1,597 5% 977 3% 927 3.%
School
(5-17 years) 5901 20% 5803 19% 5855 20%
Young Adult
(18-24 years) 1454 5% 1783 6% 1636 5%
Prime Working (25-
54 years) 12,337 41% 10,976 37% 11,308 38%
Retirement
(55-64 years) 3,695 12% 4,300 14% 4,469 15%
Senior Citizen (65+
Years) 4,859 16% 6,087 20% 5,864 20%
Total 29,843 100% 29,926 100% 30,059 100%
Source: ACS 2008-2012; Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
c. Race and Ethnicity
Saratoga residents who identified themselves as non-Hispanic White represented a
majority in 2010. Their population had decreased since the 2000 Census while the Asian
and Pacific Islander population had grown. White residents represented 52 percent of
the population in 2010, down from 65 percent in 2000. The group experienced the largest
population decrease among various groups in terms of absolute numbers, with 4,003
fewer White residents reported in 2010 than in 2000. In contrast, the Asian and Pacific
Islander population experienced the largest growth in absolute numbers, gaining 3,668
during the same period. The Asian and Pacific Islander population increased from 29
percent of the population in 2000 to 41 percent in 2010. Table 2-4 shows the city’s racial
and ethnic distribution.
197
October 2014 2-5
Table 2-4. Racial and Ethnic Distribution 2000-2010
2000 2010 2000-2010 Change
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
White 19,434 65% 15,431 52% -4,003 -21%
Black 110 <1% 91 <1% -19 -17%
American Indian &
Alaskan Native 34 <1% 24 <1% -10 -29%
Asian* & Pacific
Islander 8,686 29% 12,354 <41% 3,668 42%
Other 37 <1% 56 <1% 19 51%
Two or More Races 606 2% 936 3% 330 55%
Hispanic 936 3% 1,034 4% 98 11%
Total 29,843 100% 29,926 100% 83 <1%
Source: Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Asian includes, but is not limited to: Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese
2. Employment Trends
Employment characteristics and trends can shed light on relationship between jobs and
housing in the city. Census data since 2000 shows a decreasing number of employed
residents, correlating to the increase in retired and senior residents. However, the number
of jobs in the city remained steady between 2007 and 2011 and the 12,500 employed
residents, shown in 2011 American Community Survey data, outnumbered the 7,609 job
opportunities in the city. Saratoga has limited opportunities for extensive commercial and
employment growth because there are few remaining vacant parcels in the city.
In Saratoga, the top five industries have remained the same between 2007 and 2011 but
their employment figures have changed. Educational services has remained the top
industry over the 5 year period and had a 12 percent increase in employment
opportunities. Health Care and Social Assistance, the second largest employer,
experienced a 13 percent increase in the number of employment opportunities.
Accommodation and Food Services grew by 42 percent to become the third largest
employer in 2011. Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (down 18%) and Other
Services (down 14%) had fewer opportunities in 2011 than in 2007 but remained within the
top five industries in the city.
198
October 2014 2-6
Table 2-5. Jobs in Saratoga by Industry 2007-2011
2007 2011 2007-2011 Change
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Educational Services 2,493 34% 2,790 37% 297 12%
Health Care and Social
Assistance 1,125 15% 1,268 17% 143 13%
Accommodation and
Food Services 517 7% 734 10% 217 42%
Other Services
(excluding Public
Administration) 726 10% 593 8% -133 -18%
Professional, Scientific,
and Technical Services 638 9% 547 7% -91 -14%
Real Estate and Rental
and Leasing 325 4% 305 4% -20 -6%
Retail Trade 422 6% 303 4% -119 -28%
Finance and Insurance 154 2% 191 3% 37 24%
Construction 217 3% 184 2% -33 -15%
Wholesale Trade 151 2% 183 2% 32 21%
Administration &
Support, Waste
Management and
Remediation 137 2% 154 2% 17 12%
Arts, Entertainment,
and Recreation 160 2% 137 2% -23 -14%
Public Administration 95 1% 100 1% 5 5%
Manufacturing 91 1% 51 1% -40 -44%
Information 89 1% 24 <1% -65 -73%
Transportation and
Warehousing 21 <1% 23 <1% 2 10%
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing and Hunting 2 <1% 16 <1% 14 700%
Utilities 8 <1% 6 <1% -2 -25%
Management of
Companies and
Enterprises 1 0% 0 0% -1 -100%
Mining, Quarrying, and
Oil and Gas Extraction 1 0% 0 0% -1 -100%
Total 7,373 100% 7,609 100% 236 3%
Source: U.S. Census OnTheMap 2007 & 2011
199
October 2014 2-7
Several of the major employers were in the Education industry, which corresponds to data
showing that it has been the industry with the largest employment in Saratoga. The City
of Saratoga’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY2012-2013 listed the top 10
employers in 2013 shown in Table 2-6. The Education industry will likely continue to provide
large number of employment opportunities in the city.
Table 2-6. Major Employers in Saratoga, 2013
Employer Employees
West Valley Community College 765
Saratoga Retirement Community 260
Saratoga High School 132
Sub-Acute Saratoga Hospital 120
Our Lady of Fatima 101
Prospect High School 100
Redwood Middle School 96
Gene's Fine Foods 80
Safeway 65
Villa Montalvo 60
Source: City of Saratoga, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FY2012-2013
Overall employment among Saratoga residents had a slight decline between 2000 and
2011 but has grown since 2011. Saratoga had approximately 12,500 employed residents
according to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, eight hundred fewer than
reported in 2000. More residents were employed in Manufacturing than any other industry
between 2000 and 2011. Nearly four hundred fewer residents held jobs in this industry in
2011 than in 2000 (down 9 percent). The industry that employed the second largest
number of residents in 2000 – Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and
Waste Management services – experienced a 5 percent increase by 2011. Despite
moderate increases in this industry and other industries such as Whole Sale Trade and
Retail Trade, fewer residents were employed in other industries, which offset some of the
increases. By 2011, fewer residents were employed in Construction (-186); Finance,
Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing (-295); and Public Administration (-101).
Table 2-7 shows the breakdown of occupational data by industry for Saratoga and Santa
Clara County residents. The California Employment Development Department data,
shown in Table 2-8, indicates that employment has grown in Saratoga since 2011,
however occupational distribution is not shown. The Census and American Community
Survey best convey the occupational trends, though not as current as the EDD data.
200
October 2014 2-8
Table 2-7. Occupations of Residents by Industry 2000-2011
2000 2011 2000-2011 Change
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing and Hunting, and
Mining 18 <1% 18 <1% 0 0%
Construction 422 3% 236 2% -186 -44%
Manufacturing 4,253 32% 3,882 31% -371 -9%
Wholesale Trade 389 3% 478 4% 89 23%
Retail Trade 1,019 8% 1,078 9% 59 6%
Transportation and
Warehousing, and
Utilities 137 1% 140 1% 3 2%
Information 713 5% 632 5% -81 -11%
Finance, Insurance, Real
Estate, and Rental and
Leasing 941 7% 646 5% -295 -31%
Professional, Scientific,
Management,
Administrative, and
Waste Management
Services 2,514 19% 2,642 21% 128 5%
Educational, Health,
and Social Services 1,992 15% 1,911 15% -81 -4%
Arts, Entertainment,
Recreation,
Accommodation, and
Food Services 369 3% 297 2% -72 -20%
Other Services (except
Public Administration) 249 2% 313 3% 64 26%
Public Administration 328 3% 227 2% -101 -31%
Total 13,344 100% 12,500 100% -844 -6%
Source: Census 2000 and American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
As economic recovery brings improved job prospects to the Bay Area, employment among
Saratoga residents will continue to increase. The California Employment Development
Department reports that employment numbers were able to keep pace with growth in the
labor force, causing the unemployment rate to drop every year since 2010. Table 2-8 shows
labor trends between 2008 and 2013.
201
October 2014 2-9
Table 2-8. Labor Trends in Saratoga
Labor Force Employment Unemployment
Number Number Number Rate
2008 13,400 13,000 400 3.0%
2009 13,200 12,400 700 5.5%
2010 13,200 12,500 700 5.6%
2011 13,500 12,800 700 5.0%
2012 13,900 13,300 600 4.2%
2013 14,300 13,800 400 3.1%
Source: California Employment Development Department
Most Saratoga residents worked with in Santa Clara County. According to U.S. Census
OnTheMap, only 5 percent of Saratoga residents worked in the city. About 63 percent
worked elsewhere in the County, with San Jose as a major employment center for more
than 23 percent of residents. Five percent of residents worked in San Mateo County. Four
percent worked in San Francisco. Six percent worked in the East Bay.
About 90 percent of Saratoga residents relied on automobile transportation for their
commute. According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 84 percent of
residents drove alone and 6 percent carpooled. One percent of residents walked and
less than one percent used public transportation or other means. Eight percent of
residents worked from home. The average commute among all residents was 25.5
minutes. Since 95 percent of residents worked outside of the city, driving has been the
predominant means of travel.
The Association of Bay Area Governments forecast predicts that job opportunities in
Saratoga will grow from 9,910 in 2000 to 11,640 in 2040, but a more conservative growth
scenario should be expected. Table 2-9 shows the ABAG projections for job growth in
Saratoga and Santa Clara County over the next 3 decades. The City believes that
employment figures may be lower than those generated by ABAG. U.S. Census
OnTheMap 2011 estimated an employment figure (7,373) that was lower than ABAG’s
2010 projection number (9,910). As a result, projections using the larger 2010 number may
be inflated. Further, the largely residential character of Saratoga does not provide
significant land area for commercial and employment growth. Job growth is more likely
to take place elsewhere in Santa Clara County, as illustrated by ABAG projections.
202
October 2014 2-10
Table 2-9. Job Projections
Projections
2010 2020 2030 2040
Saratoga 9,910 10,840 11,170 11,640
Santa Clara County 926,270 1,091,270 1,147,020 1,229,520
Numerical Change
2010-2020 2020-2030 2030-2040
Saratoga 930 330 470
Santa Clara County 165,000 55,750 82,500
Percent Change
2010-2020 2020-2030 2030-2040
Saratoga 9% 3% 4%
Santa Clara County 18% 5% 7%
Source: ABAG Projections 2013
3. Household Characteristics
This section describes Saratoga’s household characteristics. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines a “household” as all persons living in a single housing unit, whether or not they
are related. One person living alone is considered a household, as is a group of
unrelated people living in a single housing unit. The U.S. Census Bureau defines “family”
as related persons living within a single housing unit.
a. Household Formation and Composition
In 2013, the Department of Finance reported 10,778 households in Saratoga, which
marked less than a 1 percent increase from 10,734 households in 2010. As a point of
reference, the rate of growth over the previous decade (from 2000 to 2010) was 3
percent. In Santa Clara County, the total number of households increased 1 percent
between 2010 and 2013. Between 2000 and 2010, the population increased 7 percent.
The number of households corresponds to the number of occupied housing units.
The increase in renter households contributed to Saratoga’s overall household growth.
Between 2000 and 2010, renter households grew 41 percent, from 1,044 to 1,476
households. During the same period, owner households decreased by 2 percent. Despite
the growth in renter households, owner households still accounted for 86 percent of
households in 2010. Table 2-10 shows household growth over the past decade, and Table
2-11 shows the change in owner and renter households.
203
October 2014 2-11
Table 2- 10. Total Households
2000 2010 2013 2000-2010 Change 2010-2013 Change
Number Number Number Number Percent Number Percent
Saratoga 10,450 10,734 10,778 284 3% 44 <1%
Santa Clara
County 565,863 604,204 611,426 38,341 7% 7,222 1%
Source: Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
Table 2-11. Household Tenure in Saratoga
2000 2010 2000-2010 Change
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Owner 9,406 90% 9,258 86% -148 -2%
Renter 1,044 10% 1,476 14% 432 41%
Total 10,450 100.0% 10,734 100% 284 3%
Source: Census 2000 and 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
The average number of persons per household in Saratoga was 2.8 in 2010. Household
sizes remained about the same in the city and county between 2000 and 2010. As shown
in Table 2-12, the average number of persons per household in Saratoga continued to be
lower than the County average.
Table 2-12. Persons per Household
2000 2010
Saratoga 2.8 2.8
Santa Clara County 2.9 2.9
Source: Department of Finance E8 2000, Table 1 and 2; Department of Finance E5 2010, Table 1 and 2
Owner households comprised 86 percent of households in Saratoga, and total household
size distributions in the city closely followed the owner household distribution. Two-person
households made up 37 percent of owner households. Four-person households accounted
for 22 percent of owner households, while three-person households accounted for 19
percent of owners. Total household distributions similarly followed this pattern because of
the overwhelming number of owners compared to renters. For instance, more than one-
third renters were single-person households. The small proportion of renters to owners did
little to affect the total household distribution pattern. Table 2-13 shows household sizes by
tenure.
204
October 2014 2-12
Table 2-13. Household Size Distribution
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1-Person 1,189 13% 551 37% 1,740 16%
2-Person 3,409 37% 351 24% 3,760 35%
3-Person 1,738 19% 193 13% 1,931 18%
4-Person 2,019 22% 251 17% 2,270 21%
5-Person 615 7% 96 7% 711 7%
6-Person 221 2% 28 2% 249 2%
7-Person or more 67 1% 6 <1% 73 1%
Total 9258 100% 1,476 100% 10,734 100%
Source: Census 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
b. Household Income
Saratoga’s overall median income was $155,182 in 2011. There was a large difference in
median incomes between owner and renter households. Owner households in 2011 had a
median income of $166,602. The median income of renters was $77,932, less than half of
the owner median income. Nearly 70 percent of all households had incomes of $100,000
or more, the majority of which were owners. Income distribution of Saratoga’s households
is shown in Table 2-14. The large number of owner households, which typically have higher
incomes, hides the disparity in median incomes between owner and renter households.
Table 2-14. Household Income Distribution
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent of
Total HH Number Percent of
Total HH Number Percent of
Total HH
Less than $5,000 88 1% 78 1% 166 2%
$5,000 to $9,999 17 <1% 45 <1% 62 1%
$10,000 to $14,999 55 1% 149 1% 204 2%
$15,000 to $19,999 64 1% 93 1% 157 2%
$20,000 to $24,999 143 1% 60 1% 203 2%
$25,000 to $34,999 294 3% 112 1% 406 4%
$35,000 to $49,999 297 3% 104 1% 401 4%
$50,000 to $74,999 707 7% 134 1% 841 8%
$75,000 to $99,999 655 6% 193 2% 848 8%
$100,000 to $149,999 1,733 16% 232 2% 1,965 18%
$150,000 or more 5,069 47% 390 4% 5,459 51%
Total Households 9,122 85% 1,590 15% 10,712 100%
Median Income $166,602 $77,926 $155,182
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011
205
October 2014 2-13
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) calculates
an annual median family income (MFI), with reference to the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), for the purpose of determining program eligibility. The
State of California uses five income categories to determine housing affordability based
on the MFI. Table 2-15 shows the income ranges for each income category based on the
2013 State Income Limits for Santa Clara County.
Table 2-15. Income Limits by Category
Percent of
County
Median
Income
Income Limits
for Number of Persons in a Household
1-Person 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person
Extremely Low
Income ≤ 30% $22,300 $25,500 $28,650 $31,850 $34,400
Very Low
Income 31% - 50% $37,150 $42,450 $47,750 $53,050 $57,300
Low
Income 51% - 80% $59,400 $67,900 $76,400 $84,900 $91,650
Moderate
Income 81% - 120% $88,600 $101,300 $113,950 $126,600 $136,750
Above Moderate
Income > 120% >$88,600 >$101,300 >$113,950 >$126,600 >$136,750
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, State Income Limits 2013
According to the 2006-2010 CHAS database developed by HUD, nearly three-quarters of
households in Saratoga earned above moderate incomes but some disparity existed
between owner and renter households. Nearly 80 percent of owner households had
above moderate incomes. Less than half of renter households had above moderate
incomes. Owner households also had a much smaller proportion in the very low income
classification (10%) compared to renter households (34%). Table 2-16 shows the
proportion of households in each income level by tenure.
Table 2-16. Household Income Level by Tenure
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Occupied Units
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Very Low Income
≤50% of AMI 870 10% 545 34% 1,415 14%
Low Income
50- 80% 304 3% 90 6% 394 4%
Moderate
80 to 120% 740 8% 235 15% 975 9%
Above Moderate
120%+ 6,940 78% 730 46% 7,670 73%
Total Occupied 8,854 100% 1,600 100% 10,454 100%
Source: CHAS 2006-2010 (CHAS based on ACS), via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
206
October 2014 2-14
In 2011, Saratoga had the third highest median household income in the County, as
shown in Table 2-17. At $155,182, Saratoga’s median household income was nearly twice
the countywide median household income.
Table 2-17. Countywide Median Household Income in 2011
Median Household Income
Los Altos Hills $218,077
Monte Sereno $181,719
Saratoga $155,182
Los Altos $151,856
Cupertino $124,825
Los Gatos $122,875
Palo Alto $122,532
Milpitas $94,589
Morgan Hill $94,301
Sunnyvale $93,292
Mountain View $91,446
Santa Clara $89,004
Campbell $82,687
San Jose $80,764
Gilroy $75,483
Santa Clara County Total $89,064
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
The annual incomes of many that serve the community fell well below Saratoga’s median
income. The 2013 California Occupational Employment Statistics, compiled by the
California Employment Development Department, lists the average salaries by
occupations. The salaries of vital service occupations, such as home health aides,
elementary school teachers and firefighters, were below the county-wide median
income level. More options for affordable workforce housing would be needed for those
employed in Saratoga that cannot afford to live in the community they serve. With the
average rent of a 1-bedroom apartment at nearly $2,000 and a 2-bedroom apartment
at nearly $3,200 in 2014 (craigslist.com rental survey 2/18/2014 and 3/14/2014), workers in
lower income occupations may encounter difficulty in finding affordable rental units.
Table 2-18 shows the occupational salaries in the San Jose, Sunnyvale and Santa Clara
metropolitan statistical area.
207
October 2014 2-15
Table 2-18. Bay Area Wages for Select Occupations - 2013
Very Low Income
(<$45,250 - 2 person household)
Hourly
Wage
Annual
Income
Max. Monthly
Affordable
Housing Cost
Waiters and Waitresses $10.88 $22,637 $566
Home Health Aide $11.20 $23,297 $582
Restaurant Cooks $12.68 $26,370 $659
Retail Salespersons $12.82 $26,660 $667
Security Guards $15.98 $33,249 $831
Nursing Assistants $17.13 $35,635 $891
Low Income
($45,251 - $67,900 - 2 person household)
Hourly
Wage
Annual
Income
Max. Monthly
Affordable
Housing Cost
Pharmacy Technicians $23.44 $48,752 $1,219
Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technicians $26.28 $54,662 $1,367
Tax Preparers $26.77 $55,690 $1,392
Architectural and Civil Drafters $30.04 $62,483 $1,562
Executive Secretaries and Admin. Assistants $31.46 $65,439 $1,636
Paralegals and Legal Assistants $31.69 $65,904 $1,648
Moderate Income
($67,900 - $101,300 - 2 person household)
Hourly
Wage
Annual
Income
Max. Monthly
Affordable
Housing Cost
Elementary School Teachers $69,192 $1,730
Real Estate Agents $38.10 $79,238 $1,981
Accountants and Auditors $41.78 $86,903 $2,173
Fire Fighters $42.19 $87,757 $2,194
Physical Therapists $45.75 $95,159 $2,379
Computer Programmers $47.47 $98,734 $2,468
Source: 2013 California Occupational Employment Statistics –San Jose - Sunnyvale - Santa Clara MSA (County: Santa
Clara)
*Income categories based on two person household with single wage earner
*Maximum affordable housing cost based on standard of 30% of income on housing, including rent/mortgage, utilities,
taxes, insurance, HOA fees
4. Housing Inventory and Market Conditions
This section describes the housing stock and market conditions in the city of Saratoga. By
analyzing past and current housing trends, future housing needs can be projected.
208
October 2014 2-16
a. Housing Stock Profile
According to the 2000 U.S. Census and the State Department of Finance, 2 percent of all
housing units in Santa Clara County are within Saratoga’s boundaries. The city had 10,667
housing units in 2000. The housing stock grew to 11,123 units in 2010. Table 2-19 summarizes
the number of housing units from 2000-2010.
Table 2-19. Number of Housing Units in Saratoga and Santa Clara County
Saratoga Santa Clara County
Saratoga as a Percent of
County Units
2000 10,667 579,329 2%
2010 11,123 631,920 2%
Source: Census 2000 and DOF 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
Thirty-eight units were approved between 2007 and 2013: 20 units were in the above-
moderate income level, 5 were moderate income and 13 were low income. Fourteen
additional units were anticipated to be approved by June 30, 2014: 10 in the above
moderate income level, 2 moderate income and 2 low income.
Table 2-20. RHNA Housing Achievements
Income Levels 2007-
2014
RHNA
Goal
New Residential Structure
Building Permits Issued in:
Total RHNA
Achievements
2007-2013 Est. 2014
through June
30, 2014
Extremely Low*
(0-30% AMI)
45 0 0 0
Very Low*
(31-50% AMI)
45 0 0 0
Low
(51-80% AMI)
68 13 2 15
Moderate
(81-120% AMI)
77 5 2 7
Above Moderate
(>120% AMI)
57 20 10 30
Totals 292 38 14 52
Source: City of Saratoga
During the 2007-2014 period, eighteen new second units were constructed. Thirteen of
these units were deed restricted and available for Low Income households. The other five
second units were non-deed restricted and available to Moderate Income households.
During the first half of 2014 the City has estimated that an additional two deed restricted
units will be permitted and another two non-deed restricted units will be permitted.
209
October 2014 2-17
A survey (Craigslist May 9, 2014 & May 20, 2014) of second unit rentals in Saratoga and
surrounding cities showed rents ranging from $850 to $2,000. The median rent for a 1-
bedroom unit was $1,600 and the median rent for a studio was $1,360. These rents are in
the range of Very Low to Moderate affordability for Santa Clara County.
Based on feedback from owners of second units, City staff understands that a large
percentage of second units are occupied rent free by family members or domestic
workers. While the City does not maintain records on rents for second units other than
deed restricted units, surveys done in San Mateo County for the cities of Woodside,
Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills and Hillsborough indicate that between 62 and 74 percent
of all second units are available to very low or extremely low income households. These
cities are demographically similar to Saratoga.
In Saratoga, the majority of recently constructed second units have utilized the floor area
and site coverage bonus provisions which require that the unit be deed restricted for rent
to below market rate households. Since 2001 the City estimates that there were 41
second dwelling units constructed, of those units 20 were deed restricted.
Most building permits in the city were issued for remodels and additions to existing single-
family dwellings. During the 2007-2014 planning period, 127 new homes were built
including replacements of existing homes. An additional, 22 second dwelling units were
built during the planning period. This represents 51 percent of the total 292 housing units
planned for during the 2007-2014 Housing Element cycle.
i. Unit Size
In 2011, the most common type of renter-occupied units were 1-bedroom units. The
most common types of owner-occupied units were 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom units.
These were also the most common types of housing units overall. Table 2-21
summarizes the distribution of unit size by tenure in 2011.
Table 2-21. Unit Size by Tenure
Owner Renter Total Units
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Studio 0 0% 120 8% 120 1%
1 bedroom 9 <1% 447 28% 456 4%
2 bedrooms 338 4% 271 17% 609 6%
3 bedrooms 2606 29% 389 25% 2,995 28%
4 bedrooms 4424 49% 156 10% 4,580 43%
5 or more bedrooms 1,745 19% 207 13% 1,952 18%
Total 9,122 100% 1590 100% 10,712 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
210
October 2014 2-18
ii. Unit Type
Single-family homes constitute the majority of the city’s housing stock. In both 2000 and 2010,
the combined total of single-family attached and detached units made up more than 90
percent of the housing stock in Saratoga. Table 2-22 presents the proportional distribution of
the housing stock. One notable change between 2000 and 2010 was the increasing number
of multiple family dwellings that were constructed.
Table 2-22. Housing Inventory by Unit Type
2000 2010
Number Percent Number Percent
SF detached 9,551 90% 9,356 84%
SF attached 561 5% 760 7%
2-4 units 197 2% 355 3%
5+ units 351 3% 652 6%
Mobile Homes 0 0% 0 0%
Other 7 <1% 0 0%
Total Housing Units 10,667 100% 11,123 100%
Source: Census 2000 and DOF 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
As the predominant housing type in Saratoga, single-family units comprised the majority of
owner-occupied units and a significant proportion of renter-occupied units. Owner-occupied
housing units are predominately single-family detached, comprising 93 percent of all owner-
occupied units. Single-family detached units also made up the majority of renter- occupied
units (38 percent). The largest proportion of renter-occupied housing units were multifamily
complexes with 5 or more units, which comprised 43 percent of renter-occupied units.
Table 2-23. Unit Type by Tenure
Percent of
Owner Units
Percent of
Renter Units
Percent of
Total Units
Single-family, detached 93% 38% 85%
Single-family, attached 5% 10% 6%
Multi-family (2-4 units) 1% 9% 3%
Multi-family (5+ units) 1% 43% 7%
Mobile home of other 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011
211
October 2014 2-19
b. Tenure
Approximately 86 percent of Saratoga’s housing units were owner-occupied and 14
percent were renter-occupied in 2010. As shown in Table 2-24, the percentage of owner-
occupied units in Saratoga was comparatively higher than Santa Clara County and
California.
Table 2-24. Occupied Units by Tenure
Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Saratoga 9,258 86% 1,476 14% 10,734 100%
Santa Clara County 348,298 58% 255,906 42% 604,204 100%
Source: Census 2010
c. Vacancy Rates
Vacancy rates are an indicator of housing supply and demand. Low vacancy rates
influence greater upward price pressures; a higher vacancy rate indicates downward
price pressure. A vacancy rate of five percent for rental housing and two percent for
owner housing is generally considered healthy in regards to the balance between
supply and demand. In 2010, the citywide residential vacancy rate in Saratoga was
3.5 percent. The renter vacancy rate was 4.3 percent, and the homeowner vacancy rate
was 0.7 percent. Both rates have increased since 2000 but are still lower than the
benchmark for healthy vacancy rates. These lower vacancy rates suggest that
competition for units may place upward pressure on rents and for-sale housing prices.
Table 2-25 summarizes vacancy rates in Saratoga from 2000 to 2010.
Table 2-25. Vacancy Rates
Owner Rental Citywide Total
2000 0.3 3.4 1.9
2010 0.7 4.3 3.5
Source: Census 2000 and 2010; Dept. of Finance E8 2000, Table 2; Dept. of Finance E5 2010, Table 2
d. Age of Housing Stock
The age of a housing unit is often an indicator of housing conditions. In general, housing
that is 30 years or older may exhibit need for repairs based on the useful life of materials.
Housing over 50 years old is considered aged and is more likely to exhibit a need for
major repairs. The U.S. Census provided data on the age of the housing stock through
the 2007-2011 American Community Survey. In Saratoga, 81 percent of housing units
were built before 1980 and 32 percent were built before 1960. Table 2-26 provides a
summary of housing stock age.
212
October 2014 2-20
Table 2-26. Age of Housing Stock
Number Percent
2000 - 2009 835 8%
1990 - 1999 617 6%
1980 - 1989 771 7%
1970 - 1979 2,334 21%
1960 - 1969 3,074 28%
1950 - 1959 2,737 25%
1940 - 1949 333 3%
1939 or earlier 455 4%
Total 11,156 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
e. Housing Conditions
Housing is considered substandard when conditions are found to be below the minimum
standard of living conditions defined in the California Health and Safety Code.
Households living in substandard conditions are considered to be in need of housing
assistance, even if they are not seeking alternative housing arrangements, due to the
threat to health and safety.
In addition to structural deficiencies and standards, the lack of infrastructure and utilities
often serves as an indicator for substandard conditions. According to the 2007-2011
American Community Survey 74 units in Saratoga lacked complete plumbing facilities
and 140 units lacked complete kitchen facilities. It should be noted that there may be
some overlap in the number of substandard housing units, as some units may lack both
complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. Table 2-27 summarizes the number of units
lacking plumbing or complete kitchen facilities.
The age of the city’s housing stock can be a valuable indicator of housing conditions. In
Saratoga, approximately 80 percent of the housing units were built prior to 1980 and 32
percent prior to 1960. It is expected that housing older than 30 years may require basic
repairs and housing older than 50 years is considered “aged” and likely to require more
extensive repairs. A spike in home construction occurred in the 1960s when 3,074 homes
were built, which translates to 28 percent of the present housing stock. Assessor data
indicates that there are 4,124 residences that were built over 50 years ago and have not
had a significant remodel. Given the historically high values of homes in Saratoga the vast
majority of older homes are maintained in good condition. The City estimates that less
than one percent, or approximately 20, of those homes older than 50 years will need some
form of rehabilitation during the planning period. The City will continue to utilize code
enforcement practices to identify housing in need of rehabilitation and work with property
owners to rectify sub-standards housing.
213
October 2014 2-21
Table 2-27. Units Lacking Complete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities
Number Percent
Lacking Complete Plumbing Facilities 74 1%
Lacking Complete Kitchen Facilities 140 1%
Total Housing Units 11,156 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
f. Housing Costs and Rents
This section evaluates housing cost trends in Saratoga. The analysis covers the
affordability gap, home price trends, ownership affordability, rental prices and rental
affordability.
i. Home Price Trends
In 2013, the median value for all owner-occupied units in Saratoga was $1,600,000,
according to Census and real estate market data. Home values have increased 27
percent since 2000, as shown in Table 2-28. Table 2-29, shows that 84 percent of owner-
occupied housing units were valued at $1,000,000 or more. An additional 12 percent
were valued at between $500,000 and $999,999.
Table 2-28. Median Housing Value
2000
(2000 dollars)
2000
(2013 dollars)*
2013
(2013 dollars)
Percent Change
2000-2013
(2013 dollars)
Saratoga $927,100 $1,260,856 $1,600,000 27%
Santa Clara
County Total $475,600 $646,816 $645,000 -1%
Source: Census 2000 SF3 QT-H6; Dataquick 2013; ABAG Bay Area Consumer Price Index 2013
*Value adjusted to 2013 dollars. According to ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements, CPI in 2000 was 180.2, CPI in
2013 was 245, and as a result CPI percent change was 36%
214
October 2014 2-22
Table 2-29. Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Units
Number Percent
Less than $100,000 29 <1%
$100,000 to $124,999 64 1%
$125,000 to $149,999 14 <1%
$150,000 to $174,999 65 1%
$175,000 to $199,999 11 <1%
$200,000 to $249,999 27 <1%
$250,000 to $299,999 67 1%
$300,000 to $399,999 28 <1%
$400,000 to $499,999 81 1%
$500,000 to $749,999 284 3%
$750,000 to $999,999 796 9%
$1,000,000 or more 7,656 84%
Total 9,122 100.0%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011
As shown in Table 2-30, the median sales price for new and resale homes in Saratoga was
$1,600,000 for 2013. This represents a 5 percent increase from the median sales price in
2012. The 2013 median sales price in Saratoga was more than double the County median.
Table 2-30. Median Sales Price
County/City/Area Number Sold 2013 Median Price 2012 Median Price Change
Saratoga 448 $1,600,000 $1,527,500 5%
Alviso 13 $415,000 $370,000 12%
Campbell 554 $701,000 $625,000 12%
Cupertino 512 $1,200,000 $1,045,750 15%
Gilroy 755 $495,000 $415,000 19%
Los Gatos 694 $1,257,500 $1,065,000 18%
Milpitas 800 $580,000 $435,000 33%
Morgan Hill 738 $625,000 $500,000 25%
Mount Hamilton 3 $1,180,000 $918,000 29%
Mountain View 759 $800,000 $769,250 4%
Palo Alto 670 $1,720,000 $1,495,000 15%
San Jose 11,050 $570,000 $438,000 30%
San Martin 52 $650,000 $580,000 12%
Santa Clara 1,214 $635,000 $540,000 18%
Stanford 3 $3,450,000 $2,530,000 36%
Sunnyvale 1,326 $767,500 $645,000 19%
Santa Clara County 20,700 $645,000 $525,000 23%
Source: Dataquick DQ News San Francisco Bay Area Home Sales Activity for 2013
215
October 2014 2-23
Housing prices vary by housing type and the number of bedrooms in a unit. Overall, the
median price of a single-family home was more than twice the value of a townhouse or
condominium in Saratoga. The median price difference is significant even between
single-family homes and condominiums with comparable sizes and the same number of
bedrooms.
Table 2-31. Saratoga Home and Condominium Sales Price Jan. – Dec. 2013
# Bdrms Units
Sold Price Range Median
Price
Avg. Unit
Size
Avg. Parcel
Size
Avg. Year
Built
Single-Family Homes
2 21 $400,000 -
$4,250,000 $1,265,000 1,450 sf 30,500 1948
3 118 $163,000 -
$3,550,000 $1,400,000 2,100 sf 20,030 1960
4 147 $188,500 -
$4,850,000 $1,840,000 2,850 sf 23,680 1968
5+ 69 $170,000 -
$12,300,000 $2,097,500 3,510 sf 30,190 1973
Total 355 $163,000 -
$12,300,000 $1,750,000 2,749 sf 24,130 1965
Condominiums
1 5 $378,000 -
$419,000 $410,000 700 sf -- 1975
2 34 $312,500 -
$1,215,000 $600,000 1,340 sf 1971
3 19 $202,000 -
$1,350,000 $850,000 2,000 sf 1980
Total 58 $202,000 -
$1,350,000 $631,000 1,500 sf -- 1974
Source: Dataquick Online Real Estate Database
ii. Ownership Affordability
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) conducts annual household
income surveys nationwide, including Santa Clara County, to determine the maximum
affordable payments of households and their eligibility for federal housing assistance. The
2013 median income limit for a four-person household in Santa Clara County was
$105,500. Table 2-23 presents affordable home purchase prices for moderate income
households.
216
October 2014 2-24
The median sales price for homes in 2013
generally exceeded the affordability range for
moderate income households, however
condominiums were a more affordable
alternative to single-family homes. The
affordability gap between the maximum
affordable purchase price of a moderate
income 4-person household and the median
single-family home purchase price is $870,000.
This gap is more than two times the difference
between the affordable price and the median
condominium purchase price ($320,000).
Although the gap in affordability is still significant for condominiums, it is a more viable
option than single family homes, which are out of reach for moderate income
households.
The Saratogan Condominiums
217
October 2014 2-25
Table 2-32. 2013 Maximum Affordable Housing Cost (Moderate Income), Santa Clara County
Moderate Income 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Affordable Housing Cost (2 persons) (3 persons) (4 persons) (5 persons)
Moderate Income Threshold $92,840 $104,500 $116,050 $125,290 (110% County Median)
Max. Income Towards Housing @
35% Income $32,500 $36,580 $40,620 $43,850
Max. Monthly Housing Cost $2,710 $3,050 $3,385 $3,655
Less Ongoing Monthly
Expenses:
Utilities ($127) ($139) ($188) ($217)
Property Taxes (1.1%
affordable housing
price)
($387) ($440) ($485) ($523)
Insurance ($85) ($100) ($115) ($130)
HOA Fees & Other ($180) ($180) ($180) ($180)
Monthly Income Available for
Mortgage $1,931 $2,191 $2,417 $2,605
Supportable Mortgage @ 4.5%
interest $381,000 $432,000 $477,000 $514,000
Homebuyer Down payment
(10%) $42,000 $48,000 $53,000 $57,000
Maximum Affordable Purchase
Price $423,000 $480,000 $530,000 $571,000
Saratoga Median Single-Family
Price -- $1,265,000 $1,400,000 $1,840,000
Saratoga Median Condominium
Price $410,000 $600,000 $850,000 --
Source: Karen Warner Associates.
Utility costs based on 2013 Santa Clara County Housing Authority utility allowance schedule for attached units (assumes
gas heating, cooking and water heating).
iii. Rental Prices
As a city where 85 percent of the housing stock consists of single-family detached homes,
small affordable apartment rentals are difficult to find. Table 2-33 shows that the number
of homes available for rent outnumbered apartments for rent in 2014. This leaves renters
with fewer options for affordable apartment rentals. Rents for single-family homes were
upwards of $5,000 per month. The average rent for a 3-bedroom home was $4,510, and
the rent for a 4-bedroom home was $5,460. In comparison, the average price of a 1
bedroom rental unit was $1,960. A small stock of multifamily units gives renters few choices.
Second units offer an affordable alternative to apartment and home rentals. These
independent housing units, also known as secondary dwelling units, are located on the
same property as a larger primary dwelling unit. A survey of second units in Saratoga and
218
October 2014 2-26
surrounding cities shows rents ranging from $850 to $2,000 and a median rent of $1,500.
Table 2-33 highlights the lower rents of second units compared to other rental units.
Table 2-33. Saratoga 2014 Rental Survey
Availability Rental Range Median Average
Apartments and Condominiums
1-bedroom 4 $1,850 - $2,300 $1,850 $1,960
2/3-bedroom 5 $2,700 - $2,500 $3,400 $3,170
Single Family Homes
3-bedroom 10 $3,800 - $5,950 $4,540 $4,510
4-bedroom 12 $4,200 - $8,500 $4,980 $5,460
5-bedroom 8 $5,500 - $9,250 $8,000 $7,520
Second Unit Dwelling
Second Unit 12 $850 - $2,000 $1,500 $1,440
Source: Craigslist February 18, 2014 and March 14, 2014, Craigslist May 9, 2014 (second units-includes
neighboring jurisdictions)
According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 37 percent of renter
households in Saratoga spent 30 percent or more of their household income on rent
in 2011. Twenty percent of households spent 50 percent or more of their household
income on rent. Table 2-34 shows the number of households by percentage of household
income spent on rent.
Table 2- 34. Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income
Number of Households Percent of Households
Less than 10.0 percent 230 15%
10.0 to 14.9 percent 100 6%
15.0 to 19.9 percent 239 15%
20.0 to 24.9 percent 80 5%
25.0 to 29.9 percent 224 14%
30.0 to 34.9 percent 75 5%
35.0 to 39.9 percent 47 3%
40.0 to 49.9 percent 143 9%
50.0 percent or more 325 20%
Not computed 127 8%
Total 1,590 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011
219
October 2014 2-27
iv. Rental Affordability
As shown in Table 2-35, the median rents for 1-bedroom apartments were affordable to
moderate income households but not low income households. A 1-bedroom unit was
affordable to a 2-person moderate-income household, which could pay up to $2,435,
after utilities, without exceeding the affordability limit defined as 30 percent of income.
With an affordable limit of $1,600, low income renter households would have to spend
more than 30 percent for their income. Although the affordability gap for low income
renters was $150 for a 1-bedroom apartment, the gap greatly widens for units with 2-
bedrooms or more. The difference between the median rent for a 2-bedroom unit and
affordable rent for a low-income household was $1,600. In addition to the low supply of
1-bedroom units, households face the challenge of finding affordable rental units. Units
that have more than one bedroom would no longer be affordable to low income or
moderate income households.
Rental prices for larger units, namely single-family homes, exceeded affordable levels for
moderate income households. Single-family homes make up a large supply of 3-bedroom
rental units. The median rent for a 3-bedroom home was $4,540, but a 4-person moderate
income household could only spend up to $3,037 on housing until housing was no longer
considered affordable. This affordability gap between the median price and an
affordable rental price was $1,500. To rent a median priced 3-bedroom home in
Saratoga, moderate income households would have to spend more than 30 percent of
their income on rent.
Table 2- 35. 2013 Maximum Affordable Rents, Santa Clara County
Income Level1
Maximum Affordable Rent After Utilities Allowance2
1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
(2 person) (3 person) (4 person)
Very Low Income $964 $1,085 $1,198
Low Income $1,600 $1,801 $1,995
Moderate Income $2,435 $2,739 $3,037
Saratoga Median Rents $1,850 $3,400 $4,540
Source: Source: Karen Warner Associates
1 Income levels based on State HCD published Income Limits for 2013.
2 Utility costs based on 2013 Santa Clara County Housing Authority utility allowance schedule for low-rise multi-family
units (gas heating, cooking and water heating; assumes monthly refuse service included in rent): $83 for studios, $97 for
1 bedrooms, $109 for 2 bedrooms, and $128 for 3 bedrooms.
220
October 2014 2-28
B. Housing Needs
This section provides an overview of existing housing needs in Saratoga. It focuses on the
following categories:
x Household overpayment;
x Overcrowding;
x Estimated new construction;
x Replacement of units lost; and
x Special needs groups.
1. Households Overpaying for Housing
Overpayment is defined as households paying more than 30 percent of their gross
income on housing related expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities.
High housing costs can cause households to spend a disproportionate percentage
of their income on housing. This may result in repayment problems, deferred
maintenance or overcrowding.
Overpayment is an issue affecting owners and renters. Thirty-two percent of all
households were owners that overpaid for housing. As shown in Table 2-36, housing
overpayment not only affected lower income households but had a noticeable impact
on above moderate income households as well. With median home values and market
prices exceeding $1 million, housing payments presented a burden for many households.
Table 2-37 shows overpayment among renter households. About 5 percent of all
households were renters who overpaid for housing. Renter households represent a small
proportion of all households in Saratoga, so overpayment is a more significant issue than
is represented by the data.
Table 2-36. Owner Household Overpayment by Household Income Level
Owner Households
HH Paying 30-50% HH Paying > 50%
Number
Percent of
Total HH* Number
Percent of
Total HH*
Very Low Income ≤50% of HAMFI 85 1% 445 4%
Low Income 50- 80% of HAMFI 39 <1% 105 1%
Moderate 80 to 120% of HAMFI 125 1% 160 2%
Above Moderate 120%+ of HAMFI 1,740 17% 655 6%
Total Overpayment 1,989 19% 1,365 13%
Source: CHAS 2006-2010 (CHAS based on ACS), via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Total Household count is 10,470 from CHAS 2006-2010, via ABAG data for Bay Area Housing Elements
221
October 2014 2-29
Table 2-37. Renter Household Overpayment by Household Income Level
Renter Household
HH Paying 30-50% HH Paying > 50%
Number
Percent
of Total
HH* Number
Percent
of Total
HH*
Very Low Income ≤50% of HAMFI 130 1% 225 2%
Low Income 50- 80% of HAMFI 10 <1% 0 0%
Moderate 80 to 120% of HAMFI 85 1% 15 <1%
Above Moderate 120%+ of HAMFI 90 1% 10 <1%
Total Overpayment 315 3% 250 2%
Source: CHAS 2006-2010 (CHAS based on ACS), via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Total Household count is 10,470 from CHAS 2006-2010, via ABAG data for Bay Area Housing Elements
2. Overcrowding
An Overcrowded Housing Unit is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as a housing unit
occupied by more than one person but less than 1.5 persons per room (excluding
bathrooms, kitchen, hallway and closet space). A Severely Overcrowded unit is defined
as a unit occupied by more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding can affect public
facilities and services, reduce the quality of the physical environment and create
conditions that contribute to deterioration. Overcrowding is not a significant issue in
Saratoga. Table 2-38 summarizes overcrowding in Saratoga. According to CHAS 2006-
2010 data, the only overcrowding recorded was for 15 severely overcrowded renter units.
Table 2-38. Overcrowded Households
Owner Renter
Number
Percent
of Total
Occupied
Units Number
Percent
of Total
Occupied
Units
Overcrowded
(greater than 1.0 but less than or
equal to 1.5 persons per room) 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Severely Overcrowded
(greater than 1.5 persons per room) 0 0.0% 15 0.1%
Source: CHAS 2006-2010 (CHAS based on ACS), via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Total Occupied Units is 10,470 according to CHAS 2006-2010
3. Units At-Risk of Conversion
The State Housing Element law requires local governments to prepare an inventory of all
assisted multi-family rental housing complexes that are eligible to be converted from low
income to market-rate units. Assisted housing units are multifamily units that have
222
October 2014 2-30
received government assistance (any combination of rental assistance, mortgage
insurance, interest reductions, and/or direct loan programs). The conversion may be
triggered by termination of a rent subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiration
of use restrictions. The inventory must cover a ten-year evaluation period following the
statutory due date of the Housing Element.
Saratoga has two rent-restricted properties totaling 170 units. These include Fellowship
Plaza with 150 units and Saratoga Court with 20 units. Both properties provide affordable
housing for seniors and are owned and managed by non-profit housing providers and
are thus considered at low risk of conversion to market rate. Analysis of at-risk unit
conversions is covered in Appendix B.
4. 2014-2022 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for allocating housing
needs to each jurisdiction in its region, including Saratoga. A local jurisdiction’s “fair
share” of regional housing need is the number of additional housing units needed to
accommodate the forecasted growth in the number of households, to replace
expected demolitions and conversion of housing units to non-housing uses, and to
achieve a future vacancy rate that allows for healthy functioning of the housing market.
The allocation is divided into five income categories: Extremely-Low, Very-Low, Low,
Moderate, and Above-Moderate. The allocation is further adjusted to avoid an over-
concentration of lower-income households in any one jurisdiction.
Table 2-39. Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Extremely
Low Income
0-30%*
Very
Low
31-50%
Low
51-80%
Moderate
81-120%
Above
Moderate
120%+ Total
Saratoga 74 73 95 104 93 439
Source: ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*It is assumed that 50 percent of the RHNA Very Low Income allocation qualifies as Extremely Low Income.
5. Special Needs Groups
Certain segments of the population have more difficulty finding decent, affordable
housing due to special needs. This section identifies the needs for elderly persons, large
households, female-headed households, persons with disabilities, homeless persons and
farmworkers.
In addition to the data from the 2010 U.S. Census, this section uses data from the 2006-
2010 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) published by HUD. The CHAS
provides information related to households with housing problems, including
overpayment, overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen facilities. The CHAS data
are based on Census data files and mostly comprise a variety of housing need variables
split by HUD-defined income limits and HUD- specified housing types.
223
October 2014 2-31
a. Elderly Persons
Elderly persons are considered a special needs group because they are more likely to
have fixed incomes. Elderly persons often have special needs related to housing
location and construction. Because of limited mobility, elderly persons typically need
access to public facilities (i.e. medical and shopping) and public transit. In terms of
housing construction, elderly persons may need ramps, handrails, elevators, lower
cabinets and counters, and special security devices to allow for greater self-protection.
The U.S. Census reports the characteristics of Saratoga’s senior population and
households. Nearly 6,100 residents, or 20 percent of the population, were age 65 or older.
Senior households, which are headed by a senior resident, made up 32 percent of
Saratoga’s households. The tenure of senior households, shown in Table 2-40, consists of
15 percent renters and 85 percent owners.
Table 2-40. Senior Households by Age Group and Tenure
Owner Renter Total
Number
Percent of
Senior HH Number
Percent of
Senior HH Number
Percent of
Senior HH
65 to 74 years 1,491 43% 117 3% 1,608 47%
75 to 84 years 1,023 30% 219 6% 1,242 36%
85+ years 417 12% 186 5% 603 17%
Total 2,931 85% 522 15% 3,453 100%
Source: Census 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
The HCD Area Median Income for Santa Clara County was $105,500 in 2013. Based
on the 2007-2011 American Community Survey data shown in Table 2-41, 21 percent of
senior households earned less than $30,000, and therefore fell within the Extremely Low
Income category. Within the Very-Low and Low Income categories Twenty-six percent
earned $30,000 to $74,999. The 2007-2011 American Community Survey also reports that
35 percent of senior households were living alone, which may present additional
challenges of housing affordability for those with low and fixed incomes.
Table 2-41. Senior Income Distribution (Householder Over 65)
Income
Approximate
Income Level Number Percent
Income under $30,000 Extremely Low 682 21%
$30,000 to $49,999 Very Low 312 10%
$50,000 to $74,999 Low 529 16%
$75,000 to $99,999 Low to Moderate 440 13%
More than $100,000 Moderate and Above 1,321 40%
Total 3,284 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
224
October 2014 2-32
The senior poverty rate as a whole was comparable to the poverty of the city’s entire
population. However, poverty rates for seniors under 75 and seniors over 75 were very
different. About 1 percent of seniors between ages 65 and 74 fell below the poverty level,
which was less than half of the poverty rate for the city’s entire population. However,
more than 6 percent of seniors age 75 and over fell below the poverty level, which was
nearly double the rate for the city’s population as a whole. Poverty rates are summarized
in Table 2-42. Supportive housing policies and affordable housing options can address
some of the difficulties that aging seniors face, including housing maintenance needs,
physical disabilities and living on fixed incomes.
Table 2-42. Poverty Rates among Senior Age Groups
Poverty Rate within
Age Groups
65 to 74 1.3%
75+ 6.4%
All Seniors 3.8%
Total Population 3.4%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
Affordable housing for seniors continues to be a need in Saratoga. Maintaining a supply
of affordable units is crucial in meeting the needs of low income seniors.
The U.S. Census Bureau provides information on the number of persons with disabilities of
varying types and degrees. The types of disabilities included in the Census are:
x Sensory: Blindness, deafness, or a severe vision or hearing impairment.
x Physical: A condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical
activities, such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying.
x Mental: A condition lasting 6 months or more that made it difficult to perform
certain activities including learning, remembering, or concentrating.
x Self-care: A condition lasting 6 months or more that made it difficult to perform
certain activities including dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home.
x Go-outside-home: Only asked for population 16 and older; a condition lasting 6
months or more that made it difficult to perform certain activities including going
outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor's office.
x Employment: Only asked for the population aged 16 to 64; a condition lasting 6
months or more that made it difficult to perform certain activities including working
at a job or business.
In 2011, about 15 percent of the elderly population had one type of disability. As shown
in Table 2-43, at least 14 percent had two or more types of disability. With disabilities
becoming a greater concern as senior residents age, supportive services and housing
environments will be in greater demand.
225
October 2014 2-33
Table 2-43. Residents 65 and Over with at Least One Disability
Number
Percent of Persons 65
Years and Over*
With One Type of Disability 862 15%
With Two or More Types of Disability 822 14%
Total with a Disability 1684 29%
Source: American Community Survey 2009-2011
*Total population 65 and over is 5,884, or 3089 (65 to 74 years) plus 2795 (75+ years) according to ACS 2009-2011 figures.
A number of city and countywide resources serve senior residents in Saratoga. The
Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) serves the needs of seniors in
Saratoga and sponsors two key programs: the Saratoga Senior Center and the Adult
Care Center. The Saratoga Senior Center hosts a variety of programs and activities
including education, art, physical fitness, entertainment and social events. In addition,
the Saratoga Senior Center provides services in health, finance, legal assistance and
library lending. The Adult Care Center provides structured activity programs for seniors
ages 60 and older with physical and cognitive limitations who are unable to use the
services of the Saratoga Senior Center.
Seniors in Saratoga have access to several residential care facilities. As of April 2014, the
Community Care Licensing Division of the California Department of Social Services listed
five providers of residential care facilities for seniors in Saratoga. The Saratoga Home for
the Elderly, April Garden Villa of Saratoga and Bon Homie Saratoga each have the
capacity for 5-6 persons. Our Lady of Fatima Villa serves up to 74 persons. The largest
facility is the Saratoga Retirement Community (Fellowship Plaza), which can
accommodate 418 persons. Dementia care is available at Saratoga Retirement
Community and at Cedar Creek Alzheimer’s and Dementia Care Center in nearby Los
Gatos.
Health care services are available within and around Saratoga. In addition to a number
of physicians, dentists, optometrists and chiropractors working in Saratoga, El Camino
Hospital of Los Gatos offers a comprehensive set of health services. Saratoga Walk-In
Clinic offers urgent care and provides family practice care.
In-home care is available to seniors through several organizations with offices near
Saratoga. Through in-home care, seniors have an opportunity to remain at home with the
assistance of caregivers who help with daily activities. The Home Instead Senior Care
office in Campbell and the Visiting Angels Senior Homecare office in San Jose are local
options that connect seniors with caregivers.
The charitable foundation Health Trust has operated various programs and provided
services to Santa Clara County residents. The local Meals on Wheels program is one of
the programs operated under Health Trust that serves Santa Clara County residents who
are physically limited and homebound, including seniors and persons with disabilities.
Heath Trust programs offer access to high quality, affordable health services for seniors
through their Healthy Aging Initiative.
226
October 2014 2-34
b. Large Households
State housing law defines large households as households having five or more persons
living within the same household. Large households are considered a special needs
group because they require homes with more bedrooms. In 2010, there were 1,033
households in Saratoga with at least five persons, representing 10 percent of the total
households in the city. Large owner households represented 8 percent of all households
and large renter households represented 1 percent of all households.
One of the unique facets of Saratoga’s population that is not clearly reflected in the
available data, is the number of multi-generational households. Anecdotally, this appears
to be most true of new residents among the growing Asian population. Table 2-44 shows
the number of large owner and renter households.
Table 2-44. Large Households by Tenure
Owner Renter Total
Number
Percent of
Total HH* Number
Percent of
Total HH* Number
Percent of
Total HH*
5 Persons 615 6% 96 1% 711 7%
6 Persons 221 2% 28 <1% 249 2%
7 Persons 67 1% 6 <1% 73 1%
Total Large
Households 903 8% 130 1% 1033 10%
Source: Census 2010, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Total Households is 10,734 according to the 2010 Census.
Overcrowding should not be a
significant problem for most
households due to the large supply of 4
or more bedroom housing units in
Saratoga. An “Overcrowded” unit is
one occupied by 1.01 persons or more
per room and a “Severely
Overcrowded” unit is one occupied by
more than 1.5 persons per room, as
stated by HCD. The 2007-2011
American Community Survey showed
no “Overcrowded” households and 20
“Severely Overcrowded” households in
Saratoga. The number of units with 3 or more bedrooms, and even those with 5 or more
bedrooms, is much greater than the number of large households, as shown in Table 2-45.
Hillside Residence
227
October 2014 2-35
Table 2-45. Units by Number of Bedrooms
Owner Renter Total
3 or More Bedrooms
Number of Units 8,775 752 9,527
Large Households
(5 or more persons) 903 130 1,033
Ratio of Units to Large Households 9.7 5.8 9.2
5 or More Bedrooms
Number of Units 1,745 207 1,952
Large Households
(5 or more persons) 903 130 1,033
Ratio of Units to Large Households 1.9 1.6 1.9
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011 via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
c. Female-Headed Households
Female-headed households are a special needs group due to the comparatively low
rates of homeownership, lower incomes and high poverty rates they experience. With
limited resources available, many female-headed families have a need for affordable
housing in close proximity to services such as schools, day care and recreation programs.
According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, female-headed family
households represented 5.2 percent of all households in Saratoga. Female-headed families
with children accounted for 2.8 percent of all households. Table 2-46 shows the change in
female-headed households between 2000 and 2011.
Table 2-46. Female-Headed Households
2000 2011
2000-2011
Difference
Number
Percent of
Total HH Number
Percent of
Total HH
Number
Change
Percent
Change
Female Householder Living
Alone 975 9% 1,167 11% 192 20%
Female Householder Not
Living Alone 165 2% 99 1% -66 -40%
Female-Headed Family
With Children Under 18 257 3% 262 2% 5 2%
Female-Headed Family
With No Children Under 18 260 3% 302 3% 42 16%
Total
Female Households 1,657 16% 1,830 17% 173 10%
Total Households 10,450 100% 10,712 100% 262 3%
Source: Census 2000 and American Community Survey 2007-2011
228
October 2014 2-36
As shown in Table 2-47, 7.8 percent of female-headed households in Saratoga were below
poverty level in 2011. Of female-headed households with children, 14.3 percent were below
the poverty level.
Table 2-47. Female Headed Households below Poverty Level
Percent
Families Below Poverty Level 2.1%
Female Headed Households Below Poverty Level 7.8%
Female Headed Households with Children under 18 Below Poverty Level 14.3%
Source: American Community Survey 2007-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
In times of need, emergency shelters and transitional housing can provide one source of
support for women facing heavy financial burden, domestic abuse or other instabilities in their
lives. During their stay, they are given opportunities to regain physical and emotional health.
Financial burden may also be reduced during the stay, which allows them to more easily
transition back to financial and housing stability. Although there are no shelters for women in
Saratoga, ten shelters that provide a variety of services to women are located within 10 miles
of Saratoga, according to the Women’s Shelters California directory
(www.womanshelters.org).
d. Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities often spend a disproportionate amount of income to obtain housing.
Access and affordability are the primary challenges for persons with disabilities. Access,
both within the home and to/from home, is important for persons with disabilities. This
group often requires specially designed housing units. Persons with disabilities may require
residential care facilities or be located near specialized services. Housing locations near public
facilities and public transit are important for this special needs group.
The U.S. Census Bureau provides information on the number of persons with disabilities of
varying types and degrees. Table 2-48 shows the number of Saratoga residents over the age
of 5 with disabilities in 2011. According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 8 percent
of Saratoga residents reported having at least one type of disability. A more detailed
description of disability types among persons with disabilities is shown in Table 2-49.
229
October 2014 2-37
Table 2-48. Persons with at Least One Disability
Number
Percent of Total
Population
Persons 5 -17 with at Least One Disability 63 <1%
Persons 18-64 with at least One Disability 460 2%
Person 65 and Older with at Least One Disability 1684 6%
Total Persons with at Least One Disability 2,207 8%
Total Persons without a Disability 26,733 92%
Total Population 28,940 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2009-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
Table 2-49. Persons Ages 18-64 with Disabilities by Type
Employed Unemployed
Not in Labor
Force Total
With A Disability* 143 19 298 460
With A Hearing Difficulty 123 0 59 182
With A Vision Difficulty 0 0 67 67
With A Cognitive Difficulty 0 19 125 144
With An Ambulatory Difficulty 20 19 155 194
With A Self-Care Difficulty 4 0 91 95
With An Indep. Living Difficulty 0 0 157 157
No Disability 11,505 1,019 4,088 16,612
Total 11,648 1,038 4,386 17,072
Source: American Community Survey 2009-2011, via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements
*Person may have more than one type of disability
Persons with developmental disabilities have special housing needs. The State defines
developmental disability as one that originates before an individual becomes 18 years old,
or can be expected to continue indefinitely, and presents a substantial disability for that
individual. Conditions include mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. Table
2-50 shows developmental disabilities among Saratoga residents as surveyed in 2013.
Table 2-50. Persons with Developmental Disabilities in Saratoga
Mental
Retardation Autism
Cerebral
Palsy Epilepsy Other
Age 0 to 3 34 43 11 9 4
Age 3 to 17 88 26 28 22 14
Age 18 to 59 6 6 1 0 3
Age 60 + 4 0 2 2 2
Total 132 75 42 33 23
Source: San Andreas Regional Center 2013
*Note: A person may have more than one disability
230
October 2014 2-38
In Santa Clara County, nearly 74 percent of persons with developmental disabilities lived with
a parent or guardian. Almost 16 percent lived in a community care facility. Table 2-51 shows
living arrangements for persons with developmental disabilities in Santa Clara County.
The lack of financial resources is an obstacle to independent living for persons with
developmental disabilities. Living in an integrated community setting is crucial in promoting
long-term health and stability. About 7 percent of persons with development disabilities lived
independently in Santa Clara County. The provision of safe, affordable housing with access
to supported living services can improve the viability of independent living.
Table 2-51. Living Situation of Persons with a Developmental Disability in Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County
Number Percent
At home with Parent or Guardian 6,422 74%
Community Care Facility 1,379 16%
Independent Living 640 7%
Intermediate Care Facility 176 2%
SNF 24 <1%
Other 72 1%
Total 8,713 100%
Source: State of California, Department of Developmental Services, "Quarterly Consumer Characteristics Report Index by
County of Physical Presence for the end of June 2013", via ABAG Data for Bay Area Housing Elements.
Residential facilities and services for persons with disabilities are largely provided at the
county- and regional level. The Community Care Licensing Division of the California
Department of Social Services has recorded no providers of residential care facilities for
persons with disabilities in Saratoga. However, residential care facilities are available
throughout the Santa Clara County. Rental subsidies are also available through the Housing
Authority of Santa Clara County. The Silicon Valley Independent Living Center (SVILC) serves
Santa Clara County residents who have disabilities. The nonprofit organization provides
services related to information, referrals, peer support, independent living skills training,
housing and assistive technology. SVILC maintains a database of accessible and subsidized
housing to help its clients find affordable housing in the County. Resources for persons with
disabilities are provided at the regional level.
e. Homeless Population
Enumeration of the homeless population is difficult because of the transient nature of this
population and the existence of “hidden homeless” or persons that move among temporary
housing situations.
The 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey identified 35 homeless individuals
in Saratoga. The 2013 Census and Survey comprised a point-in-time count of homeless and
a series of one-on-one interviews with about 850 homeless individuals. Thirty-five unsheltered
homeless and no sheltered homeless residing in Saratoga were reported in 2013. In
231
October 2014 2-39
comparison, 7 unsheltered homeless and no sheltered homeless were reported in 2011. The
increase of homeless persons suggests that there may be a growing need for supportive
programs to prevent homelessness and help individuals find permanent housing.
Emergency shelters, transitional housing and permanent housing are needed to address the
countywide need of available shelters for the large number of unsheltered homeless. The 2013
Homeless Census found that 74 percent of homeless in the County were unsheltered. A total
of 7,631 homeless individuals were identified in the survey, of which 5,674 individuals were
unsheltered. Of the 26 percent who were sheltered, 12 percent stayed at emergency shelters,
13 percent occupied transitional housing and less than 1 percent were in the Safe Haven
program. Shelter stay was not guaranteed to homeless individuals. The 2013 Homeless Census
reported that 27 percent of respondents had been turned away from an emergency shelter
within the prior 30-day period and two-thirds of those individuals were turned away due to a
lack of beds. Although Saratoga’s entire homeless population in 2013 was unsheltered, the
number of homeless residing within the city was a small proportion of the County’s unsheltered
homeless population.
There are no permanent shelters located in Saratoga; however, two local churches
participate in the Faith In Action Rotating Shelter Program which provides emergency
shelter, food and other services. A number of regional resources are also available to
homeless individuals. Saratoga is a supporting partner of the West Valley Community Services
program which assists homeless individuals and families with referral and placement services.
InnVision Shelter Network operates a number of transitional housing programs in Santa Clara
County. The programs include job search assistance and training on the management of
household finances.
In the 2013 Homeless Census, 40 percent of respondents indicated that job loss was the
primary factor leading to their homelessness. Programs related to job training help
reintegrate individuals into the workforce and access to transitional housing provides
temporary shelter during the process. The Housing Authority of Santa Clara County offers
rental assistance and supportive services to homeless persons with long-term disabilities
through providers in the Shelter Plus Care Program. Home First (formerly EHC Lifebuilders)
connects individuals with emergency shelter, transitional housing and permanent housing
opportunities, along with supportive services, throughout the Santa Clara County. Homeless
individuals are referred to regional resources and organizations. A list of homeless service
facilities is provided in Chapter 3 (Table 3-7).
The 2013 Homeless Survey revealed that one-third of the homeless population were
chronically homeless. Chronic homelessness is characterized as being homeless for one or
more years or experiencing 4 or more episodes of homelessness in the past 3 years. Nine
percent of the homeless population were veterans, more than two-thirds of which
experienced one or more conditions including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression,
mental illness and physical disabilities. Fourteen percent of the homeless population were
families. Programs provided to homeless individuals in Saratoga and Santa Clara County
should consider unique circumstances and housing needs among different homeless
232
October 2014 2-40
subgroups.
f. Farm Workers
Farm workers are defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through seasonal
agricultural work. According to the USDA Census of Agriculture, Santa Clara County had
4,237 farmworkers in 2012. However, Saratoga is not an agricultural community. Eighteen
persons at most, less than 1 percent of Saratoga’s labor force, were employed in
agriculture, according to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey. It is assumed that only
a small percentage of persons employed in this industry are involved in active agricultural
production and harvest. Therefore, there is no apparent or recognized need for farmworker
housing.
g. Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely Low-Income households are defined as households earning 30 percent or less of
the Median Family Income. In accordance with Chapter 891, Statutes of 2006 (AB 2634),
cities must quantify the number of existing and projected Extremely Low-Income
households and analyze their needs. According to the CHAS 2006-2010 dataset from HUD,
7.4 percent of total households in the city were Extremely Low-Income households.
Saratoga will have 2,354 Extremely Low-Income Household in 2040 assuming a population of
32,700 by 2040 (2013 ABAG projections) and applying the same proportional distribution of
income levels. The City will need to be prepared to meet the specific housing needs of
Extremely Low-Income households, which may include housing with supportive services,
single-room occupancy housing, shared housing, or rent subsidy vouchers. Table 2-52 shows
Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low- Income household distributions.
Table 2-52. Low Income Households
Owner Renter Total
Number
Percent
of Total
HH Number
Percent
of Total
HH Number
Percent
of Total
HH
Extremely Low Income
(≤30% of AMI) 350 3.3% 430 4.1% 780 7.4%
Very Low Income
(31 to 50% AMI) 520 5.0% 115 1.1% 635 6.1%
Low Income
(51 to 80% AMI) 310 3.0% 85 0.8% 395 3.8%
Total Households 8,865 84.7% 1,605 15.3% 10,470 100%
Source: CHAS 2006-2010 *AMI: Area Median Income
Housing problems can significantly impact Extremely Low-Income households, who may
have limited means to improve their housing conditions. The CHAS 2006-2010 database
identifies households at various income levels that are affected by at least one of four
233
October 2014 2-41
housing problems: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1
person per room, and cost burden greater than 30%. Housing problems affected 285 renter
and 190 owner households in the Extremely Low-Income category. Tables 2-53 and 2-54 show
that housing problems affect the majority of Extremely Low-Income and Very Low Income
Households, regardless of whether they own or rent.
Table 2-53. Renter Housing Problems by Income Level
Income by Housing
Problems (Renters only)
Household
has 1 of 4
Housing
Problems*
Household
has none of 4
Housing
Problems
Cost
Burden not
available Total
Household Income
≤30% AMI 285 105 45 430
Household Income >30%
to ≤50% AMI 70 50 0 115
Household Income >50%
to ≤80% AMI 10 80 0 85
Household Income >80%
to ≤100% AMI 55 65 0 120
Household Income >100%
AMI 165 680 0 845
Total 580 980 45 1,605
Source: CHAS 2006-2010
*The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per
room, and cost burden greater than 30%.
234
October 2014 2-42
Table 2-54. Owner Housing Problems by Income Level
Income by Housing
Problems (Owners only)
Household
has 1 of 4
Housing
Problems*
Household
has none of 4
Housing
Problems
Cost
Burden not
available Total
Household Income ≤30%
AMI 190 35 125 350
Household Income >30%
to ≤50% AMI 340 185 0 520
Household Income >50%
to ≤80% AMI 140 170 0 310
Household Income >80%
to ≤100% AMI 145 230 0 375
Household Income >100%
AMI 2,525 4,780 0 7,310
Total 3,345 5,395 125 8,865
Source: CHAS 2006-2010
*The four housing problems are: incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than 1 person per room,
and cost burden greater than 30%.
235
October 2014 3-1
Chapter 3: Housing Constraints and Resources
Constraints to housing include both governmental and environmental. Saratoga is
bounded to the south and west by the Santa Cruz Mountain Range, and to the north
and east by the communities of Los Gatos, Campbell, San Jose and Cupertino. The low-
lying, relatively flat portions of the city are almost exclusively built out with single-family
development. Highway 85 and Highway 9 bisect the city and bring commuter traffic
through to the high tech jobs in the nearby cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Mountain
View. These factors, as well as the high cost of land, and limited public transportation
outside of the main thoroughfares, are viewed as constraints to affordable housing by
the residents of the city.
A. Governmental Constraints and Resources
Governmental constraints are policies, standards, requirements and actions regulated by
various levels of government upon land and housing ownership and development. These
regulations may include various building codes, land use controls, growth management
measures, development fees, processing and permit procedures, and site improvement
requirements. While state and federal agencies play a role in imposing constraints on the
development and provision of housing, they are beyond the influence of local
government and are, therefore, not addressed in this analysis. Governmental resources
include programs that provide funds for housing-related activities, as well as, incentives
provided by the local jurisdiction for the provision of housing.
1. Land Use Controls
Land use controls include General Plan policies, zoning designations (and the resulting
allowed uses, development standards, and permit processing requirements), and
development fees.
a. General Plan
As required by state law, every city in California must have a General Plan, which
establishes policy guidelines for all development within the city. The General Plan is the
foundation of all land use controls in a jurisdiction. The Land Use Element of the General
Plan identifies the location, distribution, and density of the land uses within the city.
The Saratoga General Plan land use densities are expressed per net area, which is
generally defined as the remaining portion of the gross site area after deducting portions
within the right-of-way of existing or future public or private streets, easements, quarries,
or areas that are classified by the City Geologist as "M" or "Ms." Residential densities are
expressed in dwelling units per net acre (du/ac) and are limited by the maximum intensity
of building and impervious site coverage.
236
October 2014 3-2
The City of Saratoga General Plan identifies six residential land use designations and two
open space designations that permit residential uses. In addition, mixed use
developments that include residential uses are allowed by conditional use permit in
commercial districts within the city. Table 3-1 summarizes Saratoga’s residential land use
designations by total acre, permitted density ranges, and maximum intensity of building
and impervious surface coverage.
Table 3-1. General Plan Residential Land Use Designations
Table 3-1
General Plan
Residential Land Use Designations
Designation
Description
Existing
Acreage
Permitted
Density
Maximum Intensity of
Building and Impervious
Surface Coverage
Residential
Hillside
Conservation
Single-family dwellings,
horticultural and
agricultural use, and
accessory uses
compatible with single-
family dwellings.
1,926.5 0.5 du/ac 15,000 square feet or 25
percent of the site area,
whichever is less
Residential
Very Low
Density
Single-family dwellings,
horticultural and
agricultural use, and
accessory uses
compatible with single-
family dwellings.
1,920 1.09 du/ac 35 percent of the site area
Residential
Low Density
Single-family dwellings,
horticultural and
agricultural use, and
accessory uses
compatible with single-
family dwellings.
343 2.18 du/ac 45 percent of the site area
Medium
Density
M-10
M-12.5
M-15
Single-family dwellings,
horticultural and
agricultural use, and
accessory uses
compatible with single-
family dwellings.
2,093
4.35 du/ac
3.48 du/ac
2.90 du/ac
60 percent
55 percent
50 percent
237
October 2014 3-3
Table 3-1
General Plan
Residential Land Use Designations
Designation
Description
Existing
Acreage
Permitted
Density
Maximum Intensity of
Building and Impervious
Surface Coverage
Residential
Multi-Family
Detached and attached
single-family dwellings,
such as condominiums,
duplexes, and
apartments, as well as,
horticultural and
agricultural use, and
accessory uses
compatible with
residential use.
83 14.5 du/ac 40 percent of the site area
Planned
Development
Residential
Mix of single-family and
multi-family densities and
housing types.
4 4.35 -
12.45
du/ac
25 - 35 percent of the site
area
Managed
Resource
Production
Orchard lands, water
reservoirs, and lands
under Williamson Act
Contracts. Only single-
family dwellings or
structures directly
associated with
agricultural use.
167.3 1 du/4 acres No requirements
Hillside Open
Space
Covers all areas outside
the city limits and within
Saratoga's Sphere of
Influence (SOI) that are
not designated as park
or Open Space Outdoor
Recreation. Agricultural
use, mineral extraction,
parks and low intensity
recreational facilities,
land in its natural state,
wildlife refuges, and very
low intensity residential
development and
support uses of those
listed above.
99 1 du/20
acres to
1du/160
acres
(based on
a slope
density
formula
subject to
stringent
criteria)
25 percent or 12,000 square
feet, whichever is less
238
October 2014 3-4
Table 3-1
General Plan
Residential Land Use Designations
Designation
Description
Existing
Acreage
Permitted
Density
Maximum Intensity of
Building and Impervious
Surface Coverage
Commercial
Retail
Commercial
uses/centers serving
community and/or
neighborhood; not
regional in orientation.
Mixed use developments
allowed by conditional
use permit.
80 20 du/acre
Note: In the
CN-RHD
zoning
district there
is no
minimum
density
The Planning Commission is
required to make special
findings when the residential
floor area exceeds 50
percent of the total floor
area of a project. Total site
coverage may also increase
by 10 percent for a project
containing below market-
rate housing.
Professional
and
Administrative
Office
Professional offices;
serves as a transition
zone between
commercial and
residential areas.
Mixed use developments
allowed by conditional
use permit.
34 20 du/acre The Planning Commission is
required to make special
findings when the residential
floor area exceeds 50
percent of the total floor
area of a project. Total site
coverage may also increase
by 10 percent for a project
containing below market-
rate housing.
Source: City of Saratoga General Plan
As of January 2013, the State Department of Finance (DOF) reports that 11,169 dwelling
units exist in Saratoga. Depending on land costs, certain densities are needed to make a
housing project economically feasible for people at various income levels. According to
the State of California, the densities identified below are generally sufficient to
accommodate construction affordable to specific income levels.
x Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income: 20 dwelling units per acre minimum
x Moderate-Income: 11-20 dwelling units per acre minimum
x Above Moderate-Income: Up to 11 dwelling units per acre
In addition to the generally accepted densities, California Government Code Section
65583.2 establishes “default” density standards. If a local government has adopted
density standards consistent with the established population criteria, sites with those
density standards are accepted as appropriate for accommodating the jurisdiction’s
share of regional housing need for lower-income households. Pursuant to Government
239
October 2014 3-5
Code Section 65583.2, Saratoga is considered a “suburban” jurisdiction with a “default”
density of 20 dwelling units per acre.
b. Zoning Code
The Zoning Code is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan. Its purpose is to
protect and promote public health, safety, and welfare. Additionally, it serves to promote
quality design and quality of life. The City of Saratoga’s residential zoning designations
control both the use and development standards of each residential parcel, thereby
influencing the development of housing.
Table 3-2 summarizes permitted residential uses in agricultural, residential, professional
and administrative office, and commercial districts. Single-family residential zoning
includes eight districts: A, R-1-40,000, R-1-20,000, R-1-15,000, R-1-12,500, R-1- 10,000, HR,
and R-OS. Single-family units are permitted as a matter of right in all single-family
residential districts. Multi-family residential zoning consists of the R-M-5,000, R-M- 4,000, and
the R-M-3,000 districts. Multi-family and single-family dwellings are permitted by right in the
R-M districts. Mixed residential/commercial uses are permitted in the Professional and
Administrative Office (P-A) and Commercial (C-N, C-V, CH-1, CH-2) districts subject to
conformance with the mixed-use development standards specified in Article 15-58 of the
zoning code and approval of a conditional use permit. Mixed residential/commercial
uses are permitted by right in the Commercial C-N(RHD) district.
240
October 2014 3-6
Table 3-2. Residential uses – Permitted & Conditionally Permitted
Table 3-2
Residential Uses – Permitted &
Conditionally Permitted
Zone
Single-Family
Dwelling
Multi-Family
Dwelling
Second Dwelling
Units
A P -- P
R-1-40,000 P -- P
R-1-20,000 P -- P
R-1-15,000 P -- P
R-1-12,500 P -- P
R-1-10,000 P -- P
HR P -- P
R-OS P -- --
R-M-5,000 P P --
R-M-4,000 P P --
R-M-3,000 P P --
P-A C* C* --
C-N C* C* --
C-N(RHD) P* P*
C-V C* C* --
CH-1 C* C* --
CH-2 C* C* --
P=Permitted by Right C= Conditional Use Permit Required *Mixed Use Development
Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations Chapter 15
Table 3-3 summarizes the single-family residential zoning designations and their
requirements. Table 3-4 summarizes the multi-family residential designations and
requirements. Table 3-5 summarizes the requirements for mixed-use development. Based
on residential construction in compliance with these standards, the City has determined
that minimum and maximum lot coverage, maximum building height standards and
setback standards do not unreasonably impact the cost and supply of housing nor the
ability of projects to achieve maximum densities.
The city of Saratoga is predominantly comprised of single-family residential units; as such
there are not a significant number of multi-family housing projects to provide an analysis
of the impacts of these development standards on multi-family development. However,
241
October 2014 3-7
to address any impacts in the future, the City will ensure that development standards in
the C-N(RHD) zoning district (refer to Appendix B, Table B-5) will not be a constraint to the
development of multi-family housing.
The City has recently approved two small
mixed use developments in the historic
Saratoga Village on Big Basin Way (CH
District) since the previous Housing
Element update. These projects include; a
two-unit townhouse project with 6,785
square feet of ground floor commercial
space at a density of 5.2 dwelling units per
acre, and a four-unit townhouse project
with 1,246 square feet of ground floor
commercial at a density of 6.6 dwelling
units per acre. In addition, the City has a
history of approving horizontal mixed use
developments along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with commercial uses fronting the road
and small lot single family units on the rear of the sites. For example a 12 unit mixed-use is
being developed on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at a density of 12 dwelling units per acre,
with 1,835 square feet of commercial space fronting the road and the townhouses in the
back Based on the history of mixed use development in Saratoga, the City has
determined that lot coverage, pedestrian open space (requirement in the CH District),
private open space, height and setback standards do not unreasonably impact the cost
and supply of housing nor the ability of projects to achieve maximum densities.
As a new policy action for the next planning period, the City will amend the C-N(RHD)
district to increase density from a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre to a minimum of
30 units per acre and increase the maximum height limit from 30 feet to 35 feet to reduce
constraints to development on these sites.
Mixed-use development under construction in Saratoga
Village
242
October 2014 3-8
Table 3-3. Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
A
10% or
Less
Slope
5.00
Acres
25% or
15,000 sq.
ft.,
whichever
is less
26 feet
(two
stories)
30 feet or
20% of the
lot depth,
whichever
is greater
20 feet or
ten
percent of
the lot
width,
whichever
is greater
50 feet for
single-
story
structures;
60 feet for
multi-story
structures,
or 25% of
the lot
depth,
whichever
is greater
11% 5.20
Acres
12% 5.40
Acres
13% 5.60
Acres
14% 5.80
Acres
15% 6.00
Acres
16% 6.40
Acres
17% 6.80
Acres
18% 7.20
Acres
19% 7.60
Acres
20% 8.00
Acres
21% 8.60
Acres
22% 9.20
Acres
23% 9.80
Acres
24% 10.40
Acres
25% 11.00
Acres
26% 11.80
Acres
27% 12.60
243
October 2014 3-9
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
A Acres
28% 13.40
Acres
29% 14.20
Acres
30% 15.00
Acres
31% 16.00
Acres
32% 17.00
Acres
33% 18.00
Acres
34% 19.00
Acres
35% or
more
20.00
Acres
R-1-
40,000
40,000 sq. ft. interior
lot;
48,000 sq. ft. corner
lot;
40,000 sq. ft. flag lot;
40,000 sq. ft. hillside
lot
35%2 26 feet
(two
stories)1
30 ft. Interior
lots:3
20 ft. (1st
floor);
25 ft. (2nd
floor)
Interior
lots:
50 ft. (1st
floor);
60 ft. (2nd
floor)
Corner lots:
20 ft.
interior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
exterior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
interior (1st
floor); 30 ft.
exterior
(2nd floor)
Corner
lots:
20 ft.
244
October 2014 3-10
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
R-1-
20,000
20,000 sq. ft. interior
lot; 24,000 sq. ft.
corner lot; 20,000 sq.
ft. flag lot; 40,000 sq.
ft. hillside lot
45%2 26 feet
(two
stories)1
30 ft. Interior lots:
15 ft. (1st
floor);
20 ft. (2nd
floor)
Interior
lots:
35 ft. (1st
floor);
45 ft. (2nd
floor)
Corner lots:
15 ft.
interior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
exterior (1st
floor);
20 ft.
interior (2nd
floor);
30 ft.
exterior
(2nd floor)
Corner
lots:
15 ft.
R-1-
15,000
15,000 sq. ft. interior
lot; 18,000 sq. ft.
corner lot; 20,000 sq.
ft. flag lot; 40,000 sq.
ft. hillside lot
50%2 26 feet
(two
stories)
25 ft. Interior lots:
12 ft. (1st
floor);
17 ft. (2nd
floor)
Interior
lots:
30 ft. (1st
floor);
40 ft. (2nd
floor)
Corner lots:
12 ft.
interior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
exterior (1st
floor);
17 ft.
interior (2nd
Corner
lots:
12 ft.
245
October 2014 3-11
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
R-1-
15,000
floor);
30 ft.
exterior
(2nd floor)
R-1-
12,500
12,500 sq. ft. interior
lot; 15,000 sq. ft.
corner lot; 20,000 sq.
ft. flag lot; 40,000 sq.
ft. hillside lot
55%2 26 ft.
(two
stories)1
25 ft. Interior lots:
10 ft. (1st
floor);
15 ft. (2nd
floor)
Interior
lots:
25 ft. (1st
floor);
35 ft. (2nd
floor)
Corner lots:
10 ft.
interior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
exterior (1st
floor);
15 ft.
interior (2nd
floor);
30 ft.
exterior
(2nd floor)
Corner
lots:
10 ft.
R-1-
10,000
10,000 sq. ft. interior
lot; 12,000 sq. ft.
corner lot; 20,000 sq.
ft. flag lot; 40,000 sq.
ft. hillside lot
60%2 26 ft.
(two
stories)1
25 ft. Interior lots:
10 ft. (1st
floor);
15 ft. (2nd
floor)
Interior
lots:
25 ft. (1st
floor);
35 ft. (2nd
floor)
246
October 2014 3-12
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
R-1-
10,000
Corner lots:
10 ft.
interior (1st
floor);
25 ft.
exterior (1st
floor);
15 ft.
interior (2nd
floor);
30 ft.
exterior
(2nd floor)
Corner
lots:
10 ft.
HR 2 acres for 0% or less
average slope;
10 acres for 50%
average slope4
25% or
15,000 sq.
ft. ,
whichever
is less
26 ft.
(two
stories)7
30 ft.5 or
30 ft. or
20% of lot
depth,
whichever
is greater6
20 ft. 5;
20 ft.
interior and
25 ft.
exterior or
10% of lot
width,
whichever
is greater6
50 ft.
(single-
story
structure);
60 ft.
(multi-story
structure);
or 25% of
lot depth,
whichever
is greater6
247
October 2014 3-13
Table 3-3
Summary of Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone Minimum Lot Area Maximum
Lot
Coverage
Maximum
Building
Height
Minimum
Front Yard
Setback
Minimum
Side Yard
Setback3
Minimum
Rear Yard
Setback
R-OS 20 acres for 10% or
less average slope;
180 acres 50% or
more average
slope8
25% or
12,000 sq.
ft.,
whichever
is less
26 ft.
(two
stories)7,9
50 ft.
single-
story;
70 ft. two-
story
40 ft.
interior
(one-story);
50 ft.
exterior
(one-story);
60 ft.
interior
(two-story);
70 ft.
exterior
(two-story)
100 ft.
(single-
story); 120
ft. (two-
story)
Notes
1Exceptions may be granted in accordance with Article 15-55 of the Zoning Code for parcels exceeding 20.000 sq. ft.
2For any non-conforming site, the requirements provided in Section 15-65.160 of the Zoning Code applies to the site.
3Setback areas for flag lots are determined according to Section 15-06.430(a) of the Zoning Code.
4Minimum net site area depends on average slope, as identified in Section 15-13-060 of the Zoning Code.
5Excluding vacant lots and lots created after May 15, 1992.
6Vacant lots and lots created after May 15, 1992.
7No structure shall extend to an elevation within eight feet from the top of the nearest adjacent major ridge that does not
have dense tree cover. No structure shall extend to an elevation more than 12 feet above the nearest adjacent minor
ridge that does not have dense tree cover. City Code Section 15-20.100 (a), (b)
8Minimum net site area depends on average slope, as identified in Section 15-20-060 of the Zoning Code.
9A structure not limited by the provisions of note 7 above, shall not exceed 22 feet; however, the Planning
Commission may grant up to four feet of additional height. Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations, Chapter
15, Article 15-12
248
October 2014 3-14
Table 3-4. Summary of Multiple Family Residential Zoning Requirements
Notes:
1Does not apply to a structure located within the Village which is found by the approving authority to be compatible with
existing structures and the natural environment.
2For any non-conforming site, the requirements of Section 15.65.160 applies to the site.
3A side setback area of more than 25 feet shall not be required, and a side setback area of less than ten feet from the
applicable side lot line shall not be permitted, subject to the following exceptions: (1) the exterior side setback area of a corner
lot shall not be less than 15 feet from the exterior side lot line
(2) one foot shall be added to an interior side setback area for each two feet of height or fraction thereof by which a portion
of a structure within 30 of the side lot lone for such setback area exceeds 14 feet in height provided that an interior side
setback area of more than 25 feet from the interior side lot line shall not be required.
Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations, Chapter 15, Article 15-17
Table 3-4
Summary of Multiple Family Residential Zoning Requirements
Zone
Min Lot Area
(Sq. Ft.) Max Lot
Coverage
Max Building
Height
Min Front
Yard
Setback2
Min Side
Yard
Setback2
Min
Rear
Yard Interior Lot Corner Lot
R-M-5,000
10,000
11,000
40 percent 30 feet or
two stories1
25 feet
10% of
site width3
25 feet
R-M-4,000 12,000 14,000 40 percent 30 feet or
two stories1 25 feet 10% of
site width3 25 feet
R-M-3,000 12,000 14,000 40 percent 30 feet or
two stories1 25 feet 10% of
site width3 25 feet
249
October 2014 3-15
Table 3-5. Summary of Mixed-Use Development Standards
Notes:
*Currently within the C-N District density may be determined by the Planning Commission on a case by case basis if
special findings are made. Within the C-N(RHD) District, the minimum density is 20 dwelling units per acre, projects
may be approved at more than 20 du/ac with approval by the Planning Commission if special findings are made.
Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations, Chapter 15, Article 15-
58
Table 3-5
Summary of
Mixed-Use
Max Density
Location of
Dwelling
Floor Area Max Lot Coverage Max Building
Height
20
dwelling
units per
net
acre*
Either on
the second
floor or at
the rear of
the parcel.
Dwelling units shall not
comprise more than 50
percent of the total floor
area of all buildings on
the site. The total floor
area may be increased
with approval by the
Planning Commission with
special findings. The
maximum overall site
coverage area may be
increased by ten percent
for projects providing
below market rate
housing.
Overall site coverage
may be increased up to
ten percent for projects
containing deed
restricted below market
rate housing units.
As stated for
the underlying
zoning district.
250
October 2014 3-16
c. Parking Requirements
Table 3-6 summarizes the residential parking requirements in Saratoga. Parking requirements
do not constrain the development of housing directly. However, parking requirements may
reduce the amount of available lot areas for residential development.
Table 3-6. Residential Parking Requirements
1 One bedroom dwelling units do not have to be exclusively for seniors or students to utilize the reduced parking
standards
Source: City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations, Chapter 15, Article 15-35
Table 3-6
Residential Parking Requirements
Type of Residential Development Required Parking Spaces (off street)
Single Family Dwelling (excluding
second dwelling units) Two covered spaces within a garage.
Second Dwelling Unit One covered space with a garage, except as
otherwise provided in Article 15-56 of the Zoning
Code.
Multi-Family Dwellings One covered space within a garage for each
dwelling unit, plus one and one-half additional
spaces on the site for each dwelling unit; provided,
however, for dwelling units containing no more than
one bedroom and for housing developments
occupied exclusively by seniors and students, the
required parking shall be one covered space within a
garage for each dwelling unit plus one-half
additional space on the site for each dwelling unit.1
251
October 2014 3-17
d. Planned Combined District
The purpose of the Planned Combined District (P-C) is to provide the City the authority
to modify standards of development in an underlying zoning district so as to achieve the
following objectives:
(a) To provide a means of guiding development or redevelopment of properties in areas
of the city that are uniquely suited for a variety of design and development patterns
and standards.
(b) To provide greater flexibility of land use and design for a development that provides
a public benefit that would not otherwise be attainable through strict application of
the zoning regulations. A public benefit could include, but is not limited to, buildings
that exceed the City's green building standards, provides community facilities that
are open to the public, or allows for innovative in-fill design.
(c) To encourage innovative design in a development that achieves one or more
specific goals and policies of the General Plan that would otherwise not be
attainable through strict application of the zoning regulations.
In certain instances, the objectives of the zoning ordinance may be achieved by the
development of a residential community primarily for a common green development or
for persons desiring smaller residences or dwelling units than economically feasible under
existing zoning districts, and which combines a number of uses in order to develop a living
environment in conformity with the General Plan. The P-C District may include a
combination of single or multiple dwelling uses together with ancillary uses of recreational
centers, social halls, restaurants, medical centers and other related facilities.
The P-C district allows single-family, two-family, or three-family dwellings or a combination
thereof, together with all other permitted uses in either an R-1 district or an R-M district,
depending on which underlying district it is combined with (R-1 or R-M). The dwelling units
shall be single-story unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. In addition,
community centers, private recreational centers, social halls, lodges, clubs, restaurants,
and medical centers to be used by the residents and their guests are allowed.
Standards for site area and dimensions, site coverage, density of dwelling units, setback
areas, types of structures, etc. shall in the aggregate be at least equivalent to the
standards prescribed by the regulations of the district that the Planned Community District
is combined with. Any P-C area shall contain a common green unless specifically waived
by the Planning Commission.
252
October 2014 3-18
2. Density Bonus Ordinance
In order to encourage the construction of affordable housing developments for Very Low-
and Low- Income households, and in accordance with Chapter 4.3 Section 65915 et. seq.
of the California Government Code, the City of Saratoga has adopted a Density Bonus
Ordinance (Article 15-81 of the Zoning Code). Upon receipt from the applicant, the City
reviews an application requesting a density bonus or incentive or concession. The
Community Development Director has 90 days from receipt of the application to notify
the applicant in writing regarding the status of the application. The application and all
associated project approvals shall be considered by the Planning Commission which shall
make a recommendation to the City Council. Prior to the issuance of a building permit
for any dwelling unit in a development that a density bonus has been awarded for, the
applicant shall enter into a written agreement with the City for the duration of the
affordability.
a. Density Bonus for Affordable Units in Mixed-Use Projects
The City allows the total site coverage to be increased by 10 percent over the underlying
zoning district maximum for mixed-use projects containing deed restricted below market-
rate housing units.
b. Reduced Parking Standards
The garage requirement for a second dwelling unit may be waived if the second
dwelling unit is deed restricted so that it may only be rented to below market rate (very-
low, low, and moderate income) households. An on-site open parking space must be
provided in lieu of a garage.
3. Institutional Facilities and Nursing Homes
The City's Zoning Code defines an “Institutional facility” as a place, structure, or area
operated by a public or private organization or agency, used for and providing
educational, residential, or health care services to the community at large. The term
includes residential developments and health care facilities operated by non-profit
organizations and both public and private schools or colleges. The City’s Zoning Code
defines a “Nursing home” as a residential structure in which nursing, dietary, and other
personal services are rendered to six or more convalescents, invalids, or elderly persons
residing at the facility, and in which surgery or other medical treatment customarily given
in hospitals is not performed.
The City deems a convalescent home or rest home as a nursing home. Institutional
facilities and nursing homes are permitted in all residential districts, except for the
Residential Open Space District, as well as in the Professional and Administrative Office
(P-A) district, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Institutional facilities are also
permitted in the Commercial district, subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
253
October 2014 3-19
4. Emergency Shelters, Transitional and Supportive Housing, and Single-Room
Occupancy Units
a. Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing
State Housing Law (Government Code Section §65583) requires that cities identify sites
that are adequately zoned for emergency shelters and transitional and supportive
housing. Additionally, cities must not unduly discourage or deter these uses. The City of
Saratoga permits emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, and Single-
Room Occupancy Units in the C-N(RHD) District by right. Article 15-19.035 of the City
Zoning Code includes regulations and development standards regarding Single-Room
Occupancy Units. This Housing Element update includes Policy Action 4-4.3 in Chapter 4
to amend the Zoning Code to permit transitional and supportive housing as a residential
use in all residential zones in compliance with State Housing Law.
Santa Clara County has approximately 23 emergency shelters, providing close to 800
beds year-round, with an additional 300 beds available during the winter months
(November through March). There are also over 1,100 transitional housing beds
throughout the County that offer a combination of stable housing and intensive, targeted
support services for the mentally ill, those with chronic substance abuse, developmental
disabilities, and other factors that prevent the homeless from returning to permanent
housing situations. Transitional housing includes both single site and "scattered site"
programs. Table 3-7 provides a summary of emergency shelters and transitional housing
near the City of Saratoga.
254
October 2014 3-20
Table 3-7. Homeless Facilities near Saratoga
Table 3-7
Homeless Facilities near Saratoga
Facility Beds Target Population Location
Emergency Shelter
Asian Americans for
Community Involvement
12 Women with children San Jose
City Team Rescue Mission 52 Single men San Jose
Hospitality House, Salvation
Army
24 Single men San Jose
Our House Youth Services
(HomeFirst)
10 Homeless and run-away youth San Jose
San Jose Family Shelter 143 Families San Jose
Support Network for
Battered Women
18 Domestic violence shelter – Women
and children
San Jose
Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing
InnVision—Commercial
Streets Inns, Community Inns,
Julian Street Inn, and
Montgomery Street Inns
178 Working men, women & children,
mentally ill men & women
San Jose
James Boccardo Reception
Center (HomeFirst)
370 Families and single adults San Jose
Transitional Housing
Next Door—Women with
Children
19 Women and children—victims of
domestic violence
San Jose
St. Joseph’s Cathedral,
Social Ministry Office
45 Worker housing—men, women and
children
San Jose
YWCA—Villa Nueva 126 Women and children San Jose
Source: Santa Clara County Consolidated Plan 2010-2015
5. Adequate Sites for Emergency Shelters/Transitional/Supportive Housing
According to the 2013 Santa Clara County Homeless Survey, 35 unsheltered individuals
were identified within Saratoga, representing an increase of 28 individuals from the 2011
Homeless Survey. In April 2010, the City of Saratoga amended its Zoning Code to permit
emergency shelters/transitional/supportive housing in the C-N(RHD) District by right.
Presently, one six acre area in the city has this designation. The area is located at Prospect
Road and Lawrence Expressway. However, development standards for shelters were not
255
October 2014 3-21
defined in the City Code at that time. As permitted under the provisions of Government
Code 65583, the City will establish written, objective development standards for
emergency shelters such as number of beds, security, and location from other
emergency shelter facilities. This will assist potential emergency shelter facility providers
and the City alike when processing a proposal.
The City has also adopted provisions in its Code for transitional and supportive housing
within the C-N(RHD) zone district. However, further direction since that time by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) clarifies that SB 2 requires
these uses be permitted in all zone districts where residential uses are permitted. To
address this deficiency, the City will amend the Code to identify transitional and
supportive housing as a permitted use in all residential and mixed use zones subject to
the same development standards as similar housing in these zones.
a. Single Room Occupancy Units
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) residences are small, one-room units occupied by a
single individual, and may either have a shared or private kitchen and bathroom
facilities. SROs are rented on a monthly basis typically without rental deposit, and can
provide an entry point into the housing market for Extremely Low-Income individuals,
formerly homeless, and disabled persons.
Single-room occupancy units are defined and included in the City’s Municipal Code to
be permitted in C-N(RHD) Districts. Development standards and regulations are
included in Article 15-19.035.
6. Second Dwelling Units
Second dwelling units provide additional opportunities to provide housing for people of
all ages and economic levels, while preserving the integrity and character of single-
family residential neighborhoods. The City of Saratoga permits second units in the A, R-1,
and HR zones, provided certain requirements are met, such as minimum net site area,
minimum floor area, minimum parking requirements, number of bedrooms, and site
access.
Second Dwelling Units have been a successful
means of providing affordable housing in
Saratoga. The City should seek ways to reduce
constraints for the development of additional
Second Dwelling Units.
As a Policy Action for the next Planning period,
the City will amend the Second Dwelling Unit
standards to eliminate the minimum square
footage requirements and reduce the
minimum lot size for Second Dwelling Units to
90% or more of the standard lot size for the underlying zoning district. In addition, the City
Historic home with second dwelling unit
256
October 2014 3-22
shall create an informational brochure regarding Second Dwelling Units to disseminate
to the public.
a. Density Bonus for Second Dwelling Units
A one-time 10 percent increase in site coverage and allowable floor area may be
granted by the Community Development Director if a new second dwelling unit is deed
restricted so that it may only be rented to below market rate (very-low, low, and
moderate income) households.
7. Housing for Persons with Disabilities
The U.S. Census Bureau defines persons with disabilities as those with a long-lasting
physical, mental, or emotional condition. This condition can make it difficult for a person
to perform activities such as walking, climbing stairs, dressing, bathing, learning, or
remembering. This condition can also impede a person from being able to go outside the
home alone or to be employed.
As a matter of State Law (Government Code §65583), cities are required to analyze
potential and actual constraints upon the development, maintenance and improvement
of housing for persons with disabilities, and demonstrate local efforts to remove
governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting the need for housing for
persons with disabilities. Cities are required to include programs that remove constraints
and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons with
disabilities. The City of Saratoga includes reasonable accommodation procedures within
the Municipal Code (Article 15-80.025) to address the requirements of State Law.
a. Zoning and Other Land Use Regulations
The ways in which the City of Saratoga facilitates housing for persons with disabilities
through its regulatory and permitting procedures include:
x The City of Saratoga allows “institutional facilities” that provide “residential health
care services to the community at large” in all residential districts as well as in the
Professional and Administrative Office (P-A) and Commercial (C) districts, subject
to approval of a conditional use permit.
x The City of Saratoga allows “nursing homes” for six or more “convalescents, invalids,
or elderly persons” in all residential districts as well as in the Professional and
Administrative Office (P-A) district, subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
x The City defines family as “an individual or two or more persons occupying a
dwelling unit and living together as a single housekeeping unit in which each
occupant has access to all parts of the dwelling unit. A family shall be deemed to
include necessary household help. The term shall not include a group of persons
257
October 2014 3-23
occupying a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast establishment, nursing home, or
institution of any kind.” This definition does not pose a constraint of the development
of housing for persons with disabilities.
x With the City’s Reasonable Accommodations provisions, the City allows some
variation from the application of its parking standards to allow the Community
Development Director to determine parking requirements for housing for persons
with disabilities, based upon the requirements for comparable use and upon the
particular characteristics of the use.
x The Planning Commission may grant a 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 following findings:
o That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located.
o That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under
which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity.
8. Building Codes and Enforcement
The intent of building and safety codes is to preserve public health and safety, and ensure
the construction of safe and decent housing. These codes and standards also have the
potential to increase the cost of housing construction or maintenance.
a. Building Codes
The City of Saratoga has adopted the 2013 California Building Code, which establishes
construction standards for all residential buildings. The City amends the Code as needed
to further define requirements based on the unique local conditions. The Code is
designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare of Saratoga’s residents. Code
enforcement in the city is performed proactively and on a complaint basis.
b. Federal Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act
The federal Fair Housing Act of 1998 (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
are federal laws intended to assist in providing safe and accessible housing. ADA
provisions include requirements for a minimum percentage of units in new developments
to be fully accessible for persons with physical disabilities. Compliance with these
regulations may increase the cost of housing construction as well as the cost of
rehabilitating older units, which may be required to comply with current codes.
However, the enforcement of ADA requirements is not at the discretion of the City, but is
mandated under federal law.
258
October 2014 3-24
9. On and Off-Site Improvements
On and off-site improvements may be required in conjunction with development based
on the location of the project and existing infrastructure. Dedication and construction of
streets, alleys and other public easements and improvements may be required to
maintain public safety and convenience.
The City’s standards and requirements for streets, sidewalks, and other site improvements
are found in the Municipal Code. Table 3-8 summarizes the City’s standards for roadway
and right-of-way widths.
Table 3-8. Street Widths
Table 3-8
Street Widths
Type of Street
Right-of-Way Width (in feet)
Pavement
6-Lane Through-fare 120 104 (including 16-
foot median strip)
4-Lane Divided Thorough-fare 100 80 (including 16-
foot median strip)
4-Lane Undivided Thorough-fare 90 64
2-Lane Thorough-fare 60; 842 40; 64
Frontage Road 30 (including 5-foot separator between
main line right-of-way and nearest
frontage road curb face)
24
Collector 60 40
Hillside 50 (plus slope easements where
necessary)
26
Local Street (RM-3,000; RM-4,000;
RM-5,000)
56 36
Local Street (R-1-10,000; R-
1- 12,500)
50 36
Local Street (R-1-15,000) 50 33
Local Street (R-1-40,000) 50 26
Hillside Local Street 40 (plus slope easements where
necessary)
26
259
October 2014 3-25
Table 3-8
Street Widths
Type of Street
Right-of-Way Width
(in feet)
Pavement Width (in feet)1
Cul-de-Sac 50 33
Cul-de-Sac serving 12 lots or less 40 30
Cul-de-Sac, turnaround 42 (radius) 32 (radius)
Minimum Access Street 20 18
Notes:
1Total width between exterior curb faces or shoulder edges
2Required on 2-lane thoroughfares in or adjacent to commercial or PA zoning districts to provide channelization for
turning movements
Source: City of Saratoga Municipal Code Article 14-10.320 Table 1, definition for “Subdivision”
The on- and off-site improvements required by the City are necessary to adequately
provide the infrastructure and public facilities that support housing development. These
requirements ensure public safety and health, are not jeopardized by increased
development and do not unduly hinder housing development.
10. Development Fees
The Community Development Department of the City of Saratoga is self-funded. Various
development and permit fees are charged by the City and other agencies to cover
administrative processing costs associated with development. These fees ensure quality
development and the provision of adequate services. Often times, development fees
are passed through to renters and homeowners in the price/rent of housing, thus
affecting the affordability of housing. Table 3-9 compares the development fees in
Saratoga with development fees of neighboring cities.
Table 3-10 summarizes the typical development fees for single-family and multi-family
developments. Based on the residential projects constructed in Saratoga, the City has
not found the development and permit fees to hinder the supply of housing.
260
October 2014 3-26
Table 3-9. Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Table 3-9
Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Description Saratoga Cupertino Los Gatos
Planning
Negative
Declaration
Cost of consultant plus 35%. Major1 - $4,174 Minor2 -
$2,086
$2,175 ($5,000
deposit for Initial
Study)
EIR Processing Cost of consultant plus 35%. $27,134 Consultant's fee,
plus review fee -
$10,942 and 10%
EIR Cost
Categorical
Exemption
-- $243 No fee
General Plan
Amendment
$3,500 initial deposit
$139/hour Actual
cost/$5,000
deposit
Zone Change $3,500 initial deposit $139/hour Actual
cost/$5,000
deposit
Tentative Map Less Than 10 Lots -
$5,000 initial deposit;
10 or More Lots -
$5,000 initial deposit plus
$150 for each lot over 10;
Subdivision Final Map -
$2,500 for 1st lot plus $500 each
additional lot.
$15,509 Four lots or less -
$6,944; Five lots or
more - $11,010
Site Plan Review Administrative Design Review
-$3,400;
Planning Commission Design
Review - $5,200
Design Review
Committee - $3,504
Planning Commission -
$7,244
Development
Review
Committee
Approval - Varies
from
$7.011 to $1,751;
Planning
Commission
Approval - Varies
from$8,458 to
$1,751
Conditional Use
Permits and
Variances
Use Permit – Application
Review: (Admin Review)
$3,400; (Planning Commission
Review) $4,400;
Variance – Application
Review- $2,700
Major Use Permit -
$15,509;
Minor Use Permit -
$7,244; Variance -
$2,731
Varies: $824 to
$5,862; Variance
- $3,648.
261
October 2014 3-27
Table 3-9
Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Description Saratoga Cupertino Los Gatos
Building
Building Permit $78 minimum up to $7,010 for
the first $1,000,000 plus
$4.56 each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof
Varies from $2,693
(2,500 sq. ft. tract
home) + $46.24 for
each 100 sq. ft. to
$2,919 (2,500 sq. ft.
custom home in
hillside) + $46.24 for
each 100 sq. ft.
Varies from
$23.50 for up to
$500 to
$5,608.75 for the
first $1,000,000
plus
$3.15 for each
additional
$1,000 or fraction
thereof
Plan Check 65% of the building permit fee Varies from $1,354
(2,500 sq. ft. tract
home) + $1 for each
100 sq. ft. to $4,954
(2,500 sq. ft. custom
home in hillside) + $40
for each 100 sq. ft.
65% of building
permit fee
Electrical $.10 / sq. ft. (minimum $78) $47 - permit $69 - permit;
plan review fee
25% of electrical
permit fee;
$.11/sq. ft. new
construction only
Mechanical $.10 / sq. ft. (minimum $78) $47 - permit $69 - permit;
plan review fee
- 25% of
Mechanical
Permit fee;
$.11/sq. ft. new
construction only
Plumbing $.10 / sq. ft. (minimum $78) $47 - permit $69 - permit;
plan review fee
- 25% of
Plumbing Permit
fee;
$.11/sq. ft. new
construction only
SMIP (Strong
Motion
Instrumentation
Program)
Building valuation x 0.0010
(minimum 50 cents)
-- For residential
construction of
three stories and
less, the permit
262
October 2014 3-28
Table 3-9
Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Description Saratoga Cupertino Los Gatos
fee is $4.00 per
$100,000.
Energy3 Addition to Residential Building
- $200
New Residential Structure -
$300/unit
-- 15% of Building
Permit
Permit Issuance See “Building Permit” fee See “Building Permit”
fee
$69
Engineering and Subdivision
Final Map Tentative Subdivision Map -
Actual cost charge plus 25%
surcharge for City’s indirect
cost plus $2,500 for the first lot
and $500 for each additional
lot
One to four lots -
$4,130; Greater than
four lots - $8,574
Map check
done by Town's
consultant
- Consultant Cost
plus 25%
surcharge for
reports, reviews,
and processes.
Lot Line
Adjustment4
$1,500 $2,801 $1.700
Storm
Drain/Water
Quality
-- Single Family: $3,152/DU
to $4,280/acre; Multi-
family: $3,072/acre plus
$232/DU (20DU max per
acre.
Varies – Single
Family: $3,797/ac
to: Multi-family
$3,797/ac and
$143 for each
additional unit
(not to exceed
$4,622/ac)
Street
Improvement
First $50,000 Estimated
Construction Cost - $5,000
minimum charge
Over $50,000 Estimated
Construction Cost - $5,000 plus
5% of Estimated Construction
Cost over
$50,00053
-- Sidewalks - $16
per linear foot;
Curb and Gutter
-
$61 per linear
foot
Sewer
Improvement
First $50,000 Estimated
Construction Cost - $5,000
minimum charge
Over $50,000 Estimated
Construction Cost - $5,000 plus
5% of Estimated Construction
Cost over
$50,000
-- --
263
October 2014 3-29
Table 3-9
Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Description Saratoga Cupertino Los Gatos
Grading Less than 100 Cubic Yards -
$500; Over 100 Cubic Yards
$500 for the first 100 cubic
yards
plus $125 for each additional
100 cubic yards or fraction
thereof;
Plan Check Fee $530
Greater of $2542
minimum or 6% of cost
of improvement
$289; first
$50,000 of value
10% of estimated
cost of
improvements
next $50,000 of
value - 8% of
estimated cost
of improvements.
Capital Facilities and Connections
Water $500 $6,894 for single family
and townhouses; $2,280
for multi-family
--
Sewer $500 $77.50 $34
Traffic/Road
Fees
$.77 per $100 of project
valuation
$16 single permit;
additional utility
company $90;
additional engineering
investigation/coordina-
tion - $60/hr
New residential -
$.15/sq. ft.
In-Lieu Park
Facilities Fee
$20,700 Varies: $8,100/DU multi-
family to $15,750/DU
Single family
Based on $0.04
for each square
foot of building
addition or
alteration, which
increases floor
area of an
existing building.
264
October 2014 3-30
Table 3-9
Comparative Development Fee Summary 2013-2014
Description Saratoga Cupertino Los Gatos
Sewer $500 $77.50 $34
In-lieu Housing
Mitigation
-- Projects one to six units:
$2.93/sq. ft. of floor
area.
-- As an option
for project with
5-10 DU, In-lieu
fees can be
paid into the
Town’s
Affordable
Housing Fund
and are
calculated as 6
percent of
building permit
valuation as
determined by
the
Building Official.
Notes:
1Eight or more residential units.
2 Less than eight residential units.
3 Energy fee is waived for all deed restricted units that meet CAL Green requirements
34Lot Line application fees are waived for projects with a minimum of 20% affordable housing units
5The Estimated Construction Cost shall be determined by the Public Works Director and shall be exclusive of the
cost to construct public utility facilities where another public utility agency is collecting similar fees for such
facilities.
-- Not listed in Fee Schedule
Sources: City of Saratoga User Fee Schedule Fiscal Year 2013/2014; City of Cupertino Summary of User Fees,
Resolution 13-030, Fees effective July 1, 2013; Town of Los Gatos Comprehensive Fee Schedule FY 2013/2014.
2010-2015 Consolidated Plan, City of Cupertino
265
October 2014 3-31
Table 3-10. Typical Development Fees Comparison Single-Family and Multiple-Family
Table 3-10
Typical Development Fees
Comparison Single-Family and Multi-
Family
Development Fee New Single-Family1 New Multi-Family2
Design Review $5,200 $5,200
Engineering Review $1,000 $1,000
Geotechnical Review (for
Basement) $3,500 N/A
Arborist Review $2,500 $3,500
Environmental Review N/A $60,000 (estimate)
Impact Fee
Water and Sewer Connection $1,000 $5,000
Park In-Lieu $20,700 $103,5003
Total $12,20033,900 $69,700178,200
($13,94033,640 per unit)
Notes:
1One single-family unit
2Based on an apartment development with 5units
3 The City may waive Park I-Lieu fees for new deed restricted housing units affordable to low and very low income
households, and may accept private on-site open space in place of the park In-Lieu fee.
Source: City of Saratoga
11. Local Processing and Permit Procedures
Delays in development and building permit processing can be associated with
considerable holding costs that may affect the price of housing. Table 3-11 summarizes
the approximate processing time for development applications. Because the City
processes permits concurrently, projects that require a conditional use permit can be
approved in approximately the same timeframe as projects that do not require
discretionary approvals.
The Planning Commission may grant a conditional 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 following findings:
x That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the district in
which the site is located;
x That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions
under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity; and
266
October 2014 3-32
x That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code.
x That the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect existing or
anticipated uses in the immediate neighborhood, and will not adversely
affect surrounding properties or the occupants thereof.
Table 3-11. Local Development Processing Time
Table 3-11
Local Development Processing Time
Item Standard Projects
Zoning Entitlements including Conditional
Use Permit or Variance 2-3 months
Reclassification (rezoning) 3-4 months
Plan Check 3-4 weeks
General Plan Amendment 3-4 months
Environmental Documentation 3-4 months
Source: City of Saratoga, Community Development Department
Table 3-11 summarizes the estimated processing timelines for planning application by
development type. Processing timelines often occur concurrently. Based on recent
residential projects constructed in Saratoga, the City has not found the local
development processing timeline to hinder the development of housing.
The following describes each process and corresponding decision-making body:
Design Review
x The Community Development Director grants design review approval when
an application is found in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code.
x If the Community Development Director intends to approve the application,
a "Notice of Intent to Approve" will be mailed to all property owners within two
hundred fifty feet of the subject property and to others as deemed
appropriate. All interested parties will have fifteen calendar days from the
date of the "Notice of Intent to Approve" in which to review the application
and provide written comments to the Community Development Director. The
Community Development Director approves or denies the application within
fifteen days of the close of the review period and mails notices of the decision
to the applicant and to any party that has requested a copy. The Community
Development Director's decision can be appealed to the Planning
Commission within fifteen calendar days of the Director's decision to approve
the application. The Planning Commission at a public hearing will review any
appeal.
267
October 2014 3-33
x In reviewing applications for design review approval under, the Planning
Commission is guided by the following criteria:
1. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes
grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints.
2. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15-50
(Tree Regulations). If constraints exist on the property, the number of
protected trees, heritage trees, and native trees approved for removal
shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of any smaller oak
trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be
minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080.
3. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its
architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts
to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds.
4. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural
elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the
neighborhood.
5. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area
and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood
streetscape.
6. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of
adjoining properties to utilize solar energy.
7. The design of the structure and the site development plan is
consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section
15-45.055.
8. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid
unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features,
community viewsheds, and are in compliance with Section 15-13.100.
General Plan Amendment
x The Community Development Department reviews the application and
prepares a report, which shall be submitted to the Planning Commission.
x The Planning Commission holds at least one public hearing on the
proposed amendment.
x Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission
determines whether the proposed amendment should be adopted. The
Commission transmits its recommendation to the City Council in writing,
together with a copy of the application, if any, and the documents submitted,
the report to the Commission from the Community Development Director, the
268
October 2014 3-34
minutes of proceedings conducted by the Commission and the resolution and
findings, if any, adopted by the Commission with respect to the proposed
amendment.
x Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City
Council conducts a public hearing on the proposed amendment.
x The City Council may approve, modify or reject the recommendation of the
Planning Commission.
Tentative Subdivision Map
x Applications for tentative subdivision map approval are filed with the
Community Development Director who examines the application and the
documents submitted. The time of filing the application is the date on which
the application is accepted by the Community Development Director as
being complete.
Variance
x The Planning Commission is designated as the approving authority to grant
variances from the regulations prescribed in the Municipal Code.
x The Community Development Department reviews the application and
prepares a report, which shall be considered in determining whether to
approve or deny the variance.
x The Planning Commission conducts a public hearing on the application for a
variance.
x Any determination or decision by the Planning Commission can be appealed
to the City Council.
Conditional Use Permit
x The Community Development Department reviews the application and
prepares a report, which shall be considered in determining whether to
approve or deny the conditional use permit.
x Except for those uses identified in Section 15-55.065 of the Municipal Code, the
Planning Commission considers all applications for conditional use permits and
conducts a public hearing.
x Any determination or decision by the Planning Commission may be
appealed to the City Council.
Final Map
x Prior to the expiration of a tentative map approval or extension, the owner
has the property accurately surveyed and a final map prepared substantially
in accordance with the tentative map as approved. The applicant files three
269
October 2014 3-35
copies of the final map, with any and all alterations and changes required,
with the City Engineer for approval.
x Once the final map is filed with City Clerk, at the next available regular
meeting, the map shall be either approved or disapproved by the City
Council.
x The applicant, or any interested person, may appeal to the City Council any
determination or decision by filing with the City Clerk a notice of appeal that
clearly identifies the determination or decision from which the appeal is taken
and states the grounds for the appeal.
Arborist Review
x The City arborist conducts a field survey of the property and notes tree
locations, assigns tree numbers, draws outlines of tree canopies and
locations for tree protective fencing, and proposes alternate locations for
trenching, lighting, or irrigation lines, and any other pertinent information
deemed necessary.
Table 3-12. Typical Development Processing Timelines by Development Type
Table 3-12
Typical Development Processing Timelines by Development
Type
Process Single-Family Multi-Family
Design Review (Administrative) 1-2 months 1-2 months
Design Review (Planning Commission) 2-3 months 2-3 months
Environmental Assessment 2-3 months 2-3 months
General Plan Amendment 4-6 months 4-6 months
Tentative Subdivision Map 2-3 months 2-3 months
Variance 2-3 months 2-3 months
Conditional Use Permit 2-3 months 2-3 months
Annexation 6-9 months 6-9 months
Final Map 3 months 3 months
Source: City of Saratoga, Community Development Department
12. Measure G
The voters of Saratoga approved Measure G in March 1996, which reaffirmed and
readopted until December 31, 2025, the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City’s
1983 General Plan with amendments through August 7, 1995. Certain amendments to
270
October 2014 3-36
the Land Use Element, including changing certain designations on the General Plan Land
Use map, may only be made by a vote of the people. The initiative does not affect the
City's existing regulations that authorize the creation of second dwelling units, nor does it
interfere with the City's obligation under State law to revise the Housing Element.
13. Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
a. Environmental Constraints
Environmental hazards affecting housing
units include geologic and seismic
conditions, flooding, fire hazards, toxic and
hazardous wastes, and noise. The following
hazards may impact future development of
residential units in the city. Most identified
sites in Appendix B: Land Resources, do not
contain environmental constraints to the
development of housing. Where
environmental constraints exist, the City of
Saratoga has identified measures for
mitigation.
i. Seismic Hazards
The topography of Saratoga generally consists of the low-lying, relatively flat valley floor
and the northwestern foothills. Outside the city limits, but within the City's Sphere of
Influence, are the Castle Rock portions of the Santa Cruz Mountains. These mountains are
very rugged, comprised of steep canyons and sharp rounded ridge tops.
The dominant geologic feature within Saratoga's Sphere of Influence is the San Andreas
Fault zone, which bisects the mountainous portion of the terrain. The fault zone determines
the geology and topography of the area by separating two different rock assemblages
and their associated erosion characteristics. A complex system of fault traces and
fractured rock compose the fault zone. The location of the San Andreas Fault, along the
ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains, subjects the hillside region of the city to potentially
severe lateral displacement and ground shaking should an earthquake occur. However,
a major portion of the city is underlain by the relatively flat valley floor that is considered
a geologic stability zone.
There are two "potentially active" faults within the city limits. The Berrocal Fault belongs to
the Sargent Fault zone, a complex system of interconnecting faults extending northwest
between San Andreas and the Calaveras Faults. The fault trace crosses Congress Springs
Road and continues into the southeastern portion of the Sphere of Influence. The
Shannon Fault, part of the Monte Vista fault system, closely parallels the Highway 85
corridor from Regnart Creek in Cupertino to the north, crosses Saratoga Avenue, and
continues to Almaden Expressway in the southeast portion of San Jose. Although there is
Residential development in the Saratoga foothills
271
October 2014 3-37
a remote chance that ground rupture could occur on either one of these fault traces, it
is more likely to occur on the San Andreas Fault. However, little rural residential
development has occurred within the San Andreas fault zone in Saratoga's Sphere of
Influence, so the present risk of structural damage due to fault rupture is minimal.
The San Andreas Fault zone is the only area within the city and its Sphere of Influence that
the State has designated as a Special Studies Zone. Special Studies Zones are areas along
faults considered to be active or potentially active as established by the California
Division of Mines and Geology in compliance with the Alquist Priolo Geologic Hazard
Zones Act. When development for human occupancy is proposed within these zones,
special studies relating to seismic hazards are required and must be submitted to the City
or County Geologist for review.
As required by the State of California, the Saratoga General Plan contains policies
regarding land instability and seismic hazards within the Safety Element (updated in 2013).
In addition, the General Plan identifies the general location of the areas of potential
seismic hazards, as well as potentially active faults, 100-year flood areas, and hazardous
fire areas in the Safety Element.
The goal of the geologic and seismic policies is to protect residents from injuries and
minimize property damage resulting from land stability, geologic and seismic hazards. To
that end, the General Plan identifies specific policies that prohibit development without
site-specific geotechnical investigations; prohibit development of structures for human
habitation in areas proven to be unsafe (to the maximum extent permitted by law); and,
enforce strict earthquake construction and soil engineering standards in order to select
the most stable building sites, and to compensate for soil instabilities through the use of
approved engineering and construction techniques. In addition, zoning regulations for
residential development in hillside areas identify specific mandatory development criteria
including the preparation of a site development plan and geologic and soils report;
specific procedures for grading and siting structures; and, additional studies (soil and
foundation engineering investigation, slope stability studies, investigations addressing
seismic hazards of nearby fault traces) as necessary.
ii. Landslides
The hillside region of the city contains some rock formations conducive to landslides.
These areas primarily lie west of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, pass through a portion of the
Northwestern Hillsides Residential District, and continue past Big Basin Way. The zone is
also present within the Sphere of Influence, along the city's northwestern boundary and
across Bohlman Road. Landslides and unstable slopes may occur in this area, and can
create hazards within the city limits as the slide debris and rock move down the incline
toward the city's valley floor.
Landslides and slope instability are the major non-seismic geologic hazards in Saratoga.
Although most of the hillside areas experience these hazards to some degree, the most
severe risks are found in the vicinity of the Congress Springs area and the upper
272
October 2014 3-38
Calabazas Creek watershed. As noted above, the General Plan includes specific policies
to protect residents from injuries and minimize property damage resulting from land
stability, geologic and seismic hazards. Moreover, the Zoning Ordinance includes specific
regulations for residential development in the hillsides designed to protect human life and
property.
iii. Soil Creep and Expansive Soils
Soil creep and expansive soils are most prevalent in the western hillside regions of the city.
Soil creep is the slow, down slope movement of near surface materials. The rate of soil
creep is a function of slope angle and soil thickness and texture. It can be regarded as a
continuous process, and may cause retaining walls, foundations, and paved roads to fail
over a period of time. Expansive soils contain high proportions of clay and alternatively
absorb and release large amounts of water during wet and dry cycles.
Structures built on expansive soils can experience rising foundations during the wet
season, resulting in cracked foundations, distorted frameworks, and warped windows and
doors. To address adverse effects associated with soil creep and expansive soils, the City
requires geotechnical investigations and soil reports in areas where soil creep and
expansive soils exist. The presence of soil creep should not have a prohibitive effect on
land use, but should alert the City to require appropriate geotechnical investigations to
evaluate conditions and to impose engineering solutions to mitigate problems.
iv. Flooding
Three major drainage basins lie within the city, the San Tomas Aquino, Saratoga, and
Calabaza Creeks. Several tributaries of the San Tomas and Calabaza Creeks are located
within the city, as well. These include Wildcat, Vasona, and Sobey Creeks, (tributaries of
San Tomas Creek), and Prospect and Rodeo Creeks, (tributaries of Calabaza Creek).
Areas adjacent to the San Tomas Aquino, Saratoga, and Calabaza Creeks are located
within the 100-year floodplain. In addition, the Wildcat and Vasona Creeks are also
subject to the 100-year flood hazard.
Saratoga participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The City adopts
and enforces certain floodplain management ordinances and, in return, residents can
purchase Federally-backed flood insurance. In addition, the City has an extensive review
procedure in conjunction with the Santa Clara Valley Water District, which addresses
flooding potential and the impact on development.
v. Toxic and Hazardous Wastes
Existing regulations in Saratoga severely limit uses involving hazardous materials. Thus, no
major chemical handlers are located within the city. The storage, use, and disposal of
hazardous materials is limited to gas stations. The hazardous materials generated typically
consist of anti-freeze, brake fluid, motor oil, and gasoline.
273
October 2014 3-39
Saratoga has a Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance (Chapter 8 of the Municipal
Code) to protect "health, life, resources, property through prevention and control of
unauthorized discharges of hazardous materials." The ordinance includes regulations
governing administration and enforcement of the code, which is performed by the
County; the list of specific materials covered; containment standards; and, preparation
of hazardous materials management plans.
vi. Fire Hazards
The Saratoga Fire Protection District and the Central Fire District of Santa Clara County
serve the city of Saratoga. All area fire departments cooperate in mutual aid agreements,
which loosen the strict adherence to district boundaries when adjacent communities are
in need.
The City's Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code) requires a peakload
water supply of 1,000 gallons of water per minute for two hours for all housing
developments. However, areas with higher site elevations decrease the 35-pound
minimum pressure needed to provide 1,000 gallons per minute, which has caused a
severe problem with providing adequate fire protection in the Northwestern Hillsides
Residential District, where several of the homes currently do not meet the City
requirement.
Hazardous fire areas within the city are located within the Northwestern Hillsides area and
extend to the Lower Hillsides in the southwestern portion of the city. Special building
regulations exist for the hazardous fire areas, including the requirement for fire retardant
roofs and the installation of an electronic fire detection system (Early Warning Fire Alarm
System).
The Early Warning Fire Alarm System, which is required in all new homes or existing homes
expanded by more that 50 percent, consists of heat and smoke detectors which when
activated, will transmit a signal directly to a receiver panel in the Saratoga Fire District
Station. The fire district will then receive the earliest possible warning of fires, decreasing
response time to remote areas and thus reducing the possibility of death, injury, and
property damage.
The City also requires anti-fire buffer areas and sufficient clearance around each house
in the Northwestern Hillsides area. The minimum setbacks in this area are 30 feet in the
front yard, 20 feet in the side yards, and a minimum of 50 feet in the rear. Finally, the City
has a Weed Abatement Ordinance that requires property owners to remove weeds and
other combustible materials that become a fire menace.
vii. Noise
Traffic is the primary source of noise in Saratoga. In addition, commercial activities,
recreation complexes, and other sites of outdoor public assembly such as churches and
school sites, have been identified as periodic sources of noise complaints. The City’s
Planning Department currently considers noise in the project review process and works
274
October 2014 3-40
with the applicant to use site planning and other design strategies to reduce noise
impacts.
b. Infrastructure Constraints
The following presents the analysis of existing and future water and sewer capacity in
Saratoga. The City has found that based on population projections and housing growth
needs, there is adequate water and sewer capacity.
i. Water
The city of Saratoga receives its water supply from the San Jose Water Company. San
Jose Water Company obtains water from three major sources: groundwater, imported
surface water, and local mountain surface water. Groundwater is pumped from over 100
wells that draw water from the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin. Groundwater accounts
for approximately 40 percent of supply. Imported surface water is provided by Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), the wholesale supplier. Surface water imported from
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and purchased from the Santa Clara Valley Water
district accounts for approximately 50 percent of supply. A majority of this water originates
as Sierra snowmelt, and travels through the State and Federal water projects before
treatment at SCVWD's three water treatment plants. A smaller portion is impounded in
local reservoirs in Santa Clara County. Local mountain surface water is collected in the
Santa Cruz Mountains, and treated at San Jose Water Company's two water treatment
plants. Local surface water accounts for approximately 10 percent of supply. These
sources are often blended together in the distribution system. Consequently, different
sources are dispersed to Saratoga from day to day as customer usage changes.
Saratoga will continue to meet its future demands with imported water, groundwater,
and local mountain surface water supplies.
Portions of the higher elevations of the Santa Cruz Mountains within the City’s Sphere of
Influence provide water runoff into local streams and recharge wells that provide a
portion of the City’s water supply. These areas should be protected from significant
urbanization in order to maximize continued production of the local water supply.
ii. Sewer
The city of Saratoga is served by two sanitation districts: the Cupertino Sanitary District
and the West Valley Sanitation District.
The Cupertino Sanitary District covers an area of approximately 15 square miles,
serving a population of over 50,000 people. The District owns and manages over 1
million feet of sewer mains, 500,000 feet of sewer laterals, and 15 pump stations. The
District has been maintained with a proactive capital improvement program aimed at
extending the reliability and life of the system beyond 100 years. Currently, the District
discharges 4.6 million gallons per day, and has rights to discharge over 8.6 million gallons
per day. The District anticipates being able to accommodate expected growth within
areas served.
275
October 2014 3-41
The West Valley Sanitation District covers over 30 square miles, serving a population of
over 120,000 people. The District facilities include over 400 miles of sewer mains and over
250 miles of sewer laterals. The District has a fixed capacity allocation of 13.05 million
gallons per day. Based on population growth projections for 2030, the District would not
exceed the current fixed capacity allocation.
B. Non-Governmental Constraints
1. Vacant and Underutilized Land
A thorough analysis of vacant and underutilized land within the city of Saratoga is
provided in Appendix B.
2. Land Prices
Land cost increases have a significant influence on the cost of housing and the
availability of affordable housing. A number of factors determine land prices, the most
important of which are land availability and permitted development density. As land
becomes less available, the price of land increases. Based on review of a few multi-family
property sales in Saratoga over the past several years, land costs average $100 per
square foot.
3. Construction Costs
Construction costs are primarily determined by the cost of materials and labor. They are
also influenced by market demands and market-based changes in the cost of materials.
Construction costs depend on the type of unit being built and the quality of the product
being produced. Table 3-13 summarizes the estimated construction costs based on type
of development in Saratoga.
Table 3-13. Construction Cost Estimates
Table 3-13 Construction
Cost Estimates
Development Type Cost per Square Foot
Single-Family Residential $250
Townhomes/Condominiums $250
Multi-family- garden style apartments $250
Notes:
1Based on the prevailing market conditions. Units assume garden-style apartments with on-site parking.
2Based on average square foot reported by RealFacts.
3Assumes $150 per square foot construction costs and $100 per square foot multi-family land costs.
4. Mortgage and Rehabilitation Financing
276
October 2014 3-42
The availability of financing in a community depends on a number of factors, including
the type of lending institutions active in the community, lending practices, rates and fees
charged, laws and regulations governing financial institutions, and equal access to those
institutions. Through analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data on the
disposition of residential loan applications, an assessment can be made of the availability
of residential financing within a community.
Table 3-14 summarizes HMDA data for both Saratoga and Santa Clara County as a
whole, providing information on the approval status of all home purchase and home
improvement loan applications during 2012. Of the 521 applications for home purchase
loans in Saratoga, 79 percent were approved, 12 percent denied, and nine percent (9%)
withdrawn or incomplete.
In comparison to the County-wide average, mortgage loan approval rates were fairly
comparable in Saratoga (79%) and overall Santa Clara County (78%). In contrast,
approval rates for home improvement loans were higher in Saratoga than Santa Clara
County as a whole, at 75 percent compared to 70 percent County-wide. Review of loan
denial rates by census tract does not identify any areas in Saratoga where loan denials
differed markedly from the citywide average.
Table 3-14. Home Purchase and Improvement Loans - 2012
Table 3-14
Home Purchase and Improvement Loans – 2012
Loan Type
# Loan
Applications
in Saratoga
% Loans Approved % Loans Denied
% Loans
Withdrawn/
Incomplete
Saratoga
Santa
Clara
County
Saratoga
Santa
Clara
County
Saratoga
Santa
Clara
County
Home
Purchase 521 79% 78% 12% 12% 9% 10%
Home
Improvement 92 75% 70% 14% 20% 11% 10%
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data, 2012
Figure 3-1 shows the average interest rates in 2013. Interest rates are determined by
national policies and economic conditions and there is little that a local government can
do to affect these rates. However, in order to extend home buying opportunities to lower-
income households, jurisdictions can offer home buying assistance programs such as
interest rate write-downs and consider government insured loan programs that may be
available to reduce mortgage down payment requirements.
277
October 2014 3-43
Figure 3- 1. Mortgage Rates -2013
Source: Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey
As a result of the recent recession, there have been changes in the qualifications and
lending standards for home loans. Nationally, because there was a large increase in the
number of delinquencies and foreclosures in the residential market, lenders have more
stringent qualifications for home loans; and lower-income households may find it more
difficult to qualify.
C. Resources
The ability of the City to achieve its housing goals and objectives will, to a large extent,
depend on the availability of financial resources for implementation. Two primary sources
of funds – Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and Community Service Grants
– are currently used to support housing activities in Saratoga. Each of these is described in
the following section.
1. Community Development Block Grant Program
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds are the largest sources of
Federal funding for housing and housing related activities in Saratoga. While Saratoga
does not have a large enough population to be a CDBG Entitlement City (minimum
population of 50,000), the City has joined with other smaller cities and Santa Clara County
to form an Urban County under the CDBG Program. The participating cities jointly
develop funding priorities and assist the County Board of Supervisors in determining CDBG
funding allocation across the Urban County. Table 3-15 lists the Urban County CDBG
funded activities approved for the 2015 fiscal year.
278
October 2014 3-44
Table 3-15. Santa Clara County CDBG and HOME Funded Programs
Table 3-14
Santa Clara County CDBG and HOME Funded Programs
Applicant Project Funding
Source
1 Mid-Peninsula Housing The Farm HOME
2 Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley Home Repair & Modifications CDBG
3 Catholic Charities Long Term Care Ombudsman CDBG
4 Catholic Charities El Toro Youth Center CDBG
5 Community Service Agency of Los
Altos, Los Altos Hills & Mt. View
Senior Case Management CDBG
6 Community Solutions La Isla Pacifica Domestic Violence Shelter CDBG
7 Community Technology Alliance Tools for Ending Chronic Homelessness in Santa Clara
County
CDBG
8 Emergency Housing Consortium Shelter and Support Services – Boccardo Center CDBG
9 Family Supportive Housing, Inc. Bridges AfterCare Program CDBG
10 Family Supportive Housing, Inc. San Jose Family Shelter CDBG
11 InnVision Shelter Network Julian Street Inn CDBG
12 InnVision Shelter Network Commercial Street Inn CDBG
13 InnVision Shelter Network Campbell Shelter CDBG
14 Live Oak Adult Day Services Adult Day Care CDBG
15 Law Foundation of Silicon Valley Fair Housing Assistance Project CDBG
16 Next Door Solutions to Domestic
Violence
Next Door Shelter & Support Services Program CDBG
17 Project Sentinel Tenant-Landlord & Mortgage Services CDBG
18 Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating
Council
Adult Day Care Program CDBG
19 Senior Adults Legal Assistance Legal Assistance to Elders in Campbell, Morgan Hill &
Saratoga
CDBG
20 Silicon Valley Independent Housing Program for Persons with Disabilities CDBG
21 West Valley Community Services Community Access to Resources and Education CDBG
22 YWCA Domestic Violence Services CDBG
2. Community Services Grant
Through Saratoga’s annual Community Service Grant Program funding application and
Ongoing Community Service Support Grants, the City allocates General Fund monies to
a variety of service organizations that support its commitment to the provision of a social
service safety net for the most vulnerable members of the community. In 2013/2014 the
City Council allocated $22,825 in funds through its Grant Program and $107,915 in funds
through its Ongoing Grant program. Similar amounts were allocated in prior years. The
City utilizes its annual Community Service Grant Program allocations and Ongoing Grant
Program to fund a variety of agencies and services including:
x Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council’s (SASCC) Adult Day Care Program
x West Valley Community Services
279
October 2014 3-45
x Catholic Charities Ombudsman Program
x SASCC Service and Supplemental Service Support
x United Way 211 Funding
x Housing Trust of Santa Clara County
3. Energy Conservation
Energy conservation remains a major priority in the city of Saratoga. The City requires
compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations on the use of energy
efficient appliances and insulation. Through compliance with Title 24, new residential
development has reduced energy demands.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), which provides electricity service in the city
of Saratoga, offers public information and technical assistance to homeowners regarding
energy conservation. PG&E also provides numerous incentives for energy efficiency in
new construction and home remodeling. Remodeling rebates exist for projects installing
three or more upgrades from a flexible menu of options that earn points towards
incentives and rebates. This program’s incentives range between $1,000 and $4,500.
The City of Saratoga requires the submittal of a Cal Green checklist with applications for
Design Review for single- and multi-family existing and new residential construction
projects. The Cal Green checklist is based on standards produced by the California
Building Standards Commission.
One of the more recent strategies in building energy-efficient homes is following the U.S.
Green Building Council’s guidelines for LEED Certification. LEED-certified buildings
demonstrate energy and water savings, reduced maintenance costs and improved
occupant satisfaction. The LEED for New Construction program has been applied to
numerous multi-family projects nationwide. The LEED for Homes program was launched in
2005 and includes standards for new single-family and multi-family home construction.
The LEED certification standards are one piece of a coordinated green building program.
A green building program considers a broad range of issues including community design,
energy efficiency, water conservation, resource-efficient material selection, indoor
environmental quality, construction management, and building maintenance. The end
result will be buildings that minimize the use of resources; are healthier for people; and
mitigate the effects of the environment.
The following presents a variety of ways in which Saratoga can promote energy
conservation:
x Provide information regarding rebate programs and energy audits
available through Pacific Gas and Electric;
x Refer residents and businesses to energy conservation programs such as Build It
280
October 2014 3-46
Green and LEED for Homes;
x Develop incentives, such as expedited plan check, for developments that
are utilizing green building;
x Promote funding opportunities for green buildings, including available rebates
and funding through the California Energy Commission; and
x Provide resource materials regarding green building and conservation programs.
281
October 2014 4-1
Chapter 4: Policy Program
This section describes the City of Saratoga’s Policy Program for the 2015-2023 Housing
Element. The Policy Program describes the specific policy actions necessary to address
present and future housing needs, meet the specific requirements of State law, and
consider the input by residents and stakeholders. In developing the Policy Program, the
City assessed its housing needs, evaluated the performance of existing programs, and
received input from the community through participation in housing workshops (see
Chapter 2 and Appendices A and C).
A. Policy Action Areas
The Policy Action Plan for the 2015-2023 Housing Element is organized into five areas:
x New Production
x Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
x Design and Livability
x Access to Housing Opportunities
x Coordinated Housing Efforts
B. Policy Actions
Policy Area 4-1: New Production
The City strives to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to meet future and
existing housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
Policy Action 4-1.1: Amend Commercial-Neighborhood (Residential High Density)
Standards
To further encourage mixed-use development, the City shall amend the C-N(RHD) district
standards from a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre to a minimum of 30 dwelling units
per acre, increase the allowable building height from 30 feet to 35 feet and from two to
three stories. The City will also modify the standards such that only developments proposed
at over 40 dwelling units per acre would require additional Planning Commission findings.
The modification to the height limit will require a corresponding General Plan Amendment.
In conjunction with the Zoning text amendments, the City will contact the property owners
of the six adjoining C-N(RHD) parcels concerning the increase in development potential,
and the City's support for redevelopment with higher density residential/mixed use.
282
October 2014 4-2
Objective: Amend Commercial-Neighborhood (Residential High Density) C-N
(RHD)
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Amend Zoning C-N(RHD) and General Plan within one (1) year of
Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-1.2: Continue to Implement Density Bonus Ordinance
Under Government Code Section 65915-65918, for housing projects of at least five units,
cities must grant density bonuses ranging from 5% to 35% (depending on the affordability
provided by the housing project) when requested by the project sponsor, and provide up
to three incentives or concessions unless specific findings can be made. The City of
Saratoga has adopted Density Bonus provisions within its Zoning Code consistent with State
law.
Objective: Continue Density Bonus Ordinance Implementation
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Action 4-1.3: Encourage Efficient Use of Energy Resources in Residential
Development
The City shall encourage housing developers to maximize energy conservation through
proactive site, building and building systems design, materials, and equipment. The City
encourages the development community to exceed the provisions of Title 24 of the
California Building Code. The City shall encourage the use of Energy Star®- rated
appliances, other energy-saving technologies and conservation. To enhance the efficient
use of energy resources, the City shall review the potential of offering incentives or other
strategies that encourage energy conservation. The City shall review and update its
website pertaining to dissemination of information for energy resources in residential
development to ensure that links are appropriate and functional.
Objective: Increased Energy Efficiency
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Investigate and develop, as appropriate, incentive strategies
within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption, ongoing
thereafter
283
October 2014 4-3
Policy Action 4-1.4: Encourage Green Building Practices in Home Construction
The City understands the importance of sustainable use of limited resources and
encourages the use of “green building” practices in new and existing housing. The City’s
Design Review process requires that new and existing residential home construction
projects include a completed CalGreen checklist. The CalGreen checklist tracks green
features incorporated into the home. The checklist is produced by the California Building
Standards Commission.
In addition, the City provides public information on its website pages, “Go Green in
Saratoga” and offers low cost permits as an incentive to install solar panels.
Objective: Increased Green Building Practices
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Action 4-1.5: Encourage and Facilitate Lot Consolidation
The City will encourage and facilitate the consolidation of the identified candidate sites
(see Policy Action 4-1.1) through a variety of incentives, including but not limited to
financial incentives such as CDBG funds, land write-downs, assistance with on- or off-site
infrastructure costs, and other pre-development costs associated with the assemblage of
multiple parcels. Consolidation will provide the opportunity to develop these underutilized
lots to their fullest potential. The City will evaluate the appropriateness of a variety of
incentives and provide this information to the developers and other interested parties
through print material at City Hall.
Objective: Encourage and Facilitate Lot Consolidation in Identified
Candidate Sites
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Review within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-1.6: Amend Multi-Family Parking Requirements for Affordable Housing
Development in the CN(RHD) district
The City understands that parking requirements can be a constraint to development of
affordable housing. The City currently has reduced standards for one-bedroom units and
units that are exclusively occupied by seniors or students. To ensure that the existing multi-
family parking requirement is not a constraint to the development of affordable housing in
the CN(RHD) zone, the City shall consider additional reductions to parking requirements for
affordable and higher density housing developments including removal of garage
requirements and further reductions to guest parking requirements.
284
October 2014 4-4
Objective: Amend Multi-Family Parking Requirements for Affordable
Housing Development in the CN(RHD) district
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Amend Parking Ordinance within one (1) year of adoption
of the Housing Element
Policy Area 4-2: Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
Much of the housing stock in Saratoga has been identified to be in decent, suitable
condition. However, there is an anticipated need for ongoing maintenance and
rehabilitation. Maintenance and rehabilitation activities help ensure the quality of the city’s
housing stock and neighborhoods are preserved.
Policy Action 4-2.1: Housing Rehabilitation
The city has a high level of quality housing. In order to maintain the housing quality, the City
will provide information about rehabilitation programs on an individual basis, as needed.
Objective: Provide information about rehabilitation programs on an
individual basis, as needed
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Action 4-2.2: Code Enforcement Program
The City will continue to use code enforcement measures when required to ensure that the
existing housing stock in the city is maintained and preserved in a safe and sanitary
condition.
Objective: Maintain the existing housing stock.
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
285
October 2014 4-5
Policy Action 4-2.3: Historic Preservation Program and Mills Act:
The City will implement its historic preservation
and Mills Act programs to offer property tax relief
as an incentive to preserve, rehabilitate and
maintain historic resources in Saratoga. The City's
goal is to conserve the historically significant
residential structures identified in the City's
Heritage Resource Inventory, and encourage
additional property owners to pursue listing as a
qualified historic property and associated Mills
Act incentives for preservation. The City has
processed an average of two Mills Act
preservation contracts per year over the past Housing Element cycle and expects to
continue with an average of two per year over the course of this cycle.
Objective: Preserve historic structures
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Area 4-3: Design and Livability
Saratoga has unique, long-established neighborhoods that contribute to community
character and guide development within the city. Community design is important in order
to ensure quality design of new developments and to enhance the aesthetic qualities of
the city.
Policy Action 4-3.1: Maintain Community Design
The City recognizes the importance of maintaining the character of Saratoga’s
neighborhoods. The City adopted updates to the Single Family Residential Design Review
Handbook in February 2014. In order to ensure quality design of new housing units and
modifications to existing housing units, the City will review and revise the General Plan or
Zoning Code and enforce the design guidelines and update as needed to provide
aesthetic direction for future residential development.
Objective: Maintain Community Character
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Rehabilitated Historic Home
286
October 2014 4-6
Policy Action 4-3.2: Preserve the Saratoga Village
The City understands the importance of conserving the community’s historic downtown
district, “Saratoga Village,” to preserve the city’s commercial resources and provide
opportunities for mixed-use development. The City shall continue to implement design
criteria in Saratoga Village to preserve the area’s character and to enhance the aesthetic
qualities of new residential and commercial developments.
Objective: Continue Implementation of Saratoga Village Design
Guidelines
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
Policy Area 4-4: Access to Housing Opportunities
The City promotes the practice of providing equal housing opportunities for all persons.
Housing should be available for all persons regardless of income, family status, presence of
a disability, age, race, sex, national origin, or color. The City encourages the provision of
housing to meet needs of families with children, elderly households, persons with disabilities,
the homeless and all other segments of the community.
Policy Action 4-4.1: Encourage Development of Second Dwelling Units
The City understands that second dwelling units provide a viable tool to enhance the
availability of affordable housing opportunities in Saratoga. The City currently provides
policies and procedures for the development of second dwelling units within the Saratoga
Municipal Code. To ensure the City’s existing policies and procedures for second dwelling
units are effective in providing additional affordable housing opportunities, the City shall
review the existing Second Unit Ordinance and amend the Second Dwelling Unit standards
to eliminate the minimum square footage requirements and reduce the minimum lot size
for Second Dwelling Units to 90% or more of the standard lot size for the underlying zoning
district. The City will consider additional incentives including: a fee reduction, and
exemption of a portion of second unit floor area from lot coverage requirements. In
addition, the City shall create an informational brochure regarding Second Dwelling Units
to disseminate to the public.
Objective: Review/Revise Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Review Ordinance within one (1) year of adoption of the
Housing Element, and disseminate informational brochure
287
October 2014 4-7
Policy Action 4-4.2: Zoning Code Amendment for Special Needs Housing
In April 2010 and pursuant to SB 2, the City adopted provisions within its Code for transitional
and supportive housing within the C-N(RHD) zone district. However, further direction since
that time by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
clarifies that SB 2 requires these uses be permitted in all zone districts where residential uses
are permitted. To address this deficiency, the City will amend the Code to identify
transitional and supportive housing as a permitted use in all residential and mixed use zones
subject to the same development standards as similar housing in these zones.
As part of the SB 2 Zoning Code amendments, the City also adopted provisions to allow
emergency shelters by right within the C-N(RHD) zone. However, development standards
for shelters were not defined in the Code at that time. As permitted under the provisions of
Government Code 65583, the City will establish written, objective development standards
for emergency shelters to regulate the following:
x The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the
facility.
x Off-street parking based upon demonstrated need, provided that the standards
do not require more parking for emergency shelters than for other residential or
commercial uses within the same zone.
x The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake
areas.
x The provision of onsite management.
x The proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are
not required to be more than 300 feet apart.
x The length of stay.
x Lighting.
x Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.
Having these standards in place will facilitate the permitting process.
Objective: Facilitate Permitting Process for Emergency Shelters, Transitional
and Supportive Housing
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-4.3: Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
To comply with State law (SB 520), the City adopted written Reasonable Accommodation
Procedures (Municipal Code Section 15-80.025). The City will continue to analyze existing
land use controls, building codes, and permit and processing procedures to determine
constraints they impose on the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing
for persons with disabilities. The City will prepare an informational brochure and include
288
October 2014 4-8
information on the City’s website to inform residents of the Reasonable Accommodation
Procedures.
Objective: Implement and Promote Reasonable Accommodation
Procedures
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-4.4: Housing Opportunities for Persons Living with Disabilities
San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) is a community-based, private nonprofit corporation
serving individuals and their families who reside within Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara,
and Santa Cruz Counties. The SARC reports that 78 percent of their clients with
developmental disabilities live with a parent or guardian. As these parents age and
become frailer, their adult disabled children will require alternative housing options. The
SARC has identified several community-based housing types appropriate for persons living
with a developmental disability including licensed community care facilities and group
homes; supervised apartment settings with support services; and rent subsidized affordable
housing for persons able to live more independently. The City will coordinate with SARC to
implement an outreach program informing Saratoga families of housing and services
available for persons with developmental disabilities, including making information
available on the City’s website.
Objective: Coordinate with the San Andreas Regional Center to
implement an outreach program for Saratoga families and
Provide information on the City’s website
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Within 1 year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-4.5: Development of Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households
The City understands the need to encourage and facilitate housing development for
households earning 30 percent or less of the median family income. The City will encourage
development of housing for extremely-low income households through a variety of
activities that may include:
x outreach to housing developers (refer to Policy Action 4-5.3),
x identifying grant and funding opportunities,
x offering additional incentives beyond the density bonus provisions, and/or
x a one-time ten percent (10%) increase in site coverage and allowable floor area
for second dwelling units deed restricted for below market rate households.
289
October 2014 4-9
Objective: Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Explore activities to encourage development of housing for
extremely low-income households within one (1) yearsix (6)
months of Housing Element adoption; annually thereafter
Policy Action 4-4.6: Housing Opportunities for Persons Employed in Saratoga
The City shall explore opportunities to provide additional local housing options for the city’s
workforce, including rental housing for families. These opportunities could include
increasing public awareness of the City’s housing assistance programs and partnering with
West Valley College to explore student and faculty housing development.
Objective: Explore Opportunities to Encourage Additional Local Workforce
Housing through Community Partnerships
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-4.7: Monitoring and Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing
The City shall continue to maintain a data base to provide for the regular monitoring of
deed-restricted units that have the potential of converting to market- rate during the
period. Additionally, the City will review funding opportunities for owners of these units to
extend and/or renew deed restrictions and/or covenants.
To proactively address the conversion of affordable units to market-rate units, the City will
investigate strategies to preserve the affordable units. The City shall ensure compliance
with noticing requirements and provide for tenant education when a notice of conversion
is received.
Objective: Monitor and Preserve 170 “At-Risk” Units (Fellowship Plaza
and Saratoga Court)
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing/Annual report of units; Preservation strategy within two
(2) years of Housing Element adoption
290
October 2014 4-10
Policy Action 4.4-8: Support Preparation of a Countywide Nexus Study of Affordable
Housing Impact Fees
The City of Saratoga will work collaboratively with other Santa Clara County cities towards
preparation of a joint nexus study for the purpose of establishing an affordable housing
impact fee.
Objective: Coordinate with other Santa Clara County cities to prepare a
joint nexus study to establish an affordable housing impact fee
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Area 4-5: Coordinated Housing Efforts
The City of Saratoga has limited local resources to provide for housing and housing-related
activities. Therefore, to maximize use of limited local resources, the City strives to build
partnerships and coordinate housing efforts with outside agencies and organizations.
Policy Action 4-5.1: Promote Fair Housing Efforts
The City currently disseminates fair housing information packets about Fair Housing
Regulations and refers discrimination complaints to the Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair
Housing or to the County of Santa Clara County Office of Consumer Affairs. The City will
continue to participate in the County’s mediation program and will continue to support
these organizations which provide fair housing assistance including landlord/tenant
counseling, homebuyer assistance, and amelioration or removal of identified impediments.
Objective: Continue Support of Fair Housing Efforts
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing. Disseminate fair housing information at a variety of
community events and locations including the Saratoga
Library, City Hall, the City’s Website and West Valley College.
Policy Action 4-5.2: Develop a Comprehensive Community Outreach Strategy for Housing
To ensure the Saratoga community is provided the highest level of access to housing
information, the City shall evaluate the effectiveness of existing outreach and community
education efforts and develop a comprehensive outreach strategy. The outreach strategy
will consider various methods of delivery, including print media, mailers, web-based
information and other methods that consider the economic and cultural considerations in
Saratoga.
291
October 2014 4-11
Objective: Comprehensive Housing Outreach Strategy
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Evaluate existing outreach by December 2015 Implement
outreach within one (1) year of Housing Element adoption
Policy Action 4-5.3: Partnerships with Development Community
The City supports cooperation in the development of affordable housing through working
with local housing trust and non-profit agencies. The City will continue to cooperate with
developers to provide housing opportunities for lower income households; prioritize efforts
and resources to the identified sites for rezoning to promote a variety of housing types, such
as rental units that are affordable to lower income households. The City shall also evaluate
the effectiveness of its partnerships with housing developers and seek ways to expand and
foster its partnerships as appropriate.
Objective: Partnerships with Housing Developers
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Evaluate partnerships within one (1) year of Housing Element
adoption; annually, thereafter
Policy Action 4-5.4: Healthy Community
The City supports residential development that promotes healthy life styles (i.e. recreational
activities, encourages pedestrian and bicycle use and continued support of the Farmer’s
Market). In September 2012, the City adopted bicycle parking requirements for retail and
financial institutions within commercial districts (except C-H District). The City should
continue to evaluate ways to promote healthy life styles.
Objective: Promote Healthy Lifestyles
Responsible Agency: Community Development
Financing Source: Grants General Fund
Time Frame: Ongoing
292
October 2014 4-12
2015-2023 Quantified Objectives
While Saratoga cannot control the amount of housing built during any specific time period,
the City intends to make a good faith effort to achieve housing production at a level
consistent with its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA). The Quantified Objectives for
new construction will be the same as the RHNA. The Quantified Objectives for Housing
Rehabilitation and Preservation of At-Risk Rental Housing will be based on available
resources and past trends. Table 4-1 Housing Element Quantified Objectives 2015-2023
shows Saratoga’s objectives for new construction, housing rehabilitation and preservation
of at risk housing.
Table 4-1. Housing Element Quantified Objectives 2015-2023
Program Quantified Objective
New Construction
Extremely Low-Income1 74
Very Low-Income 147
Low Income 95
Moderate Income 104
Above Moderate Income 93
Total 4392
Housing Rehabilitation
Very Low-Income 0
Low Income 0
Moderate Income Not Applicable
Above Moderate Income 20
Total 20
Preservation of At-Risk Rental Housing
Extremely Low-Income3 85
Very Low-Income 85170
Low Income
Moderate Income 0
Above Moderate Income Not Applicable
Total 170
Notes:
1Extremely Low-Income assumed to be 50 percent of Very Low-Income allocation.
2Total does not include Extremely Low-Income
Source: County of Santa Clara Department of Planning & Development
3 As affordability in Saratoga’s 170 rent-restricted units is tied to Section 8 contracts (with subsidy levels based on tenant
income), an estimated half of these units are assumed to be occupied by Extremely Low Income households, and half
occupied by Very Low Income households.
293
October 2014 4-13
The City’s Quantified Objective for New Construction will be met through a combination
of strategies. The total capacity within the Very Low Income and Low Income categories
accommodates up to 276 units, where 242 units is the Quantified Objective. These will be
addressed through:
x Opportunity Sites providing 173 units (Prospect Road sites)
x The by-right zoning for the affordable senior housing at the Fellowship Plaza
Retirement Community for 75 units
x Second Units providing 18 units (50% of 35 units)
The total sites capacity within the Moderate Income category accommodates up to 104
units, which is the Quantified Objective. These will be addressed through:
x Opportunity Sites providing 87 units (Gateway + Village site)
x Second Units providing 17 units (50% of 35 units)
The total sites capacity within the Above Moderate Income category accommodates up
to 110 units where 93 units is the Quantified Objective. These will be addressed through:
x Approved Projects providing 33 units
x Opportunity Sites (vacant parcels) providing 77 units
294
October 2014 4-14
295
October 2014 A-1
Appendix A: Community Outreach
A. Introduction
During 2014, the City of Saratoga conducted community outreach activities to ensure
the Housing Element update reflected the issues and opportunities identified by the
community. The workshops were advertised through flyers and notices on the City’s
website. In addition, the City invited stakeholder groups such as affordable housing
developers, professional and community organizations, housing advocacy groups and
supportive service providers to participate.
The following community workshops were advertised and open to the general public:
x January 21, 2014, Planning Commission Study Session, City Hall Conference Room
x February 25, 2014, Community Workshop #1, Saratoga Community Center
x March 11, 2014, Community Workshop #2, Saratoga Community Center
x March 25, 2014, Planning Commission Study Session, City Hall Conference Room
During the first Planning Commission Study Session, the Planning Commission and
community members were given an overview of the Housing Element update process,
the City’s Regional Housing Need Allocation, and affordability categories.
During the first Community Workshop, participants were provided a more in depth
overview of Housing Element law. Participants identified and discussed challenges,
opportunities and resources related to housing in Saratoga.
At the second Community Workshop, participants discussed potential opportunity sites
and strategies for providing affordable housing in Saratoga. Several opportunity sites
were identified from all of the potential sites discussed, and strategies to encourage
second unit development were seen as a favorable way to provide affordable units.
At the second Planning Commission Study Session, participants discussed the pros and
cons of the opportunity sites identified at the previous Community Workshop. Based on
this discussion the Planning Commission chose the opportunity sites that were determined
to be the most suitable.
Any future revisions to the draft Housing Element, including any revisions made to respond
to HCD’s review comments will be provided to the public on the City’s website. Prior to
the City Council’s adoption of the Housing Element, the document will be made
available for formal public review for a period of at least 30 days.
The following notes were taken during the January 21, 2014 Study Session, February 25, 2014
and March 11, 2014 Community Workshop and March 25 Planning Commission Study
Session.
296
October 2014 A-2
Summary of 1-21-14 Planning Commission Study Session
Staff presented the General Plan Housing Element update to the Planning Commission
and community members. Staff discussed:
• City’s progress toward meeting the goals of the 2007-2014 Housing Element.
• Overview of the city’s new Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the
2015-2023 Housing Element update.
• City’s deadline to update the Housing Element by January 31, 2015.
• Proposed community meeting dates and public hearings.
• How the RHNA allocation is determined by the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG).
• How RHNA is broken down by income categories of Extremely Low Income, Very
Low Income, Low Income, Moderate Income and Above Moderate Income.
• City must address allocation in all income categories.
• Income limits for households and families of various sizes.
• The number of housing units that must be provided within each income category.
• How the City demonstrates that there is capacity to meet the RHNA on specific
sites with appropriate zoning.
• City must adopt policies and programs to facilitate preservation, improvement
and development of affordable housing.
• Achievements that have already been made toward planning for the City’s
RHNA.
297
October 2014 A-3
Summary of 2-25-14 Community Workshop
Questions from Participants
1. What is “Housing Need”?
2. Do all of the city’s Regional Housing Need Allocations need to be built during the
time period?
3. What are the impacts of SB 375 and SB 2 on the city’s RHNA?
4. What are the impacts of not completing the Housing Element?
5. What is the timeframe for completion of the Housing Element?
6. What is the percent of low income housing in Saratoga?
7. Would owners of commercial properties identified for housing opportunities be
forced to sell their properties?
8. What percentage of the city’s RHNA will be for low income people?
9. Why is this growth forced on cities?
10. What is the financial impact on the city for all this new housing?
11. Why was the Prospect center chosen as a site for residential development in the
current housing element?
12. Does Saratoga have Section 8 housing?
13. Is there state funding available for affordable housing development?
Comments
1. The City needs to take a creative approach to providing affordable housing in
Saratoga.
2. The City should encourage more homeowners to provide second units.
3. The City should annex Saratoga Springs Park where low income people are
already living.
4. The City should find a way to get credit toward the RHNA for the many households
that have multiple generations living under one roof.
298
October 2014 A-4
Summary of 3-11-14 Community Workshop
Questions from Participants
1. What is an affordable unit? How much would it rent for? How much would it sell
for? What income would a person earn to be considered low-income? What does
affordable mean? Can we mandate rental vs. for-sale units?
2. What is a mixed use development? How much residential vs. how much
commercial development would be built?
3. How is the RHNA count allocated? How does Plan Bay Area and the Sustainable
Community Strategy figure into the Housing Element update? How does SB1 and
SB33 factor into Housing Element update?
4. Will the City rezone large lot residential neighborhoods for smaller lots? What is the
reality that any of the sites identified will be developed during the time frame of
the Housing Element?
Comments
Not enough people are present tonight to make a decision on what sites should be
selected to accommodate housing.
Why aren’t property owners of these sites here tonight?
How will development impacts be addressed?
What is the maximum height a fire truck ladder can reach?
Why did 75 units recently get approved at the Odd Fellows property?
Potential Sites Discussed
Village
Meaningful development in the Village is limited by small lot sizes
Can city parking lots be used for podium style housing development?
Argonaut Center
Why use Argonaut shopping center (Safeway) as a site when there are only 2 grocery
stores in Saratoga?
Why not build a shopping center like the Safeway in Los Gatos with parking below and
housing above?
Safeway site is not near transit and would create too much traffic.
Properties that are in good shape with newer/viable commercial are harder to make
feasible as housing sites.
General consensus that Safeway was not a good site.
Quito Center
Can we convert Roku buildings into housing units?
Roku is doing very well and actually needs room to expand. It wouldn’t be suitable to
convert these buildings to housing; but the site would be viable for redevelopment with
mixed use.
299
October 2014 A-5
The neighborhood is very concerned about traffic issues with new development.
Residential development creates less traffic than office development
Prospect Sites
Why limit the height at Prospect to just 35 feet & 3 stories? Because this is the highest limit
of any zone in the city.
How do these sites compare to development in adjacent San Jose sites? San Jose
standard in the area is 55 dwelling units/acre for residential development.
Let’s look at the triangular site at the intersections of Hamilton and Campbell Ave in San
Jose as an example of affordable housing. 4 stories over podium parking.
Abrams Site
What are zoning and height limits at Abrams site? 20 units/acre and 2 story/30 foot height
limit.
Mr. Abrams is holding on to the property and wants the site to be used for office
development.
Second Units
How do we keep track of how many 2nd units we have? Can we institute an Amnesty
program to try and get all unpermitted 2nd units permitted?
Prioritization of Sites
22 units at Saratoga Village Center
58 at Southwest Gateway sites
108 at Abrams site
Increase height and density at Prospect site to accommodate an additional 96 units
300
October 2014 A-6
Summary of 3-25-14 Planning Commission Study Session
All Planning Commissioners were present at the meeting; and approximately 25
community members were in attendance.
CDD James Lindsay began the meeting giving a recap of the information that has been
shared to date about the Housing Element Update. He then discussed proposed
changes to the Second Unit ordinance to encourage greater development of 2nd units,
including eliminating the minimum square footage requirement for 2nd units and
reductions to the minimum lot size required for 2nd units. (See attached Meeting Poster
notes with proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment language).
Mr. Lindsay further discussed proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to require a
minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-N(RHD) zone and allow for a building
height of three stories up to a maximum of 35 feet, with a corresponding General Plan
amendment.
Consultant Geoff Bradley discussed why planning in an allowance of additional housing
units as a buffer is recommended for this cycle of Saratoga’s Housing Element Update.
Mr. Lindsay summarized the following housing candidate sites where no rezoning would
be necessary:
Housing Candidate Sites:
Saratoga Village Center 22 units (@20 du/ac)
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road 65 units (@15 du/ac)
Saratoga Avenue @ Cox 81 units (@15 du/ac)
Several comments were submitted to the City since the last community workshop
regarding traffic impacts from development of the Saratoga Avenue @ Cox site. Mr.
Lindsay presented different peak hour traffic comparisons to illustrate the differences in
trip generation of office and residential uses.
Saratoga Avenue @ Cox - Conceptual Peak Hour Traffic Comparisons:
100% Office 118,000 SF (25% FAR) 180± Trips
50% Office 59,000 SF 90± Trips
50% Residential 81 units (15 du/ac) 60± Trips
Combined 150± Trips
20% Office 23,000 SF 35± Trips
80% Residential 130 units 90± Trips
Combined 125± Trips
100% Residential 163 units 115± Trips
301
October 2014 A-7
Several community members asked questions of the Planning Staff and consultants. The
following summarizes those questions and responses where appropriate:
1. Can we designate the Bellicitti properties on Quito and Allendale for additional
housing? – No, although they are already zoned for residential, they are both tied
up in long term Williamson Act contracts for continued agricultural use.
2. Our prior RHNA was only around 230 units, why did it double? – It is a calculation
prepared by ABAG, based on our “fair share” of the regions housing needs.
3. Why does the City need to be in compliance with State Law? – Primary reason is to
avoid lawsuits.
4. What are deed restricted units?- Units that have restrictions recorded on the title
requiring that they be rented or sold to lower and moderate income people.
5. Are lost revenues from conversion of commercial property factored into selection
of these sites for housing? -Generally not, due to the fact that these sites are
underutilized and not generating significant revenue for the city. Additionally,
since these units will likely be condominiums or townhomes, they have a higher
turnover rate, and could potentially generate more property tax revenues than
other office uses.
6. Why can’t the City designate the Prospect site for 40 to 50 units per acre to satisfy
all the RHNA? – The site is proposed at a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre
and could potentially be developed higher, but the City still needs to
accommodate moderate income people and families at lower densities.
The Planning Commission began the conversation of which sites they think would be the
best to accommodate the city’s housing needs. The Saratoga Village Center was
accepted as a Candidate Site. Several concerns were raised about both of the other
sites including; traffic, impacts to schools, loss of commercial sites, and impacts to
neighboring residents. The Planning Commission then opened the discussion back up to
the community to hear the pros and cons for each of the sites.
302
October 2014 A-8
Saratoga Avenue@ Cox Site
Pros Cons
1. Plan for the site now vs. face
development pressures in the future
1. If it’s developed for housing it could
never be used as a park
2. Professional Office is not a high
demand land use
2. Traffic is terrible on Saratoga Avenue
because it is near the Hwy 85
interchange
3. Development pressure currently
exists
3. Site might be used for future lightrail
parking
4. The site can accommodate more
units than the Saratoga-Sunnyvale
Road site
4. Identifying site for housing limits future
development, such as for a Roku
office expansion
5. Would have significant impact on
Quito neighborhood
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road
Pros Cons
1. Site is underutilized 1. Lot consolidation is required
2. Site is not surrounded by single
family uses
2. Traffic
3. Loss of Commercially zoned land
The Planning Commission then discussed the pros and cons. The majority of the
Commissioners directed staff to identify the Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road site and the
Saratoga Village Center as the two housing opportunity sites for the Housing Element.
303
October 2014 A-9
Summary of 6-24-14 Planning Commission Study Session – Draft Housing Element Review
All Planning Commissioners, except Commissioner Grover, were present at the meeting;
and approximately 5 community members were in attendance.
The Planning Commission Chair, Mary Lynne Bernald gave an overview of Housing
Element law and Consultant Heather Bradley presented the Draft Housing Element.
Community members had the following questions which were answered by City Staff and
the Consultants.
1. Will residential uses displace commercial properties?
2. Do students in existing housing count as student housing?
3. Vacancy rates on page 218 do not add up.
4. The age of housing stock not relevant to Saratoga when properties are worth so
much.
5. Why should the city have to provide affordable housing when people cannot afford
to live here – people could move somewhere else to buy a house?
6. The City Council should contact state to object RHNA.
7. There are not enough people attending this meeting to decide the fate of the entire
city of Saratoga.
8. Was the potential for student housing at West Valley College reviewed?
9. There is a water shortage and there is not enough water for all these new homes
that are to be built.
10. Is highlighting underutilized sites cost driven?
11. How much of the new housing will really be affordable?
12. When do the new policies take affect?
13. Are we lowering our standards in this city?
304
October 2014 A-10
305
October 2014 B-1
Appendix B: Residential Land Resources
A. Sites to Accommodate the 2014-2022 RHNA
State law requires each jurisdiction in California to demonstrate the availability of
adequate sites through appropriate zoning and development standards and the
availability of public services and facilities. These available sites must provide the
necessary policy and regulatory guidance to accommodate a variety of housing types
at a variety income levels. The City must demonstrate through policies and regulations
that the estimated capacity of adequate sites will be able to accommodate the
projected housing need for the 2015-2023 Planning Period.
The State Department of Finance (DOF) is responsible for projecting the total State-wide
housing demand, with the State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) apportioning this demand to each of the State’s regional governing bodies. This
demand represents the number of additional units needed to accommodate the
anticipated growth in the number of households, to replace expected demolitions and
conversions of housing units to non-housing units, and to achieve a future vacancy rate
that allows for healthy functioning of the housing market.
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), for determining and allocating the region’s projected new housing
demand to municipalities within the MPO’s jurisdiction. The allocation of projected
housing demand is divided into four income categories:
x Very Low-Income: 0 percent to 50 percent of the area median income;
x Low-Income: 51 percent to 80 percent of the area median income;
x Moderate-Income: 81 percent to 120 percent of the area median income; and
x Above Moderate-Income: more than 120 percent of the median income.
Pursuant to AB 2634 (Statutes of 2006), the City of Saratoga must also address the
projected housing need for Extremely Low-Income (ELI) households. ELI households are
defined as households earning less than 30 percent of the area’s median income. The
projected Extremely Low-Income need can be assumed as 50 percent of the total need
for Very Low-Income households.
Through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process, regional-level housing
growth needs are allocated to individual cities and counties comprising the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO). The allocation takes into account factors such as market
demand for housing, employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and
public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing need, and others. In
determining a jurisdiction’s share of new housing needs by income category, the
allocation is adjusted to avoid an over-concentration of lower income households in any
one jurisdiction.
306
October 2014 B-2
The current RHNA prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) allocates
housing needs for the period from January 1, 2014 to October 31, 2022. The RHNA identifies
439 units as the city of Saratoga’s share of the region’s housing for the 2015-2023 planning
period. This section documents the availability of sites for future development and the
adequacy of these sites to address Saratoga's regional housing needs. The City plans to
fulfill its share of regional housing needs through:
x Residential projects in process with occupancy post January 1, 2014;
x Vacant and underutilized sites currently zoned for residential and mixed use
development; and
x Second units.
1. Projects in Process
a. Approved Units
Several residential projects with development entitlements will contribute towards
addressing Saratoga's housing needs. Projects range in size from several small 2 to 3 unit
projects to a 12 unit condominium development, and will provide a total of 23 new units.
As indicated in Table B-1, all of these units are market rate and would thus be suitable for
Above Moderate Income households.
Table B-1. Approved Units
Table B-1
Approved Units
APN Address Total Net
Parcels
Affordability Category
403-24-008 13686 Quito Road 3 Above Moderate
503-25-013 14639 Big Basin Way 2 Above Moderate
397-27-029 20440 Arbeleche Lane 3 Above Moderate
503-25-015 14651 Big Basin Way 3 Above Moderate
386-30-037 & -038 12250 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road 12 Above Moderate
Total 23
Source: City of Saratoga
b. Approved Subdivisions
In addition to the projects with entitlements described above, as of March 2014, the City
has approved 10 new single family residential parcels which remain to be developed.
Given current market demand, the City anticipates applications for these units to be
approved and the units to be constructed within the 2015-2023 Housing Element planning
period. Table B-2 shows the locations of these pending units. These units would be
affordable to Above Moderate income households.
307
October 2014 B-3
Table B-2. Approved Subdivisions
Table B-2
Approved Subdivisions
APN Address Total Net
Units
Affordability Category
503-10-006 22700 Mount Eden Road 2 Above Moderate
503-82-006 Paramount Drive 6 Above Moderate
510-06-005 19370 Saratoga Los Gatos Road 2 Above Moderate
Total 10
Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department
2. Sites Capacity to Meet Regional Share Goals
To enable the City of Saratoga to meet RHNA goals, the City must evaluate its capacity
to provide available sites to meet projected future housing needs. Subtracting the 33 units
in approved projects and subdivisions described above, the City has a remaining RHNA
need of 406 units. The City must demonstrate it has or will make available adequate sites
with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to
accommodate the remaining RHNA need.
As presented in the following section, the City has identified sufficient vacant and
underutilized sites to accommodate its regional growth needs, and will adopt
supplemental zoning and development standards to specifically encourage and
facilitate housing for lower income households.
a. Vacant Land
Most of the vacant land in the city of Saratoga is located in hillside areas. Table B-3
summarizes the vacant land in the city currently zoned for residential use. It is assumed the
estimated capacity of 77 dwelling units would provide residential units suitable to Above-
Moderate Income households.
308
October 2014 B-4
Table B-3. Vacant Land Inventory
Table B-3
Vacant Land Inventory
Land Use Category Zoning No. of
Parcels Acreage Average
Density
Projected
Dwelling
Units
Hillside Conservation Residential
(RHC) HR 31 160.6
1 du/parcel/
6 du/acre
min
411
Hillside Open Space (OS-H) HR 2 12.8 1 du/parcel 2
Medium Density Residential (M-
10) R-1-10,000 9 1.9 1 du/parcel 9
Medium Density Residential (M-
12.5) R-1-12,500 2 1.2 1 du/parcel 2
Medium Density Residential (M-
15) R-1-15,000 1 0.4 1 du/parcel 1
Low Density Residential (RLD) R-1-20,000 3 2.5 1 du/parcel 3
Very Low Density Residential
(RVLD) R-1-40,000 18 31.8 1 du/parcel 18
Total 66 283.9 77
1Density Based on City of Saratoga preliminary application review
Source: City of Saratoga
b. Prospect Road Candidate C-N(RHD) Sites for Mixed-Use Development
As part of the 2007-2014 Housing Element, the City identified six adjoining parcels located
on Prospect Road between Saratoga Avenue and Lawrence Expressway suitable for multi-
family development. These parcels were rezoned from Commercial Neighborhood (CN)
to Commercial Neighborhood Residential High Density C-N(RHD) during the 2007-2014
planning cycle to encourage mixed-use development with a minimum net density
standard of 20 du/ac, allowing units to be counted towards the City’s lower income site
requirement pursuant to the default densities specified under AB 2348. Mixed-use
development is permitted by right in the in the C-N(RHD) district.
The potential development capacity was planned at 87 dwelling units on the identified
underutilized sites utilizing the 20 du/ac density standard. The City has determined that
these parcels can accommodate additional development beyond 20 du/ac given the
density of existing development in the vicinity. Parcels in the city of San Jose border the
candidate sites on three sides. City of San Jose development regulations for this area allow
residential densities starting at 55 du/ac. To make this accommodation the City of
Saratoga will modify the existing C-N(RHD) ordinance to allow for increased height from 30
feet to 35 feet and increase the permitted number of stories from two to three in order to
allow mixed-use development with a residential density of at least 30 du/ac. There is
potential to develop 183 units on the sites utilizing the 30 du/ac density standard. Table B-
4 describes the realistic development capacity for each of the six parcels.
309
October 2014 B-5
Table B-4. Prospect Road Candidate C-N(RHD) Sites
Table B-4
Prospect Road Candidate C-N(RHD) Sites
Parcel APN Existing Use
Description
Acres General
Plan
Zoning Existing
Square
Footage
Proposed
Density
(Minimum)
Capacity
(# of
units)
Notes
1 386-10-
043
Retail,
Restaurant,
Personal
Services
2.27 CR CN(RHD) 23,021 30 du/ac 68
Potential for
lot
consolidation
2 386-10-
004 Personal
Services 1.00 CR CN(RHD) 9,357 30 du/ac 30
3 386-10-
055 Personal
Services 0.29 CR CN(RHD) 5,147 30 du/ac 8
4 386-10-
056 Office 0.70 CR CN(RHD) 3,081 30 du/ac 21
5 386-10-
006 Retail 0.93 CR CN(RHD) 11,381 30 du/ac 28
6 386-10-
007
Retail, Personal
Services,
Office
0.93 CR CN(RHD) 14,527 30 du/ac 28
Sub-Total 6.12 Sub-Total 183
Acreage reduction for
potential accommodation of
emergency shelter
0.3 Total
173
Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department
Exhibit B-1 on the following page shows the location of the Prospect Road sites, as well as
Saratoga Village and Gateway candidate sites described later in this chapter.
310
October 2014 B-6
Exhibit B-1. Housing Opportunity Sites
311
October 2014 B-7
Prospect Road Sites Realistic Capacity
Existing uses within the six underutilized parcels consist of single-story retail, fast food
restaurant and carwash uses surrounded by parking. The uses are located in older single
story structures built between the 1960s and 1980’s. The structures are characterized by
outdated architectural styles consisting of flat roofs with interior court parking offering
limited retail exposure.
These sites are well-suited for higher density residential development. The parcels are
located along a major transportation corridor and easily accessed by bus transit with
proximity to an expressway. Across from these parcels is a grocery store, retail mall and
high school. The parcels contain adequate infrastructure to support residential
development and no environmental constraints have been identified with the potential
to limit residential development.
The six parcels are located near higher
density developments in the neighboring city
of San Jose. These projects illustrate the
development trends occurring in the area.
The City of Saratoga adopted ordinance
amendments to permit mixed-use with high
density residential on these six Candidate
Sites under the new C-N(RHD) zoning district
(15-19.035). The minimum residential density is
20 units per net acre conforming to the
design standards of the Mixed-Use ordinance
(15-58). This C-N(RHD) district also
accommodates emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing for
homeless individuals and families. To further encourage development of mixed-use high
density housing in Saratoga, this Housing Element update includes policy actions that
amend the existing zoning standards for these parcels to allow for increased densities at
a minimum of 30 dwelling units per net acre with height allowance increases of three
stories and 35 feet. This Housing Element update continues to include policy actions to
support partnerships with the development community to provide housing opportunities
for lower income households; and encourage lot consolidation of smaller parcels.
Consistent with SB 2, the City has adopted provisions for Emergency Shelters within the C-
N(RHD) zoning district. In order to reserve C-N(RHD) acreage for potential emergency
shelter use, the City has reduced the total acreage on these six parcels available for
mixed use development by 0.3 acres and reduced the corresponding unit potential by
ten units. The City has determined that there is a potential capacity of 173 dwelling units
on these parcels given the following considerations:
x Site size,
x Accommodation of ground floor commercial uses fronting the street,
x Recent development trends occurring in the area,
x Availability of adequate infrastructure and services,
x Acreage reduction for emergency shelters, and
Existing development at the Prospect Road Site
312
October 2014 B-8
x Ordinance amendments to require a minimum net density of 30 du/ac.
c. Saratoga Village Center Candidate Sites for Mixed-Use Development
The City has identified two adjoining parcels with potential for residential development on
Big Basin Way (known as the historic Saratoga Village). These parcels are located between
Highway 9 and Third Street, and are zoned Commercial Historic District 1 (CH-1). Mixed-use
development is a conditionally permitted use in this zone. The potential redevelopment
capacity for these parcels was determined through an evaluation of the longstanding
retail vacancies at the site, past development interest in the site and existing capacity
under current zoning regulations. The site can accommodate 22 units at a density of 20
dwelling units per net acre with a mix of commercial uses. Table B-5 describes the realistic
development capacity for each of the three parcels that make up the site. Exhibit B-1
shows the location of the three parcels.
Table B-5. Village Sites Inventory
Table B-5
Village Sites Inventory
Parcel APN Existing Use
Description
Acres General
Plan
Zoning Existing
Square
Footage
Proposed
Density
(Min.)
Capacity
(#of units)
Notes
1 517-09-015 Retail,
Personal
Service
1.04 CR CH-1 15,914 20 du/ac 21 Lots under
same
ownership
2 517-09-047 Personal
Service
.08 CR CH-1 3,400 20 du/ac 1
Total 1.12 Total 22
Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department
Saratoga Village Center Sites Realistic Capacity
Existing uses within the two underutilized parcels consist of retail and service uses setback
from the street and surrounded by parking. The uses are located in single story structures
built in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The structures have been predominately vacant for a number
of years following the discontinued operation of a small grocery market. The shopping
center is characterized by outdated ranch style architecture and building orientation that
provides limited retail exposure. The large surface parking lot in the front of the property is
inconsistent with the development pattern and character of the Village along Big Basin
Way.
313
October 2014 B-9
The City reviewed an application for mixed-use
development on the site in 2009 that included
25 residential units and 21,571 square feet of
commercial space. For economic reasons the
development was not pursued at that time.
However, the City has determined that the
current market conditions and the site’s prime
location near the gateway of the downtown
make the site well suited for increased
commercial density mixed with medium density
residential development.
The City had determined that the Saratoga Village Center sites are suitable for
development of 22 units. The sites are located in close proximity to other multi-family
development, bus transit and Highway 9.
d. Saratoga Gateway Candidate Sites for Mixed-Use Development
The City has identified four adjoining parcels with potential for residential development on
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (known as the Gateway Area). These parcels are located on
the west side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to the north of the Southern Pacific Railroad
line, and are zoned Commercial Visitor (C-V). Mixed-use development is a conditionally
permitted use in this zone. The City has determined the potential redevelopment capacity
for these parcels based on the underutilized nature of the site, past and current
development trends in the vicinity, and existing capacity under current zoning regulations.
The site can accommodate 65 units at a density of 15 dwelling units per acre with a mix of
commercial uses. The unit potential was determined through an evaluation of the site’s
proximity to a moderate density housing development located adjacent to the site, and
the development trend within the city’s Gateway Area of housing units located behind a
new commercial building. Table B-6 describes the realistic development capacity for each
of the four parcels that make up the site. Exhibit B-1 shows the location of the four parcels.
Existing development at Saratoga Village Center
314
October 2014 B-10
Table B-6. Gateway Sites Inventory
Table B-6
Gateway Sites Inventory
Parce
l
APN Existing Use
Description
Acres
(net)
General
Plan
Zoning Existing
Square
Footage
Proposed
Density
Capacity
(#of
units)2
Notes
1 366-
12-
072
Mini
Storage
3.221 CR CV 104,526 15 du/ac 36 Potential
for lot
console-
dation 2 366-
12-
054
Retail 1.02 CR CV 12,330 15 du/ac 11
3 366-
12-
065
Funeral
Home
1.03 CR CV 11,288 15 du/ac 11
4 366-
12-
066
Retail .58 CR CV 5,870 15 du/ac 7
Total Total 65
1Includes deduction for 25’ creek bank setback
2 Includes deduction of land area for horizontal mixed use
Source: City of Saratoga Community Development Department
Gateway Sites Realistic Capacity
Existing development on the four underutilized parcels consists of retail and service uses
setback from the street and surrounded by parking. The buildings are all single story
structures built in the late 1960’s and the mid 1980’s. The structures on the sites contain: a
public storage business, a funeral home, and various service and retail businesses. The
center is characterized by outdated ranch style architecture and building orientation and
setbacks that provides limited retail exposure.
The City has determined that the
market conditions and the site’s
location near similarly approved mixed-
use development on Sunnyvale-
Saratoga Road in the Gateway Area
make the site suitable for higher density
residential and commercial mixed-use
development. The site is located on a
major transportation corridor that is
easily accessed by bus transit.
Therefore, the City has determined
these 65 units to be affordable to
moderate income households.
Existing development at Gateway Site
315
October 2014 B-11
e. Fellowship Plaza
The City has identified Fellowship Plaza as
having the greatest potential to
accommodate the RHNA need for Very Low
and Low Income households. The retirement
community is currently comprised of 150
independent living apartments for seniors.
The Conditional Use Permit for Fellowship
Plaza allows for the development of a
minimum of 75 additional units affordable to
Very Low- and Low-Income households
located within a 10.5 acre parcel. The
Conditional Use Permit specifies that
development of these units is by-right without
discretionary action beyond Design Review at a minimum of 20 du/ac.
Table B-7. Fellowship Plaza Retirement Community
Table B-7
Fellowship Plaza Retirement
Community
APN Address Existing Use Acres General
Plan
Zoning
397-12-016 14500 Fruitvale Ave. Fellowship
Plaza
10.53 CFS R-1 – 40,000
Source: City of Saratoga
f. Second Unit Potential
City records show that a total of 65 Second Dwelling Units were constructed between 2001
and 2014, with 22 approved during the most recent 2007-2014 planning period (Table 2-
20). The City anticipates that demand for future Second Dwelling Unit permits will increase
with modifications to the City’s Second Unit Ordinance through adoption of the 2015-2023
Housing Element. Ordinance modifications will include elimination of the minimum unit size
and reductions to the requirements for minimum lot size. To further encourage second unit
development, the City will prepare an informational brochure as part of an overall
program to encourage second unit development. Taking into consideration the strong
support for second units expressed at the Housing Element community workshops, and past
construction achievements, the City anticipates receiving applications for an average of
4 to 5 second units per year. The City’s goal is to achieve 35 Second Dwelling Units over the
course of the eight year planning period.
Fellowship Plaza
316
October 2014 B-12
A survey (Craigslist May 9, 2014 & May 20, 2014) of second unit rentals in Saratoga and
surrounding cities showed rents ranging from $850 to $2,000, with a median rent for a 1
bedroom of $1,600 and $1,360 for a studio. These rents are in the range of Very Low to
Moderate affordability for Santa Clara County. Based on feedback from owners of second
units, City staff understands that a large percentage of second units are occupied rent
free by family members or domestic workers. The City does not maintain records on rents
for second units other than deed restricted units. Surveys done in San Mateo County for the
nearby cities of Woodside, Portola Valley, Los Altos Hills, and Hillsborough indicate that
between 62 and 74 percent of all second units are available to Very Low or Extremely Low
households. These cities are demographically similar to Saratoga. In Saratoga, the majority
of recently constructed second units have utilized the floor area and site coverage bonus
provisions which require that the unit be deed restricted for rent to below market rate
households. During the 2007-2014 Housing Element Cycle, the City issued permits for 18
second units, 13 of which were deed restricted second units. The City estimates that the
deed restricted units would be available for Low income households and the non-deed
restricted units would be available for Moderate income households.
3. Sites Summary
State Housing Element Law requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land
suitable for residential development, including vacant sites, sites having the potential for
redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning, public facilities, and services
to these sites. The inventory of land suitable for residential development must be used to
identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period. In terms of
evaluating the adequacy of these sites to address the affordability targets established by
the RHNA, State Housing Element law provides for the use of “default densities” to assess
affordability. Based on its population, Saratoga falls within the default density of 20
units/acre for providing sites affordable to Very Low- and Low-Income households. For
Moderate-Income households, a threshold of 12 units/acre is used to reflect a reasonable
density for achieving moderate income development.
Table B-8 summarizes the City of Saratoga’s capacity to meet RHNA goals.
317
October 2014 B-13
Table B-8. Sites Summary
Table B-8
Sites Summary
Very Low-
Income1
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Total
2014-2022 RHNA Need 147 95 104 93 439
Approved Units/
Subdivisions
0 0 0 33 33
Vacant Land Capacity 0 0 0 77 77
C-N(RHD) Candidate
Sites
173 0 0 173
Saratoga Village Center
Sites
0 22 0 22
Saratoga Gateway
Sites
65 65
Fellowship Plaza
Retirement
Community
75 0 0 75
Second Unit Potential 18 17 35
TOTAL Unit Potential 283 87 110 480
1The Extremely Low-Income need is assumed to be 50 percent of the Very Low-Income allocation = 73 units.
Source: City of Saratoga
B. Assisted Units “At-Risk” of Conversion
The State Housing Element Law requires jurisdictions to analyze government-assisted
housing that is eligible for conversion from lower income to market rate housing over the
next 10 years. State Law identifies housing assistance as a rental subsidy, mortgage
subsidy, or mortgage insurance to an assisted housing development. Government
assisted housing converts to market rate housing for a number of reasons including
expiring subsidies, mortgage repayments, or expiration of affordability restrictions.
This section will address:
x An inventory of assisted housing units that are “at-risk” of converting
to market rate housing;
x An analysis of the costs of preserving and/or replacing these units;
x Resources that could be used to preserve “at-risk” units;
x Program efforts for preservation of at-risk housing units; and
x Quantified objectives for the number of “at-risk” units to be
preserved during the Housing Element Planning Period.
318
October 2014 B-14
1. Inventory of At-Risk Units
As presented in Table B-9 below, Saratoga has two rent-restricted affordable housing
projects within its jurisdiction. Fellowship Plaza, owned by the not-for-profit California Odd
Fellows Foundation, provides 150 apartments for very low income seniors. Saratoga Court
Senior Apartments was acquired in 1982 by the non-profit Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
(Mid-Pen) and provides 20 very low income independent living units for seniors; the City of
Saratoga provided Mid-Pen with $274,000 in CDBG funds to assist in the acquisition.
Both of these projects are considered
potentially at-risk of conversion during the
ensuing ten years due to expiring use restrictions
and Section 8 contracts subject to periodic
renewals. However, both projects are owned
and managed by non-profit organizations that
have a public purpose to develop and
maintain affordable housing for low income
and special needs populations; and are thus
considered at low risk of conversion.
Table B-9. Publicly Assisted Rental Housing
Table B-9
Publicly Assisted Rental Housing
Project/ Name/
Address
Housing
Type # Units Owner Name
Deed
Restriction
Source
Potential
Conversion
Date
Fellowship Plaza
14520 Fruitvale
Ave.
Senior 150
Odd Fellows
Foundation
(Non-profit)
Sec 202
Sec 8 contract
3/2020
3/2014
Saratoga Court
18855 Cox Ave. Senior 20 Mid-Peninsula Housing
(Non-profit)
Sec 8 NC,
CDBG
Sec 8 contract
1/2019
2/2018
Source: California Housing Partnership, March 2014
2. Preservation and Replacement Costs
As both at-risk projects in Saratoga are already owned by non-profit entities, their
conversion to market rate rentals is highly unlikely. Nonetheless, as the HUD Section 8
contracts and/or capital subsidies have the potential to expire within the next ten years,
for purposes of the Housing Element, these projects are technically considered at potential
risk of conversion.
Preservation or replacement of Saratoga's at-risk projects can be achieved in two primary
ways: 1) provision of rental assistance using other sources of funds; or 2) replacement or
Saratoga Court Complex
319
October 2014 B-15
development of new affordable rental units. These options are discussed below, along with
a general cost estimate for each.
a. Rental Assistance
The long-term availability of funding at the federal level for Section 8 contract renewal is
uncertain. If terminated, rent subsidies using alternative State or local funding sources
could be used to maintain affordability. Subsides could be structured similar to the Section
8 program, whereby HUD pays the owners the difference between what tenants can
afford to pay (30% household income) and what HUD establishes as the Fair Market Rent
(FMR).
The feasibility of this alternative, in the case of the property owners, depends on their
willingness to continue to accept rental vouchers and limit rents to fair market levels. Non-
profit owners are more likely to be willing to accept other rent subsidies, while for-profit
owners will compare the negotiated rents to market rents.
As depicted in Table B-10, the cost of providing rent subsidies to all 170 at-risk units in
Saratoga (the difference between HUD Fair market Rents and maximum affordable rents
for very low income households) is generally estimated at $516,000 per year, translating to
roughly $10 million in subsidies over a 20-year period.
Table B-10. Annual Rent Subsidies Required to Preserve At-risk units
Table B-10
Annual Rent Subsidies Required to Preserve At-Risk Units
Number of
Bedrooms
Number
of Units
2013
Voucher
Payment
Standard
Household
Size
Household
Income
(50%AMI)
Maximum.
Affordable
Rent
Per Unit
Subsidy
Total
Monthly
Subsidy
Total
Annual
Subsidy
1 bdrm 170 $1,315 2 person $42,450 $1,061 $253 $43,000 $516,000
Source: Santa Clara Housing Authority 2013 Voucher Payment Standards; State HCD 2013 Income Limits. Table
calculated by Karen Warner Associates, Inc.
b. Replacement Cost
Saratoga may consider the cost of unit replacement with new construction. Construction
cost estimates include per unit land costs and all hard and soft costs associated with
construction. The analysis assumes the replacement units are garden-style apartments
with parking provided on-site, with an average construction cost of $150 per square foot;
podium style development is typically twice the cost. Square footage estimates are
based on the average unit size per the prevailing sales in the region. Land costs have
been estimated based on a handful of multi-family property sales in Saratoga over the
past several years, which average $100 per square foot.
320
October 2014 B-16
Table B-11. Replacement Costs of At-Risk Units
Table B-11
Replacement Costs of At-Risk
Units
Unit Size Costs per Square
Foot
Average Square
Foot/Unit
Replacement Cost
per Unit
Replacement Cost
for 170 At-Risk Units
1 bedroom $250 775 $194,000 $33 million
Notes:
1Based on the prevailing market conditions. Units assumed as garden-style apartments with on-site parking.
2Based on average square footage reported by RealFacts.
3 Assumes $150 per square foot construction costs and $100 per square foot multi-family land costs.
c. Cost Comparison
Given their non-profit ownership, it is highly unlikely that either of the two “at risk” projects
will convert to market-uses. Nevertheless, the above analysis attempts to estimate the cost
of preserving the at-risk units under various options. The annual cost of providing rental
subsidies required to preserve the 170 assisted units is relatively low at $516,000. However,
long-term affordability of the units cannot be ensured in this manner, unless it was
structured as a one-time rent buy-down. The option of acquiring or developing 170
replacement units is very costly at an estimated $33 million and constrained by a variety of
factors, including limited purchase opportunities of large multi-family properties and the
scarcity of land for new development. The best option to preserve the at-risk units thus
appears to be the purchase of affordability covenants through a one-time rent buy-down.
3. Resources for Preservation
A variety of programs exist to assist cities acquire, replace, or subsidize at-risk affordable
housing units. The following summarizes financial resources available to the City of
Saratoga.
i. Federal Programs
x HOME Investment Partnership – HOME funds are granted by formula basis
from HUD to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable
housing to lower income households. Eligible activities include new
construction, acquisition, rental assistance and rehabilitation.
x Section 8 Rental Assistance Program – The Section 8 Rental Assistance
program provides rental assistance payments to owners of private, market
rate units on behalf of very low-income tenants.
x Section 811/202 Program (Supportive Housing for Person with
Disabilities/Elderly) – Non-profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no
321
October 2014 B-17
interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the
construction of very low-income rental housing for seniors and persons with
disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which
can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities and
immediate care facilities. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation,
new construction and rental assistance.
ii. State Programs
x California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs – CalFHA’s
Multifamily Programs provide permanent financing for the acquisition,
rehabilitation, and preservation or new construction of rental housing that
includes affordable rents for low- and moderate- income families and
individuals. One of the programs is the Acquisition Finance Program, which is
designed to facilitate the acquisition of at-risk affordable housing
developments and provide low cost funding to preserve affordability.
x Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) – This program provides tax credits to
individuals and corporations that invest in low-income rental housing. Tax
credits are sold to those with high liability and proceeds are used to create
housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation and
acquisition of properties.
x California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC) – The California
Community Reinvestment Corporation is a multi-family affordable housing
lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for
low-income families, seniors, and residents with special needs by facilitating
private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of
affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation
and acquisition of properties.
iii. Local Programs
x Monitoring At-Risk Units – Through the Community Development Department,
the City continually monitors the eligibility of affordable housing to convert to
market-rate housing. Constant monitoring allows the City to anticipate the
timeframe by which affordability covenants would expire, allowing the City to
implement various resources to ensure the continued affordability of the
housing units.
iv. Qualified Entities
The following lists qualified entities who are interested in purchasing government-
subsidized multi-family projects within Santa Clara County.
x Affordable Housing Foundation
x BRIDGE Housing Corporation
322
October 2014 B-18
x Cambrian Center, Inc.
x Charities Housing Development Corporation
x Christian Church Homes of Northern California, Inc.
x Community Home Builders and Associates
x Community Housing Developers, Inc.
x Matinah Salaam
x Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
x Palo Alto Housing Corporation
x Palo Alto Senior Housing Project, Inc.
x Satellite Housing, Inc.
x South County Housing, Inc.
a. Quantified Objectives
Housing Element law requires that cities establish the maximum number of units that can
be preserved over the planning period. Two assisted projects with a total of 170 units are
at-risk of converting to market-rate housing within the planning period. Should either of
these properties lose their current funding subsidies and be at real risk of conversion, the
City of Saratoga will explore appropriate funding opportunities to assist in their
preservation.
323
October 2014 C-1
Appendix C: Past Performance
Table C-1. Evaluation of 2007-2014 Housing Element Past Performance
Table C-1
Evaluation of 2007 - 2014 Housing Element Past Performance
Goal 1: To Accommodate the City's Fair Share of the Bay Area Regional Housing Need
Allocation for All Income Groups.
Objective: To designate sufficient vacant land and/or sites with re-use potential to
accommodate the City's allocation under the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND)
adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments. The RHND allocation for Saratoga
between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2014 is as follows:
Program 1.1: Zoning Code Changes for Mixed-Use Overlay
Program
Activity
To further encourage mixed-use development, the City shall amend the Mixed-
Use Overlay D istrict standards:
x To allow both rental and owner occupied residential development
x To remove the 50 percent limit on residential floor area
x To remove the 1,250 square foot maximum on new dwelling units
Level of
Achievement
The City’s Zoning Ordinance was revised on April 21, 2010 and achieved
the following:
x Allowed both rental and owner occupied residential development
x Removed the 50 percent limit on residential floor area
x Removed the 1,250 square foot maximum on new dwelling units
As a result, five residential units in mixed-use projects were permitted in the
Saratoga Village during this period.
Program 1.2: Amend Fellowship Plaza Retirement Community Use Permit
Program
Activity
To accommodate at least 50 percent of the city’s lower-income need (75
units), the City shall amend the Fellowship Plaza Retirement Community
Conditional Use Permit to allow the by-right development without
discretionary action at a minimum of 75 renter and/or owner occupied units
and 20 dwelling units per acre affordable to very low- and low income
households.
Level of
Achievement
The Planning Commission amended the Fellowship Plaza Conditional Use
Permit in November 2013. The City anticipates receiving a development
application during the 2014-2022 planning cycle.
324
October 2014 C-2
Program 1.3: Provide for Adequate Sites for Housing Development
Program Activity
The City shall establish a new mixed-use zoning district
permitting rental and owner-occupied multifamily residential
development as a matter or right with a minimum density
standard of 20 du/ac. The very low- and low-income housing
need shall be accommodated on sites with densities and
development standards that permit at least 16 dwelling
units per site and do not unduly constrain the development
of multi-family h o u s i n g .
Level of Achievement The City Council adopted Ordinance 277 on April 7, 2010
creating the new Mixed-Use Zoning District.
Program Activity The new M ixed-Use Z oning District shall encompass a
minimum of 3.75 acres to accommodate the remaining 50
percent of the City’s lower income need (75 units).
Level of Achievement
A 3.75 acre area on Prospect Road near Lawrence Expressway
was re-zoned C-N(RHD) to allow multi-family development by-
right at a minimum standard of 20 dwelling units per acre. To
further encourage multi-family residential development, the
2015-2023 Housing Element update includes a policy program to
increase the minimum density to 30 du/ac and increase the
height limit from 30 to 35 feet.
Goal 2: Encourage the Construction of Housing Affordable to Lower- and Moderate-
Income Household and Increase Affordable Housing Options.
Objective: To increase the supply of affordable housing and housing options in Saratoga
to house additional households and families earning less than 80% of the Santa Clara
County median income.
Program 2.1: Density Bonuses and Affordable Requirement for Very Low- and Low-
Income Housing
Program Activity Continue implementation of the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Level of Achievement
The City’s Community Development Department continues to
implement Article 15-81 (Housing Density Bonus) of the City’s
Municipal Code.
325
October 2014 C-3
Program 2.2: Encourage Efficient Use of Energy Resources in Residential Development
Program Activity
The City shall encourage housing developers to maximize energy
conservation through proactive site, building, and building
systems design, materials, and equipment. The City encourages
the development community to exceed the provisions of Title 24
of the California Building Code. The City shall encourage the use
of Energy Star®- rated appliances, other energy-saving
technologies and conservation. To enhance the efficient use of
energy resources, the City shall review the potential of offering
incentives or other strategies that encourage energy
Level of Achievement
In September 2013, the City Council approved a waiver of the
Energy Calculation Review fee for all deed restricted affordable
housing units that meet CalGreen requirements. Twelve deed
restricted units were permitted.
Program 2.3: Encourage Green Building Practices in Home Construction
Program Activity
The City understands the importance of sustainable use of
limited resources and encourages the use of “green building”
practices in new and existing housing. The City’s Design Review
process requires that new and existing residential home
construction projects include a completed GreenPoint Rated
Checklist. The GreenPoint Rated Checklist tracks green features
Level of Achievement The City requires compliance with Green Building standards.
Information on green building and energy conservation is
available on the City’s website.
Program 2.4: Encourage and Facilitate Lot Consolidation
Program Activity
The City will encourage and facilitate the consolidation of the
identified candidate sites through a variety of incentives,
including but not limited to: financial incentives such as CDBG
funds, land write-downs, assistance with on- or off-site
infrastructure costs, and other pre-development costs
associated with the assemblage of multiple parcels.
Consolidation will provide the opportunity to develop these
underutilized lots to their fullest potential. The City will evaluate
the appropriateness of a variety of incentives and provide this
information to the developers and other interested parties
Level of Achievement
The City Council on September 4, 2013 approved a waiver of the
application costs associated with lot mergers, in an amount not
to exceed $5,000 for projects that provide a minimum of 20
percent deed restricted units affordable to low and very-low
income households.
326
October 2014 C-4
Program 2.5: Review In-Lieu Park Facilities Fee for Affordable Housing Development
Program Activity
To ensure that the existing in-lieu park facilities fee is not a
constraint on the development of affordable housing, the City
shall review the fee and revise, as appropriate. If the City does
not revise the fee, alternative strategies will be considered to
address any potential future constraints to the development of
housing.
Level of Achievement
The City Council on September 4, 2013 approved a waiver of the
park-in-lieu fee for all new deed restricted units affordable to low
and very-low income seniors.
Program 2.6: Review Multi-Family Parking Requirement for Affordable Housing
Development
Program Activity
To ensure that the existing multi-family parking requirement is
not a constraint to the development of affordable housing, the
City shall review the requirement and revise, as appropriate. If
the City does not revise the requirement, alternative strategies
will be considered to address any potential future constraints to
the development of housing.
Level of Achievement
The City Council adopted Ordinance 307 on October 16, 2013
that decreased parking requirements for senior and student
housing projects.
Program 2.7: Development of Housing for Extremely Low-Income Households
Program Activity
The City understands the need to encourage and facilitate
housing development for households earning 30 percent or less
of the median family income. The City will encourage
development of housing for extremely-low income households
through a variety of activities that may include outreaching to
housing developers, identifying grant and funding opportunities,
and/or offering additional incentives beyond the density bonus
provisions.
Level of Achievement
Second dwelling units are a source of housing for low income
households. The City encourages their development by providing
a 10 percent increase in floor and lot coverage if the units are
deed restricted, thereby limiting their rental to below market rate.
Thirteen deed restricted units and five non-deed restricted units
were permitted during this period.
327
October 2014 C-5
Program 2.8: Housing Opportunities for Persons Employed in Saratoga
Program Activity
The City shall explore opportunities to provide additional local
housing options for the city’s workforce, including rental housing
for families. These opportunities could include increasing public
awareness of the City’s housing assistance programs and
partnering with local universities to explore student and
faculty housing development.
Level of Achievement
The City has contacted the West Valley College administration
and expressed the City’s willingness to assist West Valley College
in the exploration of opportunities to develop housing for both
students and faculty.
Goal 3: Rehabilitation of Existing Housing
Objective: To eliminate substandard housing conditions in Saratoga through financial
assistance to low-income homeowners who are unable to properly maintain or repair
their homes.
Program 3.1: Saratoga Housing Rehabilitation and Assistance Program
Program Activity
Subject to available CDBG funds, the City will continue to
provide funds to the County of Santa Clara’s office of Affordable
Housing for the Housing Rehabilitation Program. The City shall
continue to refer interested residents to the County program.
Level of Achievement CDBG funds are no longer available from the County for this
program. However, in 2008 a $100,000 grant was made to a
household in Saratoga under this program.
Program 3.2: Code Enforcement
Program Activity
The City has a high level of quality housing. In order to
maintain the housing quality, the City will provide information
about rehabilitation programs on an individual basis, as needed.
Level of Achievement
CDBG funds are no longer available from the County for this
program. The City continues to perform code enforcement,
however, no home repair funds for lower income resident s were
available.
328
October 2014 C-6
Goal 4: Promote Design and Livability
Objective: Saratoga has unique, long-established neighborhoods that contribute to
community character and guide development within the City. Community design is
important in order to ensure quality design of new developments and to enhance the
aesthetic qualities of the City.
Program 4.1: Maintain Community Design
Program Activity
To ensure quality design of new housing units and modifications
to existing housing units, the City will review and revise the
General Plan or Zoning Code and enforce the design guidelines
and update as needed to provide aesthetic direction for future
residential development.
Level of Achievement The City Council adopted an update to the Single-Family Design
Guideline in February 2014.
Program 4.2: Encourage Mixed-use Development in Saratoga Village
Program Activity
The City shall evaluate the appropriateness of revisions to the
Zoning Code to further encourage rental and/or owner-
occupied residential development in the Saratoga Village.
Amendments and modifications to the existing Zoning Code
may include mixed-use development standards, infill
development standards, and adaptive reuse, live/work and
multi-family development standards.
Level of Achievement
The City Council adopted Ordinance 277 on April 7, 2010 for
Mixed-Use development standards. As a result, five residential
units in mixed-use projects in the Saratoga Village were
permitted during this period.
Program 4.3: Preserve the Saratoga Village
Program Activity
The City understands the importance of conserving the
community’s historic downtown district, “Saratoga Village”, to
preserve the city’s commercial resources and provide
opportunities for mixed-use development. The City shall continue
to implement design criteria in Saratoga Village to preserve the
area’s character and to enhance the aesthetic qualities of new
residential and commercial developments.
Level of Achievement
The Community Development Department continues to
distribute copies of the Village Design Guidelines and these
guidelines are implemented during the review of all
developments in the Saratoga Village.
329
October 2014 C-7
Goal 5: Access to Housing Opportunities
Objective: The City promotes the practice of providing equal housing opportunities
for all persons. Housing should be available for all persons regardless of income,
family status, presence of a disability, age, race, sex, national origin, or color. The
City encourages the provision of housing to meet needs of families with children,
elderly households, persons with disabilities, the homeless and all other segments of
Program 5.1: Encourage Development of Second Dwelling Units
Program Activity
To ensure the City’s existing policies and procedures for
second dwelling units are effective in providing additional
affordable housing opportunities, the City shall review the
existing Second Unit Ordinance and identify revisions, as
appropriate, to further encourage the development of second
dwelling units.
Level of Achievement
The Community Development Department reviewed Article 15-
56 (Second Dwelling Units) of the City’s Municipal Code and has
decided that comprehensive revisions would occur during the
2015-2023 Housing Element Update. Eighteen units were added,
with thirteen of these being deed restricted during this period.
Program 5.2: Senior Housing and Affordable Senior Housing
Program Activity
The City recognizes the unique needs of its elderly residents.
Seniors may have fixed incomes and need unique housing
features that are not typically included in market rate housing.
The City shall encourage, through incentives (e.g. parking
reductions, etc.), the development of senior housing that offers
a wide range of housing choices, for both affordable and
market rate, from independent living to assisted living with
services on-site, including healthcare, nutrition, transportation,
Level of Achievement The City Council adopted Ordinance 307 on October 16, 2013
that decreased parking requirements for senior housing projects.
330
October 2014 C-8
Program 5.3: Compliance with SB 2 (Sections 65582, 65583, and 65589.5 of the Government
Code)
Program Activity
Pursuant to the provisions of SB 2, the City shall analyze and
revise the existing Zoning Code to allow for emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and supportive housing for homeless
individuals and families. The City will comply with SB 2 by:
x Amending the zoning code to provide sufficient
capacity to accommodate emergency shelters to
meet the identified local homeless need, pursuant to
SB 2. The City will consider and analyze the
commercial (C-N, C-V and C-H) zoning districts to meet
the requirements of SB 2.
x Amending the Zoning Code to ensure shelters are only
subject to the same development and management
standards that apply to residential or commercial uses
within the same zone.
x Amending the Zoning Code to permit transitional and
supportive housing as a residential use in all residential
zones and only subject to those restrictions that apply to
other residential uses of the same type in the same zone.
Level of Achievement
The City Council adopted Ordinance 277 on April 21, 2010 that
included a new zoning district C-N(RHD) that allowed the siting
of emergency shelters, transitional housing, and sup portive
housing for homeless individuals and families.
Program 5.4: Reasonable Accommodations
Program Activity
To comply with State law (SB 520), the City will analyze
existing land use controls, building codes, and permit and
processing procedures to determine constraints they impose on
the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing
for persons with disabilities. Based on its findings, the City will
develop a policy for reasonable accommodation to provide
relief to Code regulations and permitting procedures that have
a discriminatory effect on housing for individuals with
disabilities. The policy shall include procedures for requesting
accommodation, a timeline for processing and appeals, and
criteria for determining whether a requested accommodation
is reasonable.
Level of Achievement
The City Council adopted Ordinance 277 on April 21, 2010 that
established a process for reasonable accommodations to
provide relief to Code regulations and permitting procedures to
individuals with disabilities.
331
October 2014 C-9
Program 5.5: Zoning to Encourage and Facilitate Single-Room Occupancy Units
(SRO’s)
Program Activity
The City understands the importance of single-room
occupancy units to provide housing opportunities for lower-
income individuals, persons with disabilities, the elderly and
formerly homeless individuals. The City shall amend the Zoning
Code to establish explicit definitions for and regulatory
standards addressing single- room occupancy units. The
Zoning Code will include development standards and
permitting procedures that encourage and facilitate
development of SRO housing, consistent with State law.
Level of Achievement The City Council adopted Ordinance 313 on February 5, 2014
to amend the Zoning Code to include development standards
for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing.
Program 5.6: Monitoring and Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing
Program Activity
The City s hall continue to maintain a data base to provide
for the regular monitoring of deed-restricted units that have
the potential of converting to market- rate during the
planning period. Additionally, the City will review funding
opportunities for owners of these units to extend and/or renew
deed restrictions and/or covenants.
To proactively address the conversion of affordable units to
market-rate units concern, the City will investigate strategies
to preserve the affordable units. The City shall ensure
compliance with noticing requirements and provide for
tenant education when a notice of conversion is received.
Level of Achievement
The City maintains a list of the affordable units within the City
and along with the County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable
Housing is prepared to ensure compliance with noticing
requirements and tenant education when notice of conversion
is received. No deed restricted units were converted during this
332
October 2014 C-10
Goal 6: Coordinated Housing Efforts
Objective: The City of Saratoga has limited local resources to provide for housing
and housing-related activities. Therefore, to maximize use of limited local resources,
the City strives to build partnerships and coordinate housing efforts with outside
agencies and organizations.
Program 6.1: Promote Fair Housing Efforts
Program Activity
The City currently disseminates fair housing information packets
about Fair Housing Regulations and refers discrimination
complaints to the Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing or to
the County of Santa Clara County Office of Consumer Affairs.
The City will continue to participate in the County’s mediation
program and will continue to support these organizations which
provide fair housing assistance including landlord/tenant
counseling, homebuyer assistance, and amelioration or removal
of identified impediments.
Level of Achievement
The Community Development Department continues to refer all
housing discrimination complaints to the Santa Clara County
Office of Consumer Affairs and continues to participate in the
County’s mediation program for housing discrimination issues.
Program 6.2: Develop a Comprehensive Community Outreach Strategy for Housing
Program Activity
To ensure the Saratoga community is provided the highest
level of access to housing information, the City shall evaluate
the effectiveness of existing outreach and community education
efforts and develop a comprehensive outreach strategy. The
outreach strategy will consider various methods of delivery,
including print media, mailers, web-based information and other
methods that consider the economic and cultural considerations
in Saratoga.
Level of Achievement
The City’s website includes links that direct the public to the City
Code and the General Plan, which includes the Housing
Element. The City also uses print media, direct mailings and social
media to disseminate housing information.
333
October 2014 C-11
Program 6.3: Partnerships with Development Community
Program Activity
The City supports cooperation in the development of affordable
housing through working with local housing trust and non-profit
agencies. The City will continue to cooperate with developers
to provide housing opportunities for lower income households;
prioritize efforts and resources to the identified sites for rezoning
to promote a variety of housing types, such as rental units,
affordable to lower income households. The City shall also
evaluate the effectiveness of its partnerships with housing
developers and seek ways to expand and foster its
partnerships as appropriate.
Level of Achievement
The City is prepared to cooperate with developers in the
construction of affordable housing by helping to identify possible
sites that could be rezoned to promote a variety of housing
types, such as rental units, affordable to lower income
Program 6.4: Healthy Community
Program Activity
The City supports residential development that promotes
healthy life styles (i.e. recreational activities, encourages
pedestrian and bicycle use and continued support of the
Level of Achievement The City Council adopted Ordinance 294 on September 4, 2012
to require retail and financial uses in all commercial districts,
with the exception of the C-H District to provide off-street
334
October 2014 C-12
Table C-2. Progress in Achieving Housing Element Quantified Objectives 2007-2014
Table C-2
Progress in Achieving Housing Element Quantified
Objectives 2007 - 2014
Program Quantified Objective Level of Achievement
New Construction
Very Low-Income 90 0
Low Income 68 15
Moderate Income 77 7
Above Moderate Income 57 30
Total 292 52
Housing Rehabilitation
Very Low-Income 10 1
Low Income 10 0
Moderate Income Not Applicable Not Applicable
Above Moderate Income Not Applicable Not Applicable
Total 20 1
Preservation of At-Risk Rental Housing
Extremely Low Income 85 85
Very Low-Income 85170 85170
Low Income 0 Not Applicable
Moderate Income 0 Not Applicable
Above Moderate Income Not Applicable Not Applicable
Total 170 170
335
October 2014 D-1
Appendix D: Glossary of Terms
Above-Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually
greater than 120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as
determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence
of such a survey, based on the latest available legibility limits established by the U.S.
Department of housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the §8 housing program.
Apartment. An apartment is one (1) or more rooms in an apartment house or dwelling
occupied or intended or designated for occupancy by one (1) family for sleeping or
living purposes and containing one (1) kitchen.
Assisted Housing. Generally multi-family rental housing, but sometimes single- family
ownership units, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been
subsidized by federal, state, or local housing programs including, but not limited to
Federal state, or local housing programs including, but not limited to Federal §8 (new
construction, substantial rehabilitation, and loan management set-asides), Federal §s
213, 236, and 202, Federal §221 (d) (3) (below-market interest rate program), Federal
§101 (rent supplement assistance), CDBG, FmHA
§515, multi-family mortgage revenue bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieu
fee programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density
bonus programs.
Below-market-rate (BMR). Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to
low- or moderate-income households for an amount less than the fair-market value of
the unit. Both the State of California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development set standards for determining which households qualify as “low income”
or “moderate income.” (2) The financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates.
Build-out. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all
developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum level of
development envisioned by the General Plan. Build-out does not assume that each
parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning
regulations.
336
October 2014 D-2
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). A grant program administered by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for
entitlement communities and by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and
counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public
facilities and economic development
Condominium. A structure of two or more units, the interior spaces of which are
individually owned; the balance of the property (both land and building) is owned in
common by the owners of the individual units. (See “Townhouse.”)
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A term used to describe restrictive
limitations that may be placed on property and its use, and which usually are made a
condition of holding title or lease.
Deed. A legal document which affects the transfer of ownership of real estate from the
seller to the buyer.
Density Bonus. The allocation of development rights that allow a parcel to
accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the
maximum for which the parcel is zoned, usually in exchange for the provision or
preservation of an amenity at the same site or at another location.
Density, Residential. The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of
land. Densities specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or
per net developable acre.
Developable Land. Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be
developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural
resource areas.
Down Payment. Money paid by a buyer from his own funds, as opposed to that portion
of the purchase price which is financed.
Duplex. A detached building under single ownership that is designed for occupation as
the residence of two families living independently of each other.
Dwelling Unit (du). A building or portion of a building containing one or more rooms,
designed for or used by one family for living or sleeping purposes, and having a separate
bathroom and only one kitchen or kitchenette. See Housing Unit.
337
October 2014 D-3
Elderly Housing. Typically one- and two-bedroom apartments or condominiums
designed to meet the needs of persons 62 years of age and older or, if more than 150
units, persons 55 years of age and older, and restricted to occupancy by them.
Emergency Shelter. A facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and
supplemental services for the homeless. Shelters come in many sizes, but an optimum
size is considered to be 20 to 40 beds. Supplemental services may include food,
counseling, and access to other social programs. (See “Homeless” and “Transitional
Housing.”)
Extremely Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income equal to or less
than 30% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined
by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a
survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.
Fair Market Rent. The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposed of administering the
Section 8 Existing Housing Program.
Family. (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of
the Census]. (2) An Individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a
bona fide single-family housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity,
sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house or institution
of any kind [California].
General Plan. A comprehensive, long-term plan mandated by State Planning Law for
the physical development of a city or county and any land outside its boundaries which,
in its judgment, bears relation to its planning. The plan shall consist of seven required
elements: land use, circulation, open space, conservation, housing, safety, and noise.
The plan must include a statement of development policies and a diagram or diagrams
illustrating the policies.
Goal. A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the City will
direct effort.
Green Building. Green or sustainable building is the practice of creating healthier and
more resource-efficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance,
and demolition. (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Historic Preservation. The preservation of historically significant structures and
neighborhoods until such time as, and in order to facilitate, restoration and rehabilitation
of the building(s) to a former condition.
338
October 2014 D-4
Historic Property. A historic property is a structure or site that has significant historic,
architectural, or cultural value.
Household. All those persons—related or unrelated—who occupy a single housing unit.
(See “Family.”)
Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). The State agency that has
principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the
needs of low-and moderate-income households.
Housing Element. One of the seven State-mandated elements of a local general plan,
it assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the
community, identifies potential sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of
housing needed, and contains adopted goals, policies, and implementation programs
for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Under State law,
Housing Elements must be updated every five years.
Housing Payment. For ownership housing, this is defined as the mortgage payment,
property taxes, insurance and utilities. For rental housing this is defined as rent and
utilities.
Housing Ratio. The ratio of the monthly housing payment to total gross monthly income.
Also Called Payment-to-Income Ratio or Front-End Ratio.
Housing Unit. The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A
housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a
modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered
real property under State law.
Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD). A cabinet-level
department of the federal government that administers housing and community
development programs.
Implementing Policies. The City’s statements of its commitments to consistent actions.
Implementation. Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carry out policies.
Infill Development. The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered
vacant lots in a built-up area or on new building parcels created by permitted lot splits.
339
October 2014 D-5
Jobs-Housing Balance. A ratio used to describe the adequacy of the housing supply
within a defined area to meet the needs of persons working within the same area. The
General Plan uses ABAG’s definition which is a job total equal to 1.2 times the number
of housing units within the area under consideration.
Land Use Classification. A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of
properties.
Live-Work Units. Buildings or spaces within buildings that are used jointly for commercial
and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary or
accessory to the primary use as a place of work.
Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than
51%-80% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined
by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a
survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the §8 housing program.
Low-income Housing Tax Credits. Tax reductions provided by the federal and State
governments for investors in housing for low-income households.
Manufactured Housing. Residential structures that are constructed entirely in the factory,
and which since June 15, 1976, have been regulated by the federal Manufactured
Home Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 under the administration of the U.
S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (See “Mobile Home” and
“Modular Unit.”)
Mixed-use. Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional,
and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated
development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent
physical design. A “single site” may include contiguous properties.
Moderate-income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater
than 81%-120% of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as
determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence
of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing
program.
Monthly Housing Expense. Total principal, interest, taxes, and insurance paid by the
borrower on a monthly basis. Used with gross income to determine affordability.
Multiple Family Building. A detached building designed and used exclusively as a
dwelling by three or more families occupying separate suites.
340
October 2014 D-6
Ordinance. A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority,
usually a city or county.
Overcrowding Housing Unit. A housing unit in which the members of the household or
group are prevented from the enjoyment of privacy because of small room size and
housing size. The U.S. Bureau of Census defines an overcrowded housing unit as one
which is occupied by more than one person per room.
Parcel. A lot or tract of land.
Planned Unit. Development (PUD) A self-contained development, often with a mixture
of housing types and densities, in which subdivision and zoning controls are applied
to the project as a whole rather than to individual lots, as in most subdivisions. Densities
and lot sizes are calculated for the entire development, usually permitting a trade-off
between the clustering of houses and provision of common open space or other
amenities.
Planning Area. The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city’s planning area
typically encompasses the city limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of
influence.
Policy. A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies a clear
commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency
sets to follow, in order to meet its objectives before undertaking an action program. (See
“Program.”)
Poverty Level. As used by the U.S. Census, families and unrelated individuals are
classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that
provides a range of income cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” varying by size of family,
number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each
year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.
Program. An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to
achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how”
and “when” for carrying out the “what” and “where” of goals and objectives.
Redevelop. To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing
on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.
Regional. Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single
jurisdiction, and affecting a broad geographic area.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). A quantification by ABAG of existing and
projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region.
341
October 2014 D-7
Rehabilitation. The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.
Residential. Land designated in the General Plan and zoning ordinance for building
consisting of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See “Dwelling
Unit.”)
Residential Care Facility. A facility that provides 24-hour care and supervision to its
residents.
Residential, Multiple Family. Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which
may be in the same or separate buildings.
Residential, Single-Family. A single dwelling unit on a building site.
Retrofit. To add materials and/or devices to an existing building or system to improve its
operation, safety, or efficiency. Buildings have been retrofitted to use solar energy and
to strengthen their ability to withstand earthquakes, for example.
Rezoning. An amendment to the map to effect a change in the nature, density, or
intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.
Second Unit. A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in
addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. “Granny Flat” is one type of
second unit.
Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one
of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low-income households. The
program operates by providing “housing assistance payments” to owners, developers,
and public housing agencies to make up the difference between the “Fair Market Rent”
of a unit (set by HUD) and the household’s contribution toward the rent, which is
calculated at 30% of the household’s adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). “Section 8”
includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate
housing rehabilitation.
Shared Living. The occupancy of a dwelling unit by persons of more than one family in
order to reduce housing expenses and provide social contact, mutual support, and
assistance. Shared living facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all
residential districts by §1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Single-family Dwelling, Attached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy
by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such
dwelling unit. (See “Townhouse.”)
342
October 2014 D-8
Single-family Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy
by only one household that is structurally independent from any other such dwelling unit
or structure intended for residential or other use. (See “Family.”)
Single Room Occupancy (SRO). A single room, typically 80-250 square feet, with a sink
and closet, but which requires the occupant to share a communal bathroom, shower,
and kitchen.
Subsidize. To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting to terms or favors
that reduces the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms
of mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or state income taxes,
sale or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing,
payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.
Substandard Housing. Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do
not provide safe and sanitary housing.
Supportive Housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the
target population as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 53260(d),
and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident
in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her
ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. “Target population" means
adults with low incomes having one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or
AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for
services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and
may, among other populations, include families with children, elderly persons, young
adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings,
veterans, or homeless people. [California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.14(b)
and 53260(d)]
Target Areas. Specifically designated sections of the community where loans and grants
are made to bring about a specific outcome, such as the rehabilitation of housing
affordable by very-low and low-income households.
Tax Increment. Additional tax revenues that result from increases in property values
within a redevelopment area. State law permits the tax increment to be earmarked for
redevelopment purposes but requires at least 20% to be used to increase and improve
the community’s supply of very low and low income housing.
Tenure. A housing unit is “owned” if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is
“owned only if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. A cooperative or condominium unit
is “owned only if the owner or co-owner lives in it. All other occupied units are classified
as “rented,” including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without payment
of cash rent.
343
October 2014 D-9
Townhouse. A townhouse is a dwelling unit located in a group of three (3) or more
attached dwelling units with no dwelling unit located above or below another and with
each dwelling unit having its own exterior entrance.
Transitional Housing. Shelter provided to the homeless for an extended period, often as
long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling
programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable
income and permanent housing. (See “homeless” and “Emergency Shelter.”)
Undevelopable. Specific areas where topographic, geologic, and/or superficial soil
conditions indicate a significant danger to future occupants and a liability to the City
are designated as “undevelopable” by the City.
344