Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-2006 Planning Commission PacketANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any ~ subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to I speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA VEST O ADDRESS HE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ~-¢' SC~~ '~~ ~- ADDRESS SUBJECT ~ ~ Cw~-~-~ AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE TELEPHONE NO. ~6 7 ~~ 7 7 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT ~ ~o (Please read instructions on reverse side) CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME Q~ ~ ~ ~~ l~ (~ ~ ~~ ADDRESS \~,Z~~O (~~A'l 6~ T~YZ_ ~ y~~ SUBJECT ~ ~(~ C,Q.~ ~J -- C.~a~.G~ ~ S-2 . ~p~ AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE ~ '2-~ TELEf P,H~ ONE NO. ~S -~J((J ~~ TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT ~ ~ ~ ~ Ifs (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members-are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA TO ADDRESS THE PLANE COMMISSION NAME ADDRESS ~~ ,ems ~ SUBJECT ~G~I~ r22L~~1 ~!~~"'~ ~ AGENDA ITEM NO. C9~%ATE TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT~p~ ~ ' (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ~ e ~~ S-e ~ o~ ~ b~e r~ ADDRESS 2 S ~ ~ ~ \' ~1 SUBJECT C7~°_vt~E ~ ~,~ ~~G~v~ ~~ T~~1n~~•~ ~~-~-~ V~?~~, 'e., AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE `~ ~- ~ TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT ~ : ~ ° j~ v~ (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ADDRESS SUBJECT ~ (/~ AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE 7 a--7 TELEPHONE NO.-~'-~~ 7 7 TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT ~_ ~ ~ ~~ (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA j ~ ~ REQUEST TO AD~DJRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ O O~- ADDRESS ~ 1"T 7 ; l/ /Ua~ 27 SUBJECT I ~ " ~ 1--^~ AGENDA ITEM NO. ~-~ ~" , DATE TELEPHONE NO. -- - TIME OF DAY CARD IS~EILL~D OUT ~~' (~~ (Please read instructions on reverse side) REQUEST TO NAME / ~G~ ~ ,L ADDRESS G ~~ f~ CITY OF SARATOGA ~DRFSS THE PLANNING COMMISSION .L [_- /~ SUBJECT .f/f~L ~~.1~/Y~')/~'1L//'I /C.~7''7 0 AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE j~.y TELEPI-TONE NO. TIME OF DAY CAiZD IS FILLED OUT ~p:.5S tPlease read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ~ ~ 0 ~,~,~~~ ADDxESS ~ ~ ~ ~ I S ~~- o ~ ~~ SUBJECT ~ ~r~ ~ ~v }~ AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE ~'Z --~~ELEP ONE NO.~"/~ ~ TIME OF DAY CAS IS FILLED Ol~T '(Please read instructions pan reverse side) ANY PERVSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is app~eciat~d. NAME /~~ ADDRESS SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS ATE / ~i / TELEPHONE NO. OUT ~ ~ ~ ~~ (Please read instructions on reverse side) CITY OF SARATOGA ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO AD RESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME ~i~fa2 ~~' .c,/ /~,L,v ADDRESS Pia ~~ ~ ~ Q SUBJECT ~/~j,~/ /~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE~~x7 TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT 7'0'0 (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA NAME ,~~t7/ (/y/~~i7 ~ .- ADDRESS SUBJECT. COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. Zi DATE Z TELEPHONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT ~ `~ ~. (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. NAME ADDRESS SUBJECT CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS HE PLANNING COMMISSION ~/>~ Nl l~ ~~~ f~ AGENDA I3'EM i~0. TIME OE OAY CARD IS FILLED OUT TELEPHONE NO.~ ~ ~ ~~ }' / . ,~ (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS ~'HE PLANNING COMMISSION: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. NAME ADDRESS SUBJECT CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION J' / ~ Sa-/Pi~~riv AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE - 2 TELEi'HONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT (P}ease read instructions on reverse side) A~iY PERSOi~T DE~IRI~iG TO ADDRESS THE PLANi~ING COMiVIISSI0i~1: Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and address and process to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss No member of the audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the members are discussing the item. Following discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be recognized in the order these cards are filled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION • SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 3:30 p.m. PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. APPLICATION #OS-220 STANLEY/FLANAGAN 14567 Big Basin Wy. The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties that are new items on the Planning Commission Agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is encouraged that the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions that may arise. Site visits are generally short (10 to 20 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. During the Site Visit, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed projector other matters. The Site Visit is afact-finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the Visit. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION • STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 27, 2006, 5:30 p.m. PLACE: Arts and Craft Room located at 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga TvrE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 7, 2006. APPLICATION #07-082 (City Wide) Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan and Negative Declaration: The proposed project includes an update of the City's Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan and Negative Declaration. These Elements establish City goals and policies related to the location, type, density and intensity of development in the City as well as the location of trails, open space and natural resource areas. The study session is an information meeting for the Planning Commission. No decisions will be made at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, September 13, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Therese M. Schmidt, AIC Associate Planner MEETING DATE: September 27, 2006 SUBJECT: General Plan Technical Update of the Land Use Element; combining the Open Space and Conservation Elements; updating the Land Use map; and a proposed Negative Declaration: RECOMMENDATION: ', Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed General Plan Update and proposed Negative Declaration and provide input to staff. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project includes an update of the City's Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan. These Elements establish City goals and policies related to the location, type, density and intensity of development in the City as well as the location of trails, open space and natural resource areas. The City of Saratoga is updating this Element primarily to meet current State Law requirements. As part of the update, minor changes are proposed to the existing Land Use Element and Map to reduce and simplify land use administration. The intent of this effort is not to change the amount or type of development allowed on the subject properties. A proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared for the project. The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration certify that the City of Saratoga has determined that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated to be associated with the project. Public Noticing Notice for the September 27, 2006, Study Session was mailed to property owners of affected parcels as well as a 1/8th page add printed in the Saratoga News. STUDY SESSION REQUIREMENTS: During the Study Session, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Study Session is afact-finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from /~'linvtirr~; Cnrn~scis:+~inrr Stzrih~ Sessioiz n-li-rnni-aricliant General l'lnn t.%pilirie - ~%2"%I( 2 members of the public attending the meeting. No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Land Use Element 2) Draft Open Space/Conservation Element 3) Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Table w/Exhibits • • • i • Attachment 1 I~ • ,` oS SAp9 T "v~ ~7 i ~`. ~~ ionu _..~~, 'Z~F_O,R?~~ DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT- • AUGUST 25, 2006 PREPARED BY: LINGO-MCCORMICK CONSULTING JERRY HAAG, URBAN PLANNER SA ~ of ._ R9?, :~ ~> ~ OC - iU4 r 9 f ~~~`~q~=.asa ~~~~~ Draft Land Use Element IFOFtT~ Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 2 LAND USE PLAN . I 1 LAND USE ISSUES 18 ADMINISTERING AND IMPLEMENTING THE LAND USE ELEMENT 21 GOALS AND STRATEGIES 22 • LIST OF TABLES LU-1 Land Use Categories 17 LIST OF EXHIBITS LU-1 Regional Location 3 LU-2 Saratoga Planning Area 4 LU-3 Specific Plan Areas ~ 9 LU-4 Flooding Potential 10 LU-5 Land Use Map 16 LU-6 Saratoga Woods Neighborhood 19 APPENDIX Land Use Element Implementation Program Measure G Hillside Specific Plan Saratoga Village Specific Plan Saratoga Village Design Guidelines Gateway Area Design Guidelines Joint Planning Principles for West Valley Hillsides it Saratoga General Plan i August 25, 2006 ^L of SAA~T i~Ut'.. - O9 i ` lase ;.~ i' ~.09~IFOR~l~ INTRODUCTION Purpose Saratoga's low density residential land use pat- tern is well-established and unlikely to chance. This Element describes the history of land use planni~ in Saratoga discusses the major issues that face the City and presents the goal and strat~,ies that will determine how land use and growth will be managed in Saratoga over the next 20 to 25 years. Consistent with State Law this Land Use Ele- ment describes the general location and extent of land uses within Saratoga for housing. business. men spaces civic and other uses. It also in- eludes standards for gonulation densityand land use intensity for the various types of land uses encompassed in the Element. This Element is intended to serve as a central framework for the entire General Plan and as a guide to planners, the general public and decision makers as to the desired~attern of development for Saratoga. Relationship to Other Elements According to State Planning Law, each Element is distinct and all the Elements together com- prise the General Plan. All Elements of the Gen- eral Plan are interrelated to a degree, and certain goals and~olicies of each Element may also ad- dress issues that are the primary subiects of other Elements The integration of overlappinc issues throughout the Elements provides a stronc basis for implementation of plans and nrocrams, and achievement of community goals. This Ele- ment establishes the planned land use pattern for Saratoga based on historic development and the community's vision for the future. Land use planni~~takes into consideration housing needs identified in the Housin~~Element. natural and manmade hazards and development constraints identified in the Safety Element, and the oven space and Saratoga General Plan Draft Land Use Element conservation~oals and strategies that are out- lined in the Omen mace/Conservation Element. Alternatively the other Elements ensure that infrastructure utilities and public facilities are available to accommodate planned land uses, and that the unique qualities of Saratoga are safeguarded and enhanced. Finally, a circulation flan is established in the Circulation Element to accommodate increased traffic from planned uses in accordance with the Land Use Element. August 25, 2006 • • oS SA~q~ ,uL'1 O7 i ' ioso i~ OgLIFOR~~/ Draft Land Use Element BACKGROUND Regional Settin The City of Saratoga is located in the westerly portion of Santa Clara Count just southwest of _ the major metropolitan community of San Jose and approximately 35 miles south of San Fran- cisco. Saratoga is found at the southerly end of the San Francisco~eninsula. The north, south and easterly Dortion of the community is sited on an historic alluvial plain shared with the adjacent communities of Cupertino. San Jose. Los Gatos and Monte Ser- eno. The westerly portion occupies low-lying foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains and is ad- iacent to unincomorated vropertes within Santa Clara County: Maior regional access to the community is nro- vided by State Route 85 LSR-852, asix-lane freeway linki~ to US 280 in Cupertino and US 101 to the north in Mountain View. US 101 south in San Jose, and to SR 17 to north San Jose and southwest to Santa Cruz County. Local roadways linkin Sg aratoga to surrounding com_ munities include Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. . Saratoga Avenue Highway 9 and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road. Figure LU 1 shows the regional setting of Saratoga. Saratoga's Planning Area Saratoga's Planning Area consists of all nroner- ties located within the incorporated boundary of the City~as well as lands within City's Sphere of Influence. As of 2006, lands within the Citv limits consists of approximately 12.8 square miles. The Sphere of Influence consists of ap- proximately 4 square miles of unincorporated lands that are anticipated ultimately to be an- nexed by the City. Figure LU 2 depicts Saratoga's Planning Area. Saratoga General -Plan 2 August 25, 2006 ^1 ~~ sAR~T S ~ I '.,iada~., ~i ~~ZIFOFL~}% 0 E n n U m Draft Land Use Element burg 1~f ~„ Nowto )~) 1 San ~ ~~f Rafael t.. _~.f- \~' Rirhmontl ~lJ~ Berkeley ti ~~ ~`~ Santa Rosa ~'" f 13anr ! `~ JFrenasa~ ` ~ \y~ J. _ ' F; ~~ .l...i r '~I A . 1 ~ f \\ ~ ~; '9't n h' \ \ / ~ i Palotta~ Alto n h / Su ny- u~rle n ~ ~nta Clara SARATOGA ~ ` I Los ~~ Scoh's Gatos Valley \ Sa nta ~ Cruz ~, , N \ !~ - .. - . /I l ~ Monterey Sacramento San Jose V U ~ L L nS ti'C ~~ u Stockton b ~ ~I,~ ~ ~~ Modesto Merced I f µ~ ~illrey WatSOrl- ville Holllbter Salinas Saratoga General Plan Exhibit LU-1 REGIONAL LOCATION 0 f0 20 3J 40 ~ miles 3 August 25, 2006 • • ~ of SA~9 '4,.tr TAO ~~~C9tIF03i3?l~ Draft Land Use Element • Exhibit LU-2 SARATOGA PLANNING AREA City Limit •.-••®••-•- Sphere of Influence Boundary C~` Saratoga General Plan ------------•--- Urban Services Boundary 0 li4 1/2 1 rrile 4 August 25, 2006 SO(,TRCF: Cily of Saratoga, July 2006. ~t of sag9T ~`•, O ~ iuau ' A, gZIFORTI1 Draft Land Use Element Historical Overview o Saratoga The Cif of Saratoga was incorporated in 1956. The town had its beginning more than a century earlier when William Campbell built a sawmill in 1848 about 2:5 miles above and west of the present village. along what is now Highway 9. ...The area's earliest inhabitants_ had been Indians building homes near the mouth of the canyon at what an early map noted as Campbell's Gan. Saratoga is situated at the entrance to a historic pass in the redwood forested Santa Cruz Moun-. tains Artifacts have been found along Saratoga Creek where the Ohlone Indians camped while on their way through the pass to the ocean be- yond. In 1850-51, Martin McCarty. who had leased the sawmill built a toll road connecting it to the village to expedite the hauling of lumber. McCarty also had a survey made, laying out the town of McCart~sville, and a post office was established under that name in 1855. The town's brief industrial production, ashort- lived furniture factory. grist mill, tannery. paper and pasteboard mills, was commemorated in the post office name of Bank Mills in 1863. The discovery of mineral springs with a content similar to that of Con reg ss Spring at Saratoga Svri~s New York, led to the renaming of the town to Saratoga in 1865. Pacific Congress Springs inspired the construction of an elaborate resort hotel which flourished for almost forty years about two miles above the village, until it was destroyed by fire in 1903: The resort image lingered through succeedin years even as ~riculture became the dominant industry in Saratoga and the Santa Clara Valley. Vineyards and a few scattered orchards remain as a reminder of this era, which was brought to a close with the valley's rapid- urbanization fol- lowing World War II. Saratoga's first "master plan" was adopted in 1969 and a new General Plan was adopted in 1974. The City Council updated and adopted a new General Plan in 1983. Local Planning Initiatives Several provisions have become part of Sara- toea's planning practice through the initiative rop cess. Initiative powers are guaranteed in the Califor- nia constitution and permit citizens to place any legislative matter on the ballot by atg tiering sie- natures. Measure G: In March 1996. the voters of the City of Saratoga approved an initiative. known as Measure G, to change the text of the Land Use Element of the 1983 General Plan to require that certain amendments to the Land Use Ele- ment m~ only be made by a vote of the people. On Apri123 1996 the Cif Council certified the results of the March 26. 1996 election and adopted a resolution incorporating_the Measure G amendments in the Land Use Element. These land use Policies were set forth to Protect the character of Saratoga's residential nei hg bor- hoods. This initiative provides assurance by giving greater stability to the City's General Plan. to protect the residential and recreational open space areas in the Cites The initiative requires, with certain exceptions, a vote of the people to uermit General Plan amendments that: (1 re- designates residential lands to commercial, in- dustrial or other land use des nations. (2 an increase of densities or intensities of residential land use or (3) redesignates recreational open mace lands to other land use designation. This initiative does not affect the City's existing regulations that authorize the creation of second dwelling_units. Nor does the initiative interfere with the City's obligation under State Law to revise the Housing_Element every five years. • • ---_ Saratoga General, Plan 5 August 25, 2006 • • of sqA ~: ~~' ~neu `'"t=.FOR~`% Draft Land Use Element The text of Measure G is incorporated in the Land Use Element by this reference and is in- cluded in the Appendix Section. Measure A. In April 1980, the citizens of Sara- toga adopted an initiative directing_preparation of a specific plan for the Northwest Hillsides of the City of Saratoga and adjacent County lands in accordance with the initiative and the Com- munity Planning Obiectives of the 1974 General Plan. The primarygoal of the initiative was "to con- serve the City's natural rural character" by con- trolling_the density of development in the hill areas and allowin dg evelopment in an environ- mentally sensitive manner. Special development problems were noted, such as street slopes. po- tential landslide and difficult access. Citizen participation was required at all stages. In accordance with the requirements of Measure A. in June 1980 the City~Council designated an 11-member Citizens Advisory Committee. The committee began bi-monthly meetings on June 26. 1980. inspecting the Study Area. reviewing related City and County documents and meeting with various experts from responsible a eg ncies and land use consultants, which led to the adop- tion of the Hillside Specific Plan. ~eci is Plans: Hillside Specific Plan: The Hillside Specific Plan was prepared to meet the requirements of the Measure A Initiative and State Law. How- ever, its more important purpose is to set up ,guidelines for the development of the northwest- ern hillsides, including~olicies and action pro- grams with land use maps that are more detailed than the General Plan. It is intended to better link the Saratoga General Plan with subdivision and zoning regulations, while not being a site_ specific development plan. The Specific Plan was reviewed and updated by the Saratoga City Council in 1994. The Specific Plan is incorpo- rated by reference in the Land Use Element and is included in the Appendix Section. Saratoga Village Specific Plan: The Saratoga Village area has been identified for many years as an area of ongoing community interest be- cause of its special historic and environmental assets. and the desire to build upon these assets to maintain and enhance its unique character. The Saratoga 1974 General Plan contained an adopted Sarato ag Village Design Plan. The 1983 General Plan designated the Sarato ag Village as Planning Area J, one of twelve plannin ag teas. and included a ~olic~to develop a specific plan for the Sarato a Villa e inco oratin the re- vious Sar to ag Village Plan. In May 1988 the Saratoga City Council adopted the Saratoga Village Task Force Report, and the comments from the report of Area J's Citizen Advisory Committee. In 1987. a Saratoga Villa eg Plan_ ning Program was completed and was the basis for the Saratoga Village Specific Plan, which was adopted by the Saratoga City Council in Ma 1 88. The main ,goals of the Saratoga Village Specific Plan are aimed at: 1. Preserving and enhancing the small-scale. pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and dinners: 2. Preserving and enhancing the architectural and landscape character of the area: 3. Improving narking and circulation: 4, Encouraging a traditional town center mix of specialty shops, restaurants. conven- ience shops, services and residences: and 5. Conserving historic structures. The Saratoga Village Specific Plan establishes land use: zoning circulation. parking and design policies and implementation programs that are aimed at implementin tg hese goals in the~reser- Saratoga Generai Plan August 25, 2006 4 °t SA$9r '. O I cis`. ~uaa`~`-' ~ i ~~~~~~LIFOA~l~ vation and img_rovement of the small-scale, pe- destrian character of the pillage. The rezoninss, design guidelines and parking circulation pro- grams are intended only for the commercial ar- eas along Big Basin Way. Highway 9 and Sara- to~a Avenue. The Sarato ag Village Plan is in- cluded in the Appendix Section. Figure LU 3 shows the boundaries of the Hill- side Specific Plan and Sarato ag Village Specific Plan. Existing Land Uses The predominant land use in Saratoga is resi- dential most of which is low density. single- fami~ on individual lots. Medium density resi- dential uses com.~rised primarily of smaller apartment and condominium units. are found near the intersections of Saratoga Avenue and State Route 85. Prospect Road and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road and adjacent to the downtown "Saratog_a Village". Major commercial and shopping areas include the downtown "Sarato ag Village" located alone Big Basin Way, at the intersection of Saratoga- Sunn~vale Road Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Sarato a Avenue. The downtown area includes a range of restaurants, specialty retail, professional offices and personal services. Smaller commer- cial areas are located along Sarato ag_ Sunn1 vale Road between Prospect Road and the railroad tracks Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road south of Cox Avenue near the intersection of Sarato ag Road and Cox Avenue and west of Saratoga Avenue south on Prospect Road. There are no sites within Saratoga used for in- dustrial purposes. Other major land uses in the community include the Saratoga Civic Center, located on the west side of Fruitvale Avenue and the Saratoga Community Library, located on Sarato ag Ave_ nue. near its intersection with Fruitvale Avenue. Draft Land Use Element Saratoga is served by four elementary school districts: three high school districts and two community college districts. Only one of the elementary school districts. Saratoga Union School District. is located entirely within the cites All other elementary school districts over- lay other cities. The schools and community college located within the City limits are listed below: Saratoga Union School District • ArQOnautSchool • Foothill School • Saratoga School • Redwood Middle School Cupertino Union School District (serves northern Sarato a • Blue Hills School • Christa McAuliffe School Los Gatos-Saratoga High School District • Saratoga High School West Valley Colleee There are also three private elementary~K-81 schools, and several nursery schools. and day- care centers serving the Saratoga community. Saratoga is served by a significant amount of land devoted to parks and natural areas that are free and open to the public for recreational use. These lands are located both within the city- limits and in the adjacent unincorporated hillside areas of the Sphere of Influence. They include cit,~owned parks and open spaces, as well as, public lands that are owned and operated by Santa Clara County Parks and the Mid-Peninsula Ouen Space District. With the exception of the hillside areas and Williamson Act properties, Saratoga is almost built out. There are approximately 900 acres of vacant land in the Saratoga, Of these. approxi- mately 700 acres are in hillside areas and 109 • • • Saratoga General Plan 7 August 25, 2006 ~ of snR9r ~~ o~ ,` =leas .'- Q„/ C9tIFOR~1j Draft Land Use Element acres are under Williamson Act contracts. Lands within the hillside areas are eg nerally subject to s~nificant constraints such as steep and unstable soils. Saratoga is located in the North Central Flood Zone of the Santa Clara County Water District. The creeks in the City that are under District jurisdiction are Calabazas, Rodeo, Saratoga, Wildcat, and San Tomas Creeks. In eg neral, flooding from these creeks has been confined to the relatively narrow flood plain directly adia- cent to the creeks. Exhibit LU-4 shows the location and extent of the 100-year flood plain as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ~FEMA). Saratoga General Plan 8 August 25, 2006 oq SAR9 ^~ T %u~ 'O7 ~~~~`° ~~~~'~"°~~~~~ ~ Draft Land Use Element 9't'IFOR~1~~ rte....... ,.w.....®....~ ~~~ , -~a prospect Road .~.. .-, Cox Avenue ~~ Hillside Specific Plan a Area 4~t.liden -.-- 1 *Poa c a (1 oFB parts) N ~ ~ ou 0 ~ c4~a ~ I~~s~~o r ~C~ i Saratoga Village Specific Plan Arm a+ ~}, pa fi1g `~i ' ~~ 0~3 tOs 2 s •~` Cd~~~ ~oaa :~ 3 ~'~s ~ ~ -.,-, ~~~iiy plme•-rxwY~l~u,M•~~stl~arwr~~~~~111~sYtl,l~~~~tlf~aa~i~~ j~~y°~~ ro ag O' r r s .4 Q X Q SOURCE: City of Saratoga, July 2006. Exhibit LU-3 ' SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS City Limit -~•-«--~~• Sphere of Influence ---------------- Urban Services ~~ Specific Plan Boundary o va iiz i rtile __ Yri=:j..r--iri~rii Saratoga General Plan 9 August 25, 2006 • - °S SAR9 q T Jt _ ~9 ~, ~, i LIFO • Draft Land Use Element ~m:x«m~.=.p.e v F ~r05 f' t 5 P c Road ~££;. € ~" ®aW 4 E ~ Cox Avenue e ~ ®~` ~ ~ . ~6t ~ ~ : x° ~~~ Y.aP4'f' G i` ~ es ~ ~rP r, ~ t~ ~ 02 G a o `' ~~ ~~ ~ SSG N ~' ~ 4~ r `? p t' s mod' ~ y~ G~~ ~~ s ~ F ~~ f Os~ v °ad 'u ., V 0 3 F+ .sa„~.e~.,...~a.~.<u..~.~.,.,....- ~».;*` te=a m 5 SOURCE: FEMA, Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of Saratoga. 3 July 1997. Saratoga General Plan Exhibit LU-4 FLOODING POTENTIAL City Limit ---.~..~.e. Sphere of Influence ~~•+` 100-year Flood. Plain (approx. ) 0 ]!4 lit 1 tulle ~. 10 August 25, 2006 aq SA$R ~ T J4 O7 i ~. ~~ ~oaa.r ~ ,, tIFOR~ LAND USE PLAN A Visio~or Saratoga A valid and useful General Plan needs to nro- vide a common goal to which the community strives. This vision then becomes the touchstone by which future land use and other decisions are made. Consistent with the Land Use Element goals and strategies the City's vision of Saratoga is ex- pressed in the following statements: • Where the common Hood prevails: • Where the natural beauty of the Citv and its hillsides is preserved: • Where historic assets are preserved and pro- moted; • Where local commerce provides a vibrant presence in the Village and the other commer- cial areas: • Where the orientation is toward the family • Where homes and neighborhoods are safe and eace l • Where government is inclusive and values community involvement: • Where desirable recreational and leisure op- portunities are provided: • Where~uality education is provided and val- ued: • Where value is placed on an attractive, well maintained and well planned community: • Where government provides high quality. ba- sic services in a cost effective manner: • Where a small town, picturesque, residential atmo_phere is retained: • Where the arts and cultural activities which serve the community and region is promoted: • Where neighbors work for the common good: • Where leadership reflects community goals; • Where because of the foregoing, the citizens -and families Saratoga can genuinely enjoy being a part of this special community. Draft Land Use Element Land Use Categories The Land Use Plan identifies the land use com- position throughout the Saratoga Plannin Area to achieve the desired community character as expressed in this vision. All nronerties within the Saratoga Planning Area have been grouped into land use categories, as shown on the Land Use Map, which is included as an integral art of the Land Use Element as Exhibit LU-5. Listed on the following_pages are the land use categories that wear on the Land Use Man. along with the type and intensity of use allowed in each category. Land use densities are per net area and net area is generally defined as the re- mainingportion of the gross site area after de- ducting portions within the right-of-way of ex- isting or future public streets. private streets. easements. quarries or areas which are classified by the City Geologist at "Md" or "Mrf'. Imper- vious coverage limitations are intended to mini- mize runoff resulting from development of the parcel. Impervious coverage is defined as any structure constructed surface that disrupts the aesthetics of the landscape. • • Saratoga General Plan 11 August 25, 2006 ~~~ oq SA$q~~~ ~ _ 1 9t=FOg~~~ Draft Land Use Element 2. M-12.5,-maximum density of 3.48 DU/net • Residential Residential land use is broken down into 6 sub- categories. The first 4 categories allow single- family dwellings, horticultural and agricultural use, and accessory uses compatible with single-. family dwellings. The fifth category allows multi-family dwellings, single-family dwellings, horticultural and agricultural use, and accessory uses compatible with residential use. In residen- tial areas, it is understood that other uses such as schools can be permitted. The sixth category allows multi-family densities in various zoning districts if the site is designated P-D residential and upon receipt of a use permit. Flexibility in terms of density and development would be allowed in the area if a project furthered the goals of the Housing Element. The six sub- categories and the density and intensity of uses pemutted in these subcategories are as follows: A. Residential Hillside Conservation. Maxi- mum density of 0.5 DU/net acre (du/ac) or 1.55 people/acre. Maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage: 15,000 square feet or 25 percent of site area, whichever is less. B. Very Low Density Single Family. Maximum density of 1.09 du/ac or 3.38 people/acre. Maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage: 35 percent of net site area. acre-0r 10.8 people/acre. 3. M-15-maximum density of 2.90 DU/net acre or 9.0 people/acre. In all cases above, the maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage is: 50% - 60% of site azea. E. Multi family -Maximum density of 14.5 DU/net acre or 27-45 people/acre. Maximum intensity of building coverage: 40% of site azea. F. P-D (Planned Development) Residential: 4.35 to 12.45 DU/net acre or 13.5 to 38.6 peo- ple per acre. Maximum intensity of building coverage: 25% - 35% of site azea. All projects proposed on sites with this designation shall require use permit approval a provided for in Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that any discussion of the number of people per acre is not meant to act as a limit to family size or maximum number of people that would be permitted to live on a site. The population densities given are meant only to act as a guide to the average number of people likely to occupy a given azea. Commercial/Office Commercial land is broken into €et~ two general subcategories. T~° r;..°* «..,,, «~.,a;.;,.,,.,~ C. Residential Low Density Single-Family. Maximum density of 2.18 DU/net acre or 6.76 people/acre. Maximum intensity of building and impervious surface coverage: 45 percent of net site. D. Medium Density Residential (M10, M12, MI S). wit. '~'13e-~91~~ s~s'ceut°c~iivs-ar^.car*mv Densities and intensities of uses permitted in these sub- categories are as follows= 1. M-.10-maximum density of 4.35 DU/net acre /acre or 13.5 people/acre. • Saratoga General Plan 12 August 25, 2006 of sa2to ~ T ,,~~ , . Oq I ~~c9LIFORTll/ Draft Land Use Element Commercial Retail (CR): ^.n~T ~~ ~ ~ ^°^~'° ^°r .,,. There are five main commercial areas in the Citv with this des- ignation. The main commercial areas in- clude Downtown Big Basin Way (including Neale'-s Hollowl. Argonaut Shopping Cen- ter the Gatew^y. Quito Shopping Center and the Center at Prospect and Lawrence ~includin,g nearby Big Tree Centerl. These commercial areas serve the community and/or their immediate neighborhood. They are not r~ional in orientation and tend to be located in relatively small complexes. Maximum intensity of building coverage. is 60% of net site area. with un to 100% of the net site area allowed in the downtown Vil- l~. Where a new commercial development is to be located adiacent to or .across from an es- tablished single-family or multi-family resi- dential use a~pro~riate 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. Professional Administrative (PA): ~.~~- * ,~~ ^~ ~~ z2 Q ,°^^'°~°^~° The rofes- sional administrative office desi nag tion gener- ally serves as a transition zone between com- mercial azeas and residential azeas in the Citv. The maximum ~''^^~ ^ ~°° n ^*~^ '~ ^ n ~ °^`' intensity of building coverage for this desig- nation is 0.30 8~of net site area. In 2004, the City implemented a residential mixed-use ordinance. which establishes start- dards for mixed use development. Mixed uses are allowed by use permit in commercial and office zones within the Citkof Saratoga. Mixed use is defined as the development of a lot or building with two or more different land uses, such as residential, commercial, office or public. The purpose of the mixed use development stan- dards is to further accommodate the City's fair share of the regional housing need and to im- plement the policies of the Housing_Element of the General Plan, adopted in 2002, in a consis- tent manner throughout the various commercial and office zoned districts of the Cit~It is further the goal of these standards to protect existing and future commercial development by estab- lishing standards to ensure compatibility of ad- joining commercial and residential uses. The maximum net base density allowed is 20 dwell- ing units per acre excluding density bonuses for ver~low-income, low-income. or senior hous- ing The residential portion of a mixed use building_shall not exceed 50% of the total floor area and shall range from 850 square feet for a one-bedroom unit to 1.250 square feet fora two- bedroom unit. An increase of 10% of the total floor area is~ermitted for the site. for projects that provide below-market-rate housing Total • Saratoga General Plan 13 August 25; 2006 • • • of saaR yti4 ~Oc `;~ 9 i ' ieap -ra.P/~ `AgLIFOR~1j site coverage may also be increased by 10% for project containi~ below market-rate housine. Community Facilities Sites CvxxnxrQnzcTz-m,. y ».. ....,_ -" -.' --- --- -- r ,,....,.,»..,a~---.. ..------ --- --------- -------- rrr~9~2i-139~' Su)3E&t@g9r~®S Th°~° ° a° se-ribs-bele~ All institutional: public and quasi-public uses fall into this category. Educational uses such as: vcribvr-vPc'rrvPcccz-ICC.,...... ., ~~.... mentary schools, junior high schools, high schools, and the West Valley Community College are the uses that make up this sub- category. The open space and recreation ar- eas of these sites are part of the City's open space inventory and help supplement city park use. Only school facilities or uses com- patible with those facilities and adjacent uses are allowed in this land use category- -------`-v `- o- - °---°- -~ --- r ~~: n ~.~' ~ ~~;~~ rn>r ~. Public facilities, such as. the Civic Center, the Community Li- brary, a~ two fire stations and public schools and institutions (i.e. West Valley Colle e are also included in this category. They -are institutional uses under govern- ment control r^*'~°~ •''°„ °^''^^1 '"°t~'^•°' that provide a public service.'~~~~1~'~„^ ~„r°„ . 141lewabla n.,^..; n.,ti~;,. F,,,.;s«;~.. rnnzn -This desig- nation also includes private institutional uses, including but not limited to, religious uses (churches, synagogues, religions Draft Land Use Element schools and the novitiate), convalescent homes,~rivate schools, the cemetery, the electrical substation, and the Odd Fellows Home. These are institutional uses that pro- vide apublic service but are not controlled by a publicly elected governing board. ~- Or22pCC'pTl12lT27p2IIIIs-~ZQIIIRII00. I III uvv,s w.... ,.,1,,.,t°(1 thr.,,,,Ih th „,1;...,r;„., .. „~r;h;l;r„ ,,,;th ~~~~. ~~ All uses or their expansions, includine buildin intensity, are evaluated through the use permit process and must comply with criteria indicating their compatibility with adjacent uses. For quasi- nublic uses a master plan may be required for all structures, changes of use. and improvements in the quasi-public designation. If required, the master plan shall be approved before approval of any buildings and other improvements. Onen ~acelResource Protection Open space land use is broken down into four subcategories. '''''° f:..°t ~^,,..., ° r.,y°„ f ^.„ s~v~6ixut~irs-o'cs'~o~:.:~ ... r'~..,.......,„t f'~da v °vcclvrrvw'vvw~z'cSur-v'I iIScI IO-^op^°or^I-op^a^c....... cmecnzrvrircxl,~anca elQiu ev'c,'ncTv°e,,...,.. ..»,. Tl, 1. r°...,r;°~ f, rrl, ,1 o^r;},°`l ;„ th° TIIV.n7v c.TR"vcGLV6vSivD RiD IRI CIIGr aOuv..vvu ... ..... n e„".° Rl°,,,° t ~f ~'ii° r_°„°r.,l Dl.,„. The vp°vir-vPccGV-I~IVIrIOiIC D vv,•v, w, a .w„ density and intensity of the uses permitted in these subcategories are as follows: Saratoga General Plan 14 August 25, 2006 ,y of SAA9~ I :.., epc .' ¢ ,~ ~~~~cgtIFOR~l/, • Managed Resource Production (OS-MR). This designation consists primarily of the orchard lands, water reservoirs and lands that are under Williamson Act Contracts within the City. Single-family dwellings as- sociated with agricultural uses are permitted at a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 4 acres. Only structures directly related to the maintenance of these open space uses are permitted on the sites within this desig- nation. •-Outdoor Recreation (OS-OR). This subcate- gory consists of City or County parks or lands designated for those uses. Only rec- reational facilities (i.e. playground equip- ment, recreational courts, etc.), structures necessary to support the parks or structures of particular historic value are permitted in these areas. These .sites are considered to be of particular value for recreational purposes. Some parks preserve significant vegetation features, such as Hakone Gardens and Villa Montalvo County Park. •-Hillside Open Space (OS-H). This. designa- tion covers all areas within Saratoga's Sphere of Influence that are not designated as parks or OS-MR. This designation allows uses which support and. enhance a rural character, promote the wise use of natural resources and avoid natural hazards. Uses .include agricultural, mineral extraction, Draft Land Use Element parks and low intensity recreational facili- ties, land in its natural state, wildlife refuges and very low intensity residential develop- ment. Other support uses related to the uses already listed may- also be permitted. Al- lowed residential is between 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres to 1 dwelling unit per 160 acres based on a slope density formula subject to stringent criteria. These criteria seme ~e apply to the Sphere of Influence portion of the General Plan. • Private Ownership (OS-P). The Saratoga ' Country Club Golf Course is currently the only site that falls under this designation. This site includes a significant amount of private open space totaling 1000 acres. Overall Height Limit No structures in Saratoga shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Saratoga Village boundary (as de- fined by the Saratoga Village Area Plan, (1988). In the Village, structure height will be limited based on compatibility with ex- isting structures and the natural environ- ment, On sites used for quasi-public uses. a three-story structure will be allowed pro- vided the slope underneath the three-story area is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used: (Resolution 2285 adopted 11/7/85) • • • Saratoga General Plan 15 August 25, 2006 • at seA i`J~ 09 c~'t=FOR~`~ Draft Land Use Element Exhibit I;U-5 -Land Use Map (Land Use Map to be inserted upon approval by City Council of the Land Use Element and related Map amendments. Copies of the current Land Use Map are available in they Saratoga Community Development Department) • Saratoga General Plan 16 August 25, 2006 oq SAA9~ ~4._•... %'J O7 `' rasa : ~% ;. c9tt~oRi?v Draft Land Use Element Table LU-1 Land Use Categories LAND USE MAXIMUM MAXIMUM SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF USE DU/ACRE OR ALLOWABLE PEOPLE PER ACRE COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Residential Hillside 0.5 du/ac or 1.55 25%ofsiteana,or Single-family dwellings Conservation people/acre IS,000 whichever is less Residential Very Low 1.09 du/ac or 3.38 35% of site azea _ _ S_in_gle-family dwellings _ _ _ _ _ __ ____ Densi[ people/acre Residential Low Density 2.18 du/net acre or 45%a of site azea Single family dwellings. 6.76 eo le/acre Medium Density M-10 4.35 du/net acre or 13.5 people/acre Single-family homes M-12.5 3.48 du/net acre or 10.8 people/acre M-15 2.90 du/net acre or 13.5 people/acre Residential Multi- 14.5 du/ac or 27-24 40% of site azea Detached and attached single-family homes, condominiums, Famil people/acre duplexes and apartments Planned Development 4.35 - 12.45 du/acre 25-35% of site azea Mix of single-family and multi-family densities and housing Residential or 13.5 - 38.6 peo- types. le/acre COMMERCIAL LAND USES Commercial Retail ** 60% of site area, or Commercial uses/centers serving community and/or neighbor- - up to 100% in hood; not regional in orientation. Refer to Sazatoga Village downtown Sazatoga Specific Plan for uses permitted in Specific Plan azea. Villa a area Professional Office ** 30% of site azea Professional offices uses permitted; serves as transition zone between commercial and residential azeas. PUBLIC AND QUASI-PUBLIC FACILITIES LAND USES Community Facilities vazies vazies Public, civic and quasi-public (private institutional uses, includ- Sites ing but not limited to, religious uses (churches, synagogues, religions schools and the novitiate), convalescent homes, private schools, the cemetery, the electrical substation, and the Odd Fellows Home. OPEN SPACE LAND USES Open Space -Outdoor 1 du/ 4 acres N/A City or County pazks or lands designated for those uses. Only Recreation recreational facilities (i.e. playground equipment, recreational courts, etc.), structures necessary to support the pazks or struc- lures of particulaz historic value aze permitted in these azeas. These sites aze considered to be of particulaz value for recrea- tional u oses. Open Space -Private N/A Consists of open space resources under private ownership (i.e. Sazato a Countr Club Golf Course) Open Space - Man- N/A Consists primarily of orchard lands, water reservoirs and lands that aged Resources aze under Williamson Act Contract. Only single-family dwellings or stnrctures directly associated with agricultural use are permitted. Hillside Open Space 1 du/20 acres to 1 25% or 12,000 Covers all areas within Sazatoga's Sphere of Influence (SOI) not du/160 acres (based squaze feet which- designated as pazks or OS-MR.. Uses include agricultural, min- - on a slope density ever is less eral extraction, pazks and low intensity recreational facilities, formula subject to land in its natural state, wildlife refuges and very low intensity stringent criteria) residential development and support uses of those listed above. These criteria a 1 to the SOI onion of the General Plan • Overall Height Limit - No structure pemvtted over two stories in height except for structures located within the Saratoga Village boundary (as defined by the Saratoga Village Area Plan, (1988) or for quasi-public uses, athree-story structure is allowed provided the slope underneath the three-story area is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used, •• Mixed residentia]/commereial uses are pemutted in all commercial lands. The maximum 20 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 aone-bedroom unit-1,250 sq. ft for a two-bedroom unit), with an increase of 10% of the total floor area pemutted for the site, for projects that rovidebalow-market-rate housing. Total site cove a ma also be increased by 10% for a ro'ect containin below market-rate housin • • Saratoga General Plan 17 August 7, 2006 • at sa$9 U~4. ~O~ P" ~'9~rFOn~i~ LAND USE ISSUES The following land use conditions also apply to special situations within Saratoga. Height Linutations In 2002. at the request of the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood. the City Council established asin- gle-stormslimitation for residences in the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood. This neighborhood is gener- ally bordered by Cox Avenue to the south. Saratoga Avenue to the east. Saratoga Creek to the west and Prospect High School to the north. This restriction precludes any new second story additions. The ex- isting second story dwellings are exempt from this restriction. Outside of the Saratoga Woods Neigh- borhood two-stories are permitted but no single- family dwelling shall exceed twenty-six feet in height without a use permit. The Saratoga Woods Neighborhood is shown in Figure LU 6. Secondary Dwellings Within the residential designation, secondary resi- dential dwelling units are allowed as a permitted use. The structure itself may require Design Review ~proval, if required by the Zoning Ordinance. A second dwelling unit is defined as an attached or detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete living facilities including_permanent pro- visions for living. cooking sleeping and sanitation. In conjunction with the Housing Element. if the property owner records an affordability covenant restricting rental occupancy of their second unit to very low or low-income households at affordable levels. the property owner may exceed both the maximum total allowable floor area and the maxi- mum allowable site coverage for the site by 10%. Historic Resources In recognition of the historic character of Saratoga, the City has adopted an Historic Preservation Ordi- nance to~rotect its irreplaceable heritage resources. Saratoga General Plan Draft Land Use Element In 1982 the Heritage Preservation Commission was established by the City Council to assist with and encoura e~ the preservation of Sara- toQa's heritaheritage resources. inventory historic re- sources. recommend to the City Council specific resources that should have historic designations. and act as an advisory body to the City Council. Planning Commission. and other agencies as to the impact of proposed new development on historic resources. In addition to several local historic structures, features and sites, the City Council has desig_ Hated two heritage lanes as local landmarks. The City Council has designated the brick portion of Austin Way west of Highway 9 as a Heritage Lane. The bricks of Austin Way were laid around 1904 when the railway ran alongside Austin Way. The trolley line connected Saratoga to San Jose and was in operation until 1933. The Saratoga segment of Austin Way is one of the very few remaining sections of brick highwaX paving to be found. A permit and discretionary review are required pursuant to the Zoning Or- dinance for encroachments or excavations in the City right-of-w~. In addition. the City Council designated Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue and 14301 Saratoga Avenue as a Heri- taee Lane. Saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale to the Village continues to be, as it was in the past. one of the most important entrances to the CitX and a route leading to the heart of the village. The street is characterized by two traffic lanes lined by mature trees and several historic resi- dences. Fencing, walls. and development appli- cations for residences located along this Heri- taee Lane require discretionary review pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. A list of local historic landmarks and heritage lanes is available in the City's Community De- velopment Department. 18 August 7, 2006 o{ 6Ag9 q ?p ,'J`' :: ry I ,.so, 4„i c~LIFOR.~l~ Draft Land Use Element _ E - --- -- - - Prospect Road ...~ e Cox Avenue 1 .•--..j o. Mt ~,deq? ,~ . °d O' c c a i ~ ~9ic 1 ~a o e ~ ~° ~ ~'~~c ~ 4 e ~ U f i ~ ~ ~ a~t~.pla9 ~~+'o ~ B}f3 B ~.'...~' 4 0 ~ ~4` 7 } a p»endale ~?s u.' p'G S~ ~~ ~ ~ f i ~ ': •• .....hr.e..~~n. ~.w..wr .. v...~...e ..~..~ .. ~r.~ SOURCE: City of Saratoga, Jul}' 2Q06. Exhibit LU-6 SARATOGA WOODS OVERLAY AREA City Limit ~•••~••~•• Sphere of Influence Boundary ~~ Subdivision Boundary 0 li4 12 1 tulle ~-3~_3~ •i • Saratoga General Pian 19 August 7, 2006 • • o~ SA$9 4. T ,yS *~}9 r~~esc i oq lq,: lIFOR~ / The following historic resources, which are listed on the National and State of California Re ig stet, exist within the Saratoga Planning Area: • The Warner Hutton House. located at 1377 Fruitvale Avenue. •- Paul-Masson-Mountain -Winery-: located on Pierce Road. • Miller-Melone Ranch. located at 12795 Sarato ag S,_ unnyvale Road. • The Saratoga Foothill Club, located at 20399 Park Place. • The Saratoga Tol] Road. eg nerally located at the be ig'nning of Third Street and Bi,g Basin Wav. • Villa Montalvo. located at 14800 Montalvo Road. • The Welch-Hurst Building, located at 15800 Sanborn Road. Mineral Resources Mineral resources in the Saratoga vicinity are lim- ited primarily to sandstone and shale. Currently, there are no mines or quarries known to be operat- ing in Saratoga or its Sphere of Influence. Timber Production Section 65302 (a1 (1) of the California Government Code requires that General Plans address timber production in their land use elements. There are no timber production areas in the Saratoga Planning Area that would be affected by the Land Use Ele- ment. Military Facilities Section 65302 (a2(2) of the California Government Code requires that land use elements of General Plans address military facilities. There are no mili- tary facilities in or adjacent to the Saratoga Plan- ning_Area that would be affected by the Land Use Element, Saratoga General Pian Draft Land Use Element Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal Provision Solid and liquid waste material is treated and disposed of outside of the Saratoga planning area. Population Trends Saratoga has not experienced substantial popu- lation growth for several decades. By 1979, most of the vacant, developable land was built upon. Most population .,growth since 1980 is due largely t,~ o changes in household size within ex- isting dwellings. Because Saratoga is nearlX built out. except for hillside areas. there has been little new housing construction over the past 25 ears other than demolition and re lacement of existing h usin s'g tock• According to the State of California Department of Finance, Sarato,ga,s population was 30.850 as of January 2005. This figure does not include residents within the city's unincorporated Sphere of Influence. Population projections prepared bX the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAGI show that the City can anticipate a total population of 31.700 in 2010. 32,400 in 2015 and 33.300 in 2020. These are only projections and actual population may change somewhat due to local economic and other conditions or constraints. Employment Trends Saratoga's predominant low-density residential pattern provides limited employment opportuni- ties. There are no industrial or manufacturine plants. large-scale research and development facilities, or "big box" commercial structures. The largest employers are Safeway. Longs. Gene's Market. West Valley Community Col- leee. schools and the City Government Center. This trend is not expected to change. 20 August 7, 2006 of SARK 1 ,~ ; +eaa' .c9llFOa~?t~~ Draft Land Use Element ADMINISTERING AND IMPLEMENTING THE LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element, similar _to all other Ele- ments is not a static document. State Law allows the Citk to approve amendments to the Land Use Element uP_to four times per calendar year. The Land Use Element is implemented through a vaii- etv of methods including the Saratoga Zoning Or- dinance specific Plans annexation policies and the City's Capital Improvement Budget. These are de- scribed below. Zoning Ordinance Saratoga has adopted a Zoning Ordinance as part of the larger Municipal Code. The Zoning Ordinance classifies properties within the community into a series of zoning districts, each containing a list of permitted and condi- tionally permitted land use. development regu- lations and provides for- review of individual develoRment applications to ensure consistency with the and Zoning Ordinance. Specific Plans California Government Code allows cities and counties to adopt Specific Plans for portions of a community that provide amid-level land use reeulation for lands governed by the Specific Plan Currently the City has adopted a Specific Plan for the Northwest Hillside area and a Spe- cific Plan for the downtown business district known as The Sarato ag Village Specific Plan. Design Guidelines Saratoga has adopted Design Guidelines for .The Sarato ag Village Specific Plan area and for commercial properties in the Saratoga_- Sunnyvale Road Gateway District located along Saratoea-Sunnyvale Road, between Prospect Road and the railroad tracks. The pur- pose of these Guidelines is to guide new and redeveloped uses and new development or property redevelopment in a manner that en- hances the unique character of each area. Additionally, the Gateway District Guide- lines provide direction for the design of mixed-use projects that introduce a compo- nent of residential uses within the Gateway District as provided for in the General Plan Housing_Element. Area Plans Twelve Area Plans have been adopted ad- dressing development. infrastructure and other issues within distinct sub-areas of Saratoga. These Area Plans are separate from the Land Use Element and are found in Chapter 4 of the General Plan. Annexations The Cit~of Saratoga may annex properties within the unincorporated~ortion of Santa Clara Countx into the Citv of Saratoga. To be considered for annexation, properties must be located within the boundaries of the adopted Saratoga Sphere of Influence. Upon annexation the Cites may extend urban services to these areas: and the properties annexed are subject to zoning requirements and all other land use regulations adopted by the City of Saratoga. Annexations must be approved by the Santa Clara County Local Aeency Formation Commission (LAFCOI. Caj?ital Improvement Program The Cif of Saratoga has adopted a Capital Improvement Program (CIPI that establishes priorities for the maintenance, rehabilitation, expansion or the construction of new capital facilities within the community. Typically, this includes parks public buildings infra- structure and similar facilities. By State Law the Citv must find that the CIP is con- sistent with the General Plan the prior to adoRtion of the CIP. • • Saratoga General Plan 21 August 7, 2006 ~~ saRga ~~~ ,°c ,'v „ 9 i ~, i i `.OgLIFORT~1j . GOALS AND STRATEGIES The F..11.,.,,:«.. .,.,1~ «~,h..;o~ «.1 «lo.«e«r., , f~cttt D. T ~«.1 ~h.,ll «.,r ho o ~o.l r~, C.,.-.,r.,.,., , «lo~~ rho„ A««o,,.,r;~,« « ~~1~ ~h.,ll he ~. ~oF„11„ ~r,..ho.l r.. .lorer.«;«o rho:.- o «.l „~h.,« -D~_1~-~-..J..r~ *., rho !';r„ Thy !';~, ~h.,ll o ,~1,:.,ro ;*~ .~io~;..«.,ro.i , r.,ro.l TT~h.,« Cor,,; ..e A~e.,~ r...lo•o~..,;«e ;f rho «.,r;hlo ,;rh rho (`~,,,«r„°~ T .,..~1 D~:.,~ •., ;«;r;.,l ~ ,.,1 rho .le..;~;..« ..,.,1.;«.. s h.,.l.. ~h.,ll .. ~;.lo~ rho .. „1.,+;,.e +«.,ff;.. ; Draft Land Use Element Saratoga General- Plan 22 August 7, 2006 of SAA9~ J<~ `O9 i C9tIFORSyl Pacio-a i v'I'Ir 1°Z .,:r1°r.ti~l Yr"J~t" "f ~I "_ i + lr' Fn '1 '.1 +; 1 r~ ~f Izi~~rv-rpto~ miircrizxirr'Ii~r°coicr°vxlclal~xoJ°vc... , ° Yr~j arb-irwivr-im"vccupaiICTloua "vim ter.»., '2n rrImllPle~lerrt~tie~A4eastlre-~ A 1' .,.;,..,~ F.,r .,_ „h.l:,,;~;~,c~~sl+nll ;....1,,.1° r u+h •rVfl`v r;h° +h° m„1nt;I,° tr~ff;~ ' el~le'S: D. D rl inr.rl ra a°.,°l~,r.m + nl~ Sh n 1. _ ...!..»:_a ,. ---~+ ~ra--------- ~tnr,~lnr~lr~a »b» Ix-s,,a,e-t~~tl}e~ 1~^ted traF~~eise, l:,.ht~ n , .,.. D~ Th ;r„ .,f ° ter'„ otr°°tc ~hnll h° .., .,..».. .... .....gib • .1 t t rnt; h 'la' ~;r° „ha;,,; iITL~TpS2~I-LV CCrI CCTCSyC ORIIQifirt nl „F n ;.t AT°s„ ° .. _... .. ......-.~Y~'~ vllulrvc~corb^rra-~ coznixnxnxie ....,.::r ...... ... ..... .1 h ., thr~,,,..h .,r hao,,,, J o ~ EeliE}`-~9 cravir6irocx°vc b r- n V + - + th + h..tl, 1.°,.;,, .,.,,1 °„a n+ ;,,t°r_ ~ ................----- ----- ----- --a--- ----- ---- -- - -- +• ~ •+1, th + 1 h 11 1. ~- a + +h h f t ~„nl„ ..f in.,.l ~xrT-6vTCrzrrazcxrc clxi v vSli c J - r----- 3`~~ Th !'`'• 1..,11 .. ~;.1°r +h° ° r..,,.t~ ..F n, Th !`'+ h 11 rl r.t .1' Ii,h;..h ,:11 TIIp--~R'J rRl]~2RIII RIIc IiA IIIl7IfC+G mr r J ~ --- z~ r r r Draft Land Use Element The following~oals and implementin sg trategies have been adopted to ensure that the vision of Saratoga can be achieved. The term "goal" des- ignates adesired end state which the Land Use Element attempts to achieve. The term "strat- ~y" describes specific methods or actions that the City can take to achieve each goal. Residential Land Use Goal LU 1: Maintain the predominantly semi- rural residential character of Saratoga. Strategy LU 1.1: Affirm that the city shall continue to be predominately a community of single-family detached residences. (Ex- isting LU 8.1) Strategy LU 1.2: Continue to review all residential development proposals to ensure consistency with Land Use Element goals and strategies. Strategy LU 1.3: Existing undeveloped sites zoned single-family detached residential should remain so designated. (Existing Pol- icy. 8.1) Strategy LU 1.4: Review and update Area Plans on a periodic basis to ensure that thev reflect the desires and needs of each neigh- borhood. Strategy LU 1.5: Ensure that all develop- ment proposals are consistent with the spirit and requirements established by Measure G. • • • Saratoga General Plan 23 August 7, 2006 • • a~ saR~~ :,C~ Op ~9 "inec':~~: ~ /, 09ljFOR?y1 ConUnercial. O,~ce. Industrial and Public Land Use Goal LU 2: Encourage the economic viability of Saratoga's existing commercial and office areas and their accessibility by residents, taking into ac- count the impact on surrounding residential areas. (Existing LU 4.0) Strategy LU 2.1: Non-residential development shall be confined to sites presently designated on the General Plan Map for.non-residential uses. Existing non-residential zoning shall not be .expanded nor new non-residential zoning districts added. (Existing LU 4.2) Strategy LU 2.2: Non-residential aa'~ial uses shall be buffered from other uses by meth- ods such _as setbacks, landscaping, berms, and soundwalls as determined through the Design Review process. (Existing LU 4.1) Strategy LU 2.3: The City shall revise the zoning ordinance to allow bed and breakfast establishments as conditional uses in commer- cial or residential zoning districts where such uses have not previously been permitted and where such uses would be appropriate. (Exist- ing LU 4.3) Strategy LU 2.4: The City shall work with commercial propertyowners and merchants to encourage appropriate modernization and up- grading of retail establishments consistent with the historic character of the community to pro- vide pleasant shopping experiences. Strategy LU 2.5: The Citv shall monitor Zon- ing Ordinance standards to ensure that non- residential parking standards are adequate to minimize sill-over of marking into adjacent neighborhoods. Goal LU 3: Promote the long-term fiscal soundness of the City of Saratoga through careful analysis of Draft Land Use Element land use decisions and fiscal practices. (Existing LU 7.0) Strategy LU 3.1: The City shall consider the economic impact of all land use deci- sions on the City budget through the prepa- ration of fiscal impact analyses for maior development proposals. (Existing LU 7.1 ) Strategy LU 3.2: The City shall adopt regulations authorizing exactions in the form of improvements or fees required from de- velopers to compensate the City for their fair share of direct and indirect economic effects that arise from proposed development and to insure implementation of the General Plan. (Existing Policy LU 7.2) Goal LU 4: Provide sufficient land uses for public, quasi-public and similar land uses in Saratoga. Strategy LU 4.1: Monitor the amount and type of land needed for City and quasi- public uses and facilities through the annual City budgetaryprocess and Capital Im- provement Program. Neighborhood Protection Goal LU 5: Relate development proposals to existing and planned street capacities to avoid excessive noise, traffic, and other public safety hazards so as to protect neighborhoods. If it is determined that existing streets need to be im- proved to accommodate a project, such im- provements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of building permits. (Existing LU 6.0) Strategy LU 5.1: Prior to ink approval, the decision making body shall consider the cumulative traffic impacts of single-family residential projects of 4 or more lots, multi- family residential projects of eight or more units, and commercial projects designed for an occupancy load of more than 30 persons. Saratoga General Plan 24 August 7, 2006 at sa89 ^~ ~'o a JU* s 7 I ~`~ ~080~.:: ~ %' c~trFOn~?i~ This may be accomplished through completion of traffic impact anal prepared by qualified traffic engineers or transportation planners. (Existing LU 6.1 )) Strategy LU 5.2: Development proposals shall be evaluated against City standards and guide- lines to assure that the related_traffic, noise, light, appearance, and intensity of the proposed use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be mitigated to below City thresholds of environmental significance. (Existing LU 6.2 - revised) Strategy LU 5.3: The capacity of existing streets shall be recognized prior to tentative building site or subdivision approval of any project. New development shall be designed to minimize disruption to the area caused by an increase in through or heavy traffic. (Existing LU 6.4) Strategy LU 5.4: Through the development re- view nrocesst ensure that adioinine neighbor- hoods are protected from noise, light, glare and other impacts resulting from new or expanded non-residential developments. Environmental and Resource Protection Goal LU 6: Protect natural resources and amenities through appropriate land use and related pro rg ams. Strategy LU 6.1: Incorporate specific stan- dards and requirements into the Zoning Ordi_ nance to Rreserve and protect sensitive water- shed areas on hillsides within the community. Strate~v LU 6.2: Development proposals shall incorporate stormwater quality features. in- cluding_but not limited to. grassy bio-swales. to protect surface and subsurface water quality. Strategy LU 6.3: Continue to implement the City's Construction Materials Recycling Pio- ,gram to reduce the quantity of construction de- bris in local landfills. Strategy LU 6.4: The General Plan shall con- tinue to enforce and implement existing poli- Draft Land Use Element cies of tree protection, especially of native trees. Williamson Act Contracts and Agricultural Protection Goal LU 7: Protect existing agricultural re- sources and encourage expansion of this use. Strategy LU 7.1: Encourage renewal and discourage cancellation of Williamson Act contracts to preserve agricultural lands. Strategy LU 7:2: -Allow agricultural and open space landowners to voluntarily protect their land. Strategy LU 7.3: Encourage agricultural use do suitable land with protection for nearby residences as appropriate. Hillside Development Goal LU 8: The natural beauty of the West Valley hillsides area shall be maintained- and protected for its contribution to the overall qual- m of life of current and future generations. Strategy LU 8.1: Development proposals shall minimize impacts to ridgelines, signif- cant natural hillside features. including but not limited to steep topoeraphy, major stands of vegetation. especially native vegetation and oak trees. and watercourses. Strategy LU8.2: Adhere to the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan which is incorporated herein by this reference. (Existing LU 2.0) Goal LU 9: Generally encourage medium den- sity multi-family residential and non-residential in flatland areas where most appropriate for ur- ban development. Strategy LU 9.1: Limit Expansion of Urban Development in the hillside areas. Strategy LU 9.2: The City Shall evaluate its designated unincorporated Urban Service r ~_ • • Saratoga General Plan 25 Augtast 7, 2006 o` 9A$9 ~~ roe `U, - _«'9 `.., p aese `- P ~ ~~ ~ ~9tIFOR~I~ Draft Land Use Element Areas to determine if the areas are compatible with the County's Local Formation Commis- sion (LAFCO) policies and are appropriate for annexation and urban development. (Existing LU 1.2) Strategy LU 9.3: Limit the amount of rg ading within hillside areas to the minimum amount needed for dwellings and access. Goal LU 10: Minimize the visual impacts of hill- side development, especially on ridgetops. Strategy LU 10.1: Require development pro- posals in hillside areas to undertake visual analyses and mitigate significant visual im- ap cts. Goal LU 11: Foster closer interjurisdictional coop= eration and coordination concerning land use and development issues. Strategy LU 11.1: Adhere to Joint Hillside Land Use Objectives that will assure basic con- sistency of hillside land use policies among the West Valley jurisdictions. The West Va11eX Cities and the County should work tos~ether to achieve the shared oag 1 of preserving the natu- ral beauty of the West Valley Hillsides. Strategy LU 11.2: Continue to work within the adopted Joint Planning Objectives and Land Use principles for West Valley Hillsides Areas to reinforce existing_policies. Historic Character/Cultural Resources Goal LU 12: Recognize the heritage of the City by seeking to protect historic and cultural resources. where feasible. Strategy LU 12.1: Enhance the visual charac- ter of the City by encouraging compatibilit~of architectural stvles that reflect established ar- chitectural traditions. Strategy LU 12.2: Develop zoning and other incentives for property owners to preserve his- • toric resources and seek. out historic desie- nations for their respective properties. Strateev LU 12.3: In order to create an in- centive for the protection of historic struc- tures. modify the Zoning Ordinance to allow the Planning Commission to have the authority to modify any of the development regulations in the Ordinance. if the subject of the application is a structure which has been designated as an historic landmark. Strategy LU 12.4: The City shall continue to participate in the Mills Act pro ram which allows property owners of historic residences a reduction of their property tax. Strateev LU 12.5: Encouraee public knowl- edge, understanding and appreciation of the City's past and foster civic and nei hg boy- hood pride and sense of identity based upon the recoenition and use of the Citv's heritage resources. Strategy LU 12.6: The Heritage Preserva- tion Commission shall re ug larly update the City's Historic Resources Inventor StrateEV LU 12.7: Design Review by both the Planning Commission and the Heritage Preservation Commission shall be required for development proposals impacting any of the City's heritage land and/or any historic resources listed on anv local or state inven- torn. Strategy LU 12.8: For an}! project devel- opment affecting structures thaf are 50 years of age or older, conduct a historic review. Strate~v LU 12.9: Conduct reconnaissance- level analyses of new development projects to ensure that no significant archeological. prehistoric, paleontological. Native Ameri- can resources would be disturbed. If such re- sources are found, appropriate steps shall be made, consistent with CEOA requirements to protect these resources. Saratoga General Pian 26 August 7, 2006 of seg~~ %U~S O9 ' -leas ); ~~~~C9tIFOR~~/~ Draft Land Use Element Design Review Goal LU 13: 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. (Existing LU 5.0) Strateg, LU 13: Utilize the site development and design review process and the California . Environmental Quality Act in the review of proposed residential and non-residential pro- jects to promote high quality design. to ensure compliance with applicable regulations to en- sure compatibili~ with surrounding~roperties and use. and to minimize environmental im- pacts Specia] attention shall be given to en- suring compatibility between residential and non-residential uses (e.g.. land use buffering). Annexations Goal LU 14: Seek to achieve appropriate and con- t~uous City boundaries to provide for the efficient delivery of public services and to create a greater sense of community. Strategy LU 14.1: Land shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless it is contiguous to the exist- ing city limits. within the Sphere of Influence, and it is determined by the city that public services can be provided without unreasonable cost to the City and dilution of services to ex- isting residents. (Existing LU 1.1) Strategy LU 14..2: The City shall evaluate its designated unincorporated Urban Service Areas to determine if the areas are compatible with the, County's Local Agency Formation Com- mission Policies and are appropriate for an- nexation and urban development. (Existing LU.1.2) Air Oualitv Goal LU 15: Improve local and regional air quality by ensuring all-.development projects incorporate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants. Strategy LU 15.1: Require development projects to comply with Bay Area Air Qual- ity Management District measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions due to rading and construction activities. Strategy LU 15.2: Encourage use of trip demand measures as part of major commer- cial and office development projects to re- duce dependence on auto use. Zoning Ordinance Review And Amendment Goal LU 16: Review and amend (as neededl the Zoning Ordinance to provide consistency with the General Plan updates. new state legislation and court decisions. Strategy LU 16.1: Consider Zoning Ordi_ nance amendments that implement the use and development of goals, policies, and plan objectives identified in the adopted 2006 Land Use Element and Land Use Map of the General Plan. • Saratoga General Plan 27 August 7, 2006 of saA9a -t i U~S`~q ~ ~ '~ _ ,~x 91=-.FOR~~%~ Draft Land Use Element IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM In accordance with Section 65400 California Government Code, the Land Use Element Implementation Program serves as a guide for City elected officials and staff on how to implement the adopted Land Use goals and strategies. Its main purpose is to ensure that the overall direction provided in this Element re- arding the City's growth and development is translated from general terms to specific actions. Each implementation action is a measure or procedure that may require additional Citv action. This action may occur on a City-wide basis or in specific areas within the City. Implementation of the specific pro- grams will be dependent on funding constraints. The Implementation Programs are intended for use in the preRaration of Annual Reports to the City Council on the status of implementing the goals and strategies of the Land Use Elements, and to assist in the development of yearly work programs for the City. Residential Land Use Goal LU 1: Maintain the predominantly semi-rural residential character of Saratoga. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 Strategy LU 1.4: Review and update Area Plans on a periodic basis to ensure that they reflect the de- sires and needs of each neighborhood. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: 2006 - 2008 Commercial, O,~' ace, Industrial and Public Land Use Goal LU 2: Encourage the economic viability of Saratoga's existing commercial and office areas and their accessibility by residents. taking into account the impact on surrounding residential areas. (Exist- ing LU 4.01 Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 2.1.2.2, 2.4.2.5 Strategy LU 2.3: The City shall revise the zoning_ordinance to allow bed and breakfast establish- ments as conditional uses in commercial or residential zoning districts where such uses have not pre- viously been permitted and where such uses would be appropriate. Action Item: Revise the Zoning Ordinance Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: FY 2007-2008 ~~ ~~ Saratoga General Plan LUI-1 August 7, 2006 of sAA9 ~ ~O 'R ;~ti _:: -~ <_ q i ~~a.3epe.. -' ' 4, ~ c9ZxFOR~l~/ Draft Land Use Element Goal LU 3• Promote the long-term fiscal soundness of the City of Sarato ag, through careful anal semis of land use decisions and fiscal practices. Responsible A,gency• Community Development Department Fundine Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 3.1.3'.2 Goal LU 4• Provide sufficient land uses for public quasi-Public and similar land uses in Saratoga. Responsible A~encv• Communit~Development De~artment/Public Works Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 4.1 Neighborhood Protection Goal LU 5• Relate development proposals to existing and planned street capacities to avoid excessive noise traffic and other public safety hazards so' as to protect neighborhoods. If it is determined that ex- isting streets need to be improved to accommodate a ~roiect such improvements shall be in place or bonded for prior to issuance of building_permits. ' Responsible Aeency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 5.1.5.2.5.3.5.4 Strategy LU 5 2• Development proposals shall be evaluated against City standards and Guidelines to assure that the related traffic noise light appearance and intensity of the proposed use have limited adverse impact on the area and can be mitigated to below City thresholds of environmental sienifi- cance. Action Item• Develop thresholds of environmental significance. Responsible A~ency• Community Development De~partment/Public Works Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: 2006-2008 Environmental and Resource Protection Goal LU 6• Protect natural resources and amenities through appropriate land use and related programs. Responsible A_gency• Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: On og in¢ Related Strategies: LU 6.1, 6.2, 6.3.6.4 • r~ Saratoga General Plan LUI-2 August 7, 2006 _ •v~~ nt seRgaoq ... ~` es6 . , ¢ ;, ~•~~C9tIFOR~l~ Draft Land Use Element Williamson Act Contracts and Agricultural Protection Goal LU 7: Protect existing a~ricultura] resources and encourage expansion of this use. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 7.1.7.2.7.3 - - - ~~-- ----~-- - - -- -- Hillside Development Goal LU 8: The natural beauty of the West Valley hillsides area shall be maintained and protected for its contribution to the overall quality of life of current and future generations. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 8.1, 8.2 ~, Goal LU 9: Generally encourage medium density. multi-family residential and non-residential to flat- land areas most appropriate for urban development. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 Goal LU 10: Minimize the visual impacts of hillside development, especiall on ridge tops. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 10.1 Goal LU 11: Foster closer inter-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination concerning land use and development issues. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department/City Council Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: On-going Related Strategies: LU 11.1. 11.2 Historic Character/Cultural Resources Goal LU 12: Recognize the heritage of the City by seeking to protect historic and cultural resources. where feasible. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department/Heritage Preservation Commis- sion Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 12.1. 12.3. 12.4. 12.5. 12.5. 12.6. 12.7. 12.8. Saratoga General Plan LUI-3 August 7; 2006 of sAg U~t 9 1'IFOR~ ~ Draft Land Use Element Strategy LU 12 9• Conduct reconnaissance-level analyses of new development projects to ensure that no significant archeolog'cal pre-historic paleontological or Native American resources would be disturbed If such resources are found appropriate steps shall be made consistent with CEOA re- quirements to protect these resources Action item• Amend standard conditions of approval. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: 2006/2007 Design Review Goal LU 13• The Citv shall use the design review process to assure that new construction and maior additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundines. Responsible Agency Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: On og ine Related Strategies• LU 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4, 1.5.2.1.2.2.2.3.2.4. 2.5 Annexations Goal LU 14• Seek to achieve appropriate and contiguous City boundaries to provide for the efficient delivery of public services and to create a greater sense of community. Responsible A~gency• Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: On og inc Related Strategies: LU 14.1, 14.2 Air Quality Goal LU 15• Improve local and regional air~uality bX ensuring that all development projects incorpo- rate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strat~ies: LU 15.1 Zoning Ordinance Review And Amendment Goal L 161• Review and amend as needed the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to provide consis- tency with -the General Plan updates new state legislation and -court decisions. Responsible A~encv: Community Development Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: 2006/2008 and Ongoing Related Policies: LU 1.2. 1.4.2.3. 5.2 • ~~ Saratoga General Plan LUI-4 August 7, 2006 i• • of 3A~9 q 10 v 7 i meu CgLIFOR~~~/ DRAFT OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT • AUGUST 25, 2006 PREPARED BY: LINGO-MCCORMICK CONSULTING JERRY HAAG, URBAN PLANNER i c~L,FOg~,~;F' Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Table of Contents • i~ INTRODUCTION 2 EXISTING OPEN SPACE RESOURCES 5 RESOURCE AREAS 16 OPEN SPACE/RESOURCE PLAN 25 IMPLEMENTING THE OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT 27 GOALS AND STRATEGIES 2S LIST OF EXHIBITS OSC-1 Parks and Open Space Resources 13 OSC-2 Existing and Proposed Trails 16 OSC-3-Flooding-Potential 19 OSC-4 Hazardous Fire Areas 20 OSC-5 Watershed and Open Space Resources 22 APPENDIX Land Use Element Implementation Program Saratoga General Plan 1 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element INTRODUCTION California cities and counties are required to adopt and maintain both Open Space and Conservation Elements as comprehensive parts of their General Plan. The Elements are required to identity_ existing open space and natural resources within a community and set forth goals and strategies for the protection and preservation of these resources. Such resources include public and private open space, sensitive biological resources, flood hazards, agricultural lands, hillsides and others. As provided for in Government Code Section 65301, the General Plan may be adopted in any format deemed appropriate or convenient by the lef;islative body, including the combining of elements. For purposes of streamlining and combining the discussion of related issues, the City is combin- ing the Open Space and Conservation Element into a single functional element. The content of this single Element fulfills the requirements established in State law for both Open Space and Conservation Elements. The City of Saratoga adopted its Open Space Element on August 7, 1974, in conjunction with the 1974 General Plan. This Element was last updated in 1993. The Conservation Element was adopted in 1983. The City's connection to the land and to the natural environment has a lengthy history. The City was founded and based on the lumbering and wood product industry, later evolvin ag s an agriculture resort and artist center, all well tied to and based on the resources and the beauty of the natural environment. In the latter part of the last century. Saratoga became asingle-family residential community. The City has been able to retain its identity and uniqueness by control- ling the density and intensity of development, and b~preserving the er~ry of private and public gardens and yards, _parks and hillside omen spaces. However, the continuing .and rapid urban growth in the Bay Area affects Saratoga as well. The Cites valley floor and foothills are dominated by development. Very few orchards and minimal agricultural lands have survived as reminders of the City's past. Due to the limited land available in the valley. develop- ment has been slowly encroaching into the hillsides and endangering this last remaining natural resource. The City is facing continuous development pressures. The reality of increasing demands for housing_and rising land values requires the Cit to reaffirm and clearl state its oals and policies re ag rdin ig is open space and natural resources, and decide on the role of these resources in determining the character and quality of life for the community in the future. The Cit~of Saratoga has recently confirmed the community s appreciation and desire to preserve and enhance the City's existing character and open spaces in and around the Ci , through a community survey conducted in November/December 2005. As a follow up to this survey, the City Council decided to update and combine the Open Space and Conservation Elements, as needed, to reflect communitygoals. to make .them internally consistent with other elements of the General Plan and to meet requirements of current state law. t., 1 n^ln *l,e ~«..+e r e :~1.,.,,,-o .,aaoa n vpucc-to-tne--z~r~s~f ===Ri:d'ata,:To c..... ». _ ..... L'1 e.,~.. Tl,e lo.~.:~l.,f:s a ..+e.,r ~.~ e e axe:: ~.. "• - -a- -"-- • - -------- - . __ -- ----'--- : b....... ~Y.... 1 a ,. ,;...,:.tea „a .,.,1.,.,1,1., ,. Dl 'll 1,;e a el,~.,~;s, Saratoga General Plan 2 August 25, 2006 • • .:hl, hl,n~ 1 ()7n ~e«n.-.,1 Dln.~: TL.e L'1^.«n«h , Tl,n !`: h..in °„h:~ «_~., hl,° In« .1 «.1 h., hl.o e~rt~ ; ~ t ' as-a ~e~} t~ -} i ~ -e}~i ~e ixix ~ a f':*.. n h',,,,«a°a n,~ g d~,.,n°,1 .,,, h ~ } s e~e l,n 1,,.«l.nr:«.. «.1 „a ,,,1, nh„ ~~l„nt,n lnhn . .,1. ° ~ ~. T,nn.,h.. n.F• hT.n «n4„rnl- nn,z:r~r,m°r, 4 Tr, 41~° in*4nr }~}a~ E ~e € 6}33}3}l~T}}~ i 1:eS 1,n°« nl.in h., .~^hn;« ;t n ;.1°«h; h,. n« .1 , rit7Re~e)=)-~Yx°c «h: r.,,:«., «.a «:.~1 ,rl.n« • in ,.nlTe„_fl.,~,r «~l 4;,n.hT.;lln n ' n r° ,l.,,Y,:«nhe.l 1... ,1°..nl,,.,.~,°«h t7°r.. F .,..,rnL.n..,i:. «.7 ,.« .,~nl~ ~(` ~7,~.1h,,..n~l`'I~n«,7n l.n..^ n .n.i aJ-re'1}~iZI`ae~'~7-l7~LY3e~}ty-$--~S~.Sh• Tl., h., 41.., ]~ :hnrl In«.1 n:lnl,l~;« hl,° ,.nil°,. ~l°,.nt.,« .. h., nl Tl.n rnnl;h,, n.F ., .i°,«n«.dn piZ.SSi~ieS. -~~s eel} ~ n ~ - sa ° ^ -~-~ ;Q ega~ g ~A e es~ ~ t } ~ t~ ~ ~ - e , ~ ee e ~~ ~k#' ~^~ h '~ e g . a a }e-e ae e~ err y~ ~ - n ~e • Tl..n r:h.. n,F en nh., L.n «hl. «4~r,«°.1 . , l.nrnnh^~ n«a «.a «.1 hT.n C;h.. +L.r,,, ,.,1, n «;t, : r„r,.°,r _rr n ~ 11,,,,. «,1 , «anhn hl,°_n«° ., C'r.n..° Rl°,,,°«h hn, Draft Open Space/Conservation Element ~„ n«n« e«nn° Tnnl. >~„rnn;_.,.nn F , -.~,na 1... hi.~ i~at e~i-}: Slle ~~7,~{ ^ ~ ~ x eel3se $, YF)17tttt7EC[e' ~e. 7e~'G[ il h„ «l:nl, «a „h hT.n r:h..~n ,.nln ~x -a}~- a€ e ea~~~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~esePV g s~ ~+~se~ees: g ; x - s ~ ic 1~ ~ S i ' ~ m iaa 6gaT-ieS e 9~ z~PHi ~3vSe_ A - e 1 ^NN,,.~~ ~1'xCl~: l..,n„h., n«nl hl,n n ,nl; h,. n.F 1:F ,..T,:nT, nl,nrn nhnr f € h~ $~ ~} 3 ~e}'3~a f ' n..., ° nh;n,« nn,.vn x~ 3 e «.7 Dnnrnnh; ., ~ « !'.,w,.«;n g n:....n ., ~ .1 H~n L':«n«nn !~, ~ ' ~~ i ~7 ~' ~ t~Gxixrra ee, a xe 2Y 2 . tYY uTe -a5i~c e 9£Ee Saratoga General Plan 3 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element .. .. _ ..r--- ~r---- crn~axrmixsi~~-FaiE~--f33S~6~eF3 E13$}3~°c~ -Fs~-irr~ • ~ cic°zi'rciii~' The i~t&t F !'`.,1:~ .-«:.. n °nni, 1~n~11 ......_... ~.,v- --------- It -----.-.- -------- i n «tin11 n••n° , .,.7 «.] ••~ ,- •• rrc ~crccr-vr ~o ~ Y 11 f .. l ~ ~ 1 1 1} l' « a i men SSp Ar AC~ -~3 ~ 3~ rux x xe3 tz r n n ~ ' r e «.7 .. Yn.7 F r ., f f ' . . ° ° ° n' iiI1G T-YY Y12bYlY @.5, Y'CCli c°f~~~ ei~5'~'YYYlY. n}« vn] ..n}n ti n « v f n]~nve~n ~ I a .- n.7 ~ n .. '"~° F v }]-.° v,v°nn,..,^h:v« „F „'},^ yyzazt-ct Wit.»_~ _.,- `--- r'-"-- • ,.".~ a ."' e etl3er SE ~ei4ti ~2~S~F3~- ~3#~65 °cT-~dRmT C~IrS 2S ~ 3-e6rt~ ~6fS, ~ u~d • s > > ••.... , n, a ° :4n ° ~ n > > ~ i ~ t ~ t -v~l > te - .,,, areas I .~I e er s ~e~ : , a 1, ' t, 4 1:«L I B ~ TTCTiI12-[i'IITiLTT'VI-~K IQ Cr ~, RI 1 RC0~ t,~ c t] L ° ......Y..,.. ....... ........, .1. L, .7 ri a t,.,.~t cO ° I -'J ' t~~ 4r12ifli-iIGT 6"Z RIi R IQ IL7e'LiIO ~CrfJ' ° -- y~ }L,n .,nll°.. Fi°nr n«.-1 ; ....... .....,..b « }l.,n F ..41.:11 .. ° Saratoga Planning Area: The Citv of Saratoga is located in the westerl portion of Santa Clara County_just southwest of the maLr metropolitan community of San Jose and approximately 35 miles south of San Francisco. Saratoga is found at the southerly end of the San Francisco Peninsula. As full descrip- tion of its regional setting and planning area boundaries is contained in the Land Use Element (See Exhibits LU-1 and LU-2 of the Land Use Element . • 4 Au ust 25, 2006 Saratoga General Plan 9 of sgly, rp~~ ~~~~ ,n,~ r, P P ' Draft O en S ace/Conservation Element °~Lrxox~. EXISTWG OPEN SPACE RESOURCES Tt,o F 11,,.,.;...,. ..«.,..d_~~~~.~,.0.1,oo,LO~*~ht:Pl,od ~„ ., :..~ .l~e r:«..: »t,,.,*;,,,, ., ,.eta ~ .. „ ~~..~ .,..l..e c,,,.t. ., a ...1,,..+;,,., ,7.,e~ .,,,+ ; «l.. e!1 ,1.1: T4 «40«,10.7 4.. ;.le ~;~t~a~-aye-ee~s}sEe~I rv}I~ tie ~-~~ «..l,,.lo l.,,r ., .,r 1:«.,:•o.l r,. •l,e F 11.,,,.:„,.. ~t~~Ie~~s-o~ore~e- 4. ~ r,r.,,...t,o,. «a ,..,.~,...,.. F ..... ' o e~et~-somas ~~-aeli~v~' eea~ «..1,.,1:«.,. ~' t:.L;,. ..4...7;x... ..«.7 «~..1 0,7., f ,1,.,,:„„ ., x,11„*.,«~~ f ! f f f ~~. f ~ f • zl'x"m~"xim«iT~3c -~s~t~-pii-uSi4i~ v s ~~ D.....7., x.~7.,., .. { ' .. A..x..... x.C ., ~ e~e-a}~ a «.] epr~ , va ~ ~~n ..F .... «x7 ..~e r I Plan Saratoga Gene a 3 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element ~zte`~~sea~e-A twee ~eve~ sea~e-~s-l~eee 1 4 .1' 4 .1..-. ~...1° ~° ' 'rl.° °l.~ ~ OSe E3 •11 4.. «. 2nn c °4 ' - T i » crcc ... ic-rtcn v- « z- .... »... .. .,.. i~vi cgivmi~°oo"- Jam: T~=emote-~,e-eke-~e~ ~~~ ase-~4~ ~` .1 L... 41-.vim. ..F .. ° e « 41.° .. .,J ...~ .,___.._ -r __~-_ __ --- _-_- n« ~e23si~ce-A~3eli~c"s", F "„"°'1 4 .1 C.«°.1 nl° rT.'isE~'O6e~~3~3C~-ii~tel~3e~k~e--~~2 1 1 . * ~ . , ~' t ~ ° Yietivs- n~ >. tt~ teg~eat ~e a i et~zs-~ag ' e~es, '':, ' ~Ic~}s, 1 a 4 a 14 1 a 1 ~ . ...... . ..... G1'ITTI'~TT- 1. 1 '4 ~~~~ outcgvi~ii ..1 ri ...n .... .. ., .,.,.~. l1DL` T lD A !'L` T I'ClC[~::~s, tT 1 L~tex~ee~ iclrccmc'1c~ria" n ... , n ..4:1:41. ° . ».. ...... .J .». A Av ciTi i~ Rns-~t aGaw .Y.~ -~e~~s-T nua~c «4.. .°w,° ,~..._...... T i v ~ ~ n ~ ~= c r y _......---a ~r=-- =r--- ----- ---- -- ---- e F 41 . 41a 1,'11 1. v..... v.... ......., ° F .,41.:11.. «,7 -t~ t~]e--t~pr~ 3 ~cirS~$eeS-~ Y° ° ° s nn~ ..~ lrari~vre~L~-a••••,,:«e~ sy• L, '1..,1;..: n:..« c~ccrr ugaa - ` .............. 4 i ..1°n .. ~cn ,.~ .7°.7:nn4°.1 b J "J ' ". J . ..b TZ2iICQ~.~e~ 2TGTC81I71ZLC ri 1 '4 1 i' 1, 1,°4,..n°., 41.° Saratoga General Plan 6 August 25, 2006 • C7 • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element cc°°==7eui s i A~t~3 ~~3e-~3e~3 ~'e~3e~~~~~ ~'e~~es~E~~e~ dn.,,.n .:.t, •t,n n•n„d"-d~ .,FrL.n ., ., d:n+r: n. ; ...t,; nt, 4t,n tn.~.d ;n t~nn4n.t r.~n~s, t~e~c~-aye a ....t ,....,d_ea o ,.F ~~~fi,_nt tn~a ~det• tom-Wei-a~se~~^ ^.~ ~~s~~es-~~c-a}}~a~e ~a~go~ ..;.t, n ..,>,e.. e€ st~tet~es ~~ w~~e e~e~-a~eas~e ~x~'~~ ~kese-s~~es-ago t,.,.n.od .;~,.:.. ~•~ ~~,~. ,.L.:nl. •l,n 1 .,~~tod T,., ndd; f;n .,1,.,.,1 ~:+nn ,. :n* nF... tn,..,.-.,.,,,dam ,ti, ..~...L,:nt. and L.,. •l.n .. ~ r,;~:: tt~r.i„ ~et~ ; n4 .. ~t~eg~-i~-c-~e>:rt~-s erne ' .~,4n.~.. nnt, ~..tn 4t,.~nn ~~.:.t~,; nt~. n .non e n ~ Saratoga General Plan •rt,n «,.«nt nnt,,,,,t n:.,, to«d n ,. znn ~~~; ~ ~ inn ,.c «t,one ~n ~;=~ n.,.;nt .,, t,o dn,.nt,,..nd F,. nl.,dnd ..:~L,;..:tn '~eeze,,; ., -ie-~s d ~ . eg ~ - s ~z ' * ~ ~ ~ c n ~ t~' m ~u cvg3ieS e1 &Fe-@eec6Ji e- A- v S =c ee , August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element ..... ., .. »........b ...... -p Sf 6 -~~ t~ Ci$tl•6~3 &i a i~ k i ir 6 }l.n r.....,}.. ,. a t i x n loi °~ ?-b»- cavc - v r~cc .. se ti ~ ~'~e-~ e ---ept~ s}~ e~a ree~ee ~t ~e~ m ~ ~ ~~' ~ - aEt~v~es-ate >~ es E>:l T ,. E -~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ .. fti~E-~9' ~ - 5 S9E~E~ 46i3- - 6rrtQ 3e ~ xrnarxcuxxxca-v7-crn, ...,.... a~racmicc .~ ...... _ .,...,.... Parinix~r'c's}32i~~t36~S T} a n:l.l° }.. -a-- --------- -~ ~>\,lvncri~ ° ,.4n1 0 ,Ina: .............. »b....: j' ....... } ,7 } 47, :}'.. ...7 .+ .,}nn}'cam ,.F ~+ .....,...._ .,Y.... ~}3c--viiT9--9~3ei~ S~3 E° ln.,an ,..nl,,.l° 'T'L,:n n°n}:,,., , .; 11 f Hsu ... }l.,° .. n Tacxvrrvrciri$xxrr ..,., »..._ ..... ».....,. .. ~t,. ~~' 3 f~Et~643t~'i 11 ' o o Q ' ~ ~ " ~ ~ e ~3~3563 3 m n e~ i3 4et C~nt~aets -- N ~ i i z c ~ x z se~- i e~ ~t ~g- -~~ke-;- e~at~ } ~ x~e -mss , Aga--~y-e~} ~e .. 41nn «.,.}°.~}:nt ..,7 .. C , « ,70..,.1 -~'$e~)Ec~ ~ -' ~ c ~ n vmxixiiir} i ~ ~&H r.sc °„}l, a~ n}°.7 ' E - xc F ,. ` ~CS---Fl~ 2 p~vpe~ i ' n ~ .....b...~ .. s mnzct rrxc icinzeFr~zux-evmz .,.......». , i~ ~ ~ rce .. ... e- -rri-xrs E}li~ei~t~^~eixe ° i Tv ~m v ~ ,. '~'? -zvitiir~r~prvP ~ccnTCn xx cr ~ TL,° loon TT Q ~ i v ~ s !`n«,n„n i~.7:nn4°n . r eS. Ov - e . v s ti3 cic i rn i % e ^1'4 ^a°-' }l, ~ }a ~ 3(~o s- sE .., f ' ...,..~ , .,.::b... ,b ~ r , '} F « ..,7.1:4:,..,nl ,:1~1...«7......7 n«Ln °:b ............... i,.»..... Saratoga General Plan 8 August 25, 2006 • • ~y~,~p~~,,r~=` Draft Open Space/Conservation Element € th ,.;1°,1 n ,:4>, 4>,n;« ese e „.1 . ,.. 1:n4,.«l.n.l ..:1.-11:Fe b.nb.;4n4 4; .+.-. nF~ «4n n o 4>,o..r ;4.rs ,.nT__,.~,n..n,.4o« n«,.~1 ,n11 L.n:«.... T. .ne.,n:4:.. 0 .l o..nl.,..,,.o.,4n e.~an..,.n.- .n4:.-.,~ ,.F n ,. ,,...:n.,l L ,nin..~o_; .,4:n1.4',~« n Op~n space for outdoor recreation, includ- • -rl,o..o n T °' 1 o t ,Y,T,o« „r ; : -..~. ys em. - rnln4n11 4n 41.e (~:4..~n o nn4« :nn nr„1 r.nann4ri nn ..4 :.7n..4:fin,1 ~. . n`1 .,4.., v o ° _~^: ' ' t ~ t ~ ^„nl_ r«n;l__ n..n4nrr._ n -r ee~ee e o no nd selie € ~i* i - ~l li c~ls ~e-net well ~ es- a ~ ~ ac nn4ell L... Mn;ln F «r.nann 4rin., ., The State of California's Planning Law defines open space as any parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open space use and which is designated on a local, regional or state open space plan. (Government Code Section 65560.) Of particulaz relevance to Saratoga, the Plan- ning Law states that open space includes, but is not limited to, the following: • Open space for the preservation of natural resources, including, but not limited to, parks, recreation areas, azeas required for • Open space for preservation of scenic viewsheds, including but, not. limited to, azeas of natural scenic views, ridgelines, hillsides, valleys, azeas with natural vege- tation, orchazds and roadway, scenery. Within the City of Sazatoga Planning Area, there exists a diversity of open space lands which fall into each of the above-stated catego- the preservation of plants and animal life, habitat of fish and wildlife species, areas required for ecologic and other scientific study purposes, .water courses, riparian corridors, watershed ,lands and utility easements. Open space used for the managed produc- tion of resources, including but not limited to, forest land, rangeland, vineyards, pas- tures, agricultural lands, and areas of eco- nomic importance for the production of food or fiber; areas required for the re- charge of groundwater, streams, and areas containing major mineral deposits. ing but not limited to, parks, recreation az- eas, areas of outstanding scenic, historic or cultural value, areas particularly suited for pazk and recreational purposes, access to water courses and azeas which serve to link major recreation and open space az- eas, utility easements, trails and scenic roadways. Open space for public health and safety, including but not limited to areas which require special management or regulations because of hazardous or special condition such as earthquake fault zones, unstable soil areas, flood plains, watersheds, areas presenting high fire risks, areas required for the protection of water quality and wa- ter reservoirs and areas required for pro- tection and enhancement of air quality. Saratoga General Plan 9 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element vies. A majority of the open space consists of hillsides and mountains in the southern and western areas of the City and Sphere of Influ- ence.. -Most. _of this land is undeveloped and undisturbed. Small neighborhood parks and school sites serve the community. These parks are primarily located along the valley floor and in-the-foothill_areas._ ___ __. _ ___ _ The City's existing open space lands are diverse in scale, use and level of improvement. While most of the open space in the hillside is charac- terized by undeveloped and undisturbed land, the typical open spaces in the foothills and valley floor are landscaped and designed. The oven space inventory is described and cateeo- rized in this Element, as follows: Dedicated Open Space Lands This category includes parcels and easements dedicated as private or public open space, parks or scenic/open space easements. Most of the dedicated lands were acquired through subdivi- sion approvals. These lands are designated as open space and are considered protected as such. This category includes over 250 acres of dedicated open spaces and easements. Williamson Act Contracts In the City there are a number of agriculture sites of varying sizes, which are protected and restricted to agricultural or open space use only, as defined in the specific Williamson Act contracts. These lands add not only to the perception of open space within the City, but' also serve as a vital link between the modern City and its agricultural past: Land area of agricultural lands currently under Williamson Act contracts total ~ 109 acres. ~fti=r ...,.. _ ... c~ _ ,,,,o~t a.,.e The mini- . 'z----- mum term for a contract is 10 years. However. Saratoga General Plan some jurisdictions exercise the option of making the term longer, up to twenty years. Contracts renew automatically every year unless non- renewed..Upon request of non-renewal, con- tracts will expire 9 years from the anniversary date following the iving of a timely notice of non-renewal See -Government Code Sections 51244 & 51. At that time, the land may be developed in accordance with the standards of the zoning district in which the land is located. In addition to the' agricultural land within the City limits, there are several hundred acres of agricultural land under the Williamson Act contracts within the City's Sphere of Influence. Private and Community Open Spaces. Private and Community open space land includes private properties with established open space use such as the Saratoga Country Club, and Madronia Cemetary. The Madronia Ceme- tery is maintained by a Cemetery District. Private lands such as Villa Montalvo, are leased for public use. Flood Easements Flood easements along creeks within Saratoga that preclude development, are under the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. A few portions are dedicated and owned by the District but large portions are still privately owned. The creeks and flood ease- ments are important natural resources which contribute to the beauty of Saratoga. School Sites Saratoga is currently served by nine elementary schools, three of which are private, two high schools and a community college. Public schools are in four elementary school districts; three high school districts and two community college districts. Only one of the elementary school districts Saratoga Union School District, is located entirely within the city. All other elementary school districts overlay other cities. 10 August 25, 2006 C. • • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element The total school site land area that serves the Saratoga residents is over 300 acres; over 100 acres of these areas are already devoted to open space and recreation use. School sites contribute to the sense of open space in the neighborhoods in which they are located. In addition, many school sites- include playgrounds and playfields, many some of which are used by the community through joint use agreements with the Sarato a Union School district. City Parks The City_ controls approximately 87 acres of parkland of which 63 acres have been improved for park purposes. City parks are eg nerally well- distributed throughout the community. Existing parks, are described below, and include a mix of neighborhood. city-wide and specialty parks. • Azule Park includes 4.3 acres of city-owned land located at 12777 Goleta Avenue. Improvements include 2 playgrounds, one for 2-5 years olds and one for 6-12 near olds, one tennis court, 2 horseshoe pits, 4 barbecue areas, 2 drinking fountains, several park benches and picnic tables, _ perimeter pathway with 4 par course stations, grass turf area, security lighting and connection to the VTA crossing_point over Hwy. 85. Beauchamns Park contains 2.0 acres and faces east Beauchamps Lane between Crayside land and Bowhill Court. Improvements include chil- dren play area for 2-Sand 6-12 age appropriate eJc uipment, 1 basketball hoop, 1 tennis court, 1 picnic table, pedestrian pathway, security light- ing and open turf area. Central Park or Heritage Orchard is located near the Civic Center, bounded on the north by Saratoga Avenue, on the south by Wildcat Creek and the Civic Center, and on the east by Fruit- vale Avenue. It is a 17-acre site that contains a 14-acre orchard, the community library and the library parking lot. • Chess Springs Park, located at 12970 Glen Brae Drive, contains 9.97 acres of land and is improved with 7 soccer fields, 6 baseball dia- monds, 2-5 and 6-12 year old children's play area with age appropriate play equipment, picnic tables and barbecue, open turf practice field, concession stand, 2 restrooms, 2 drinkin fg oun- tains, pedestrian path, benches and an off-street parking area. • El Ouito Park is located at 12855 Paseo Presada. This park contains 6.3 acres of land and has been developed with a picnic area with barbeques, a children's play area, volleyball courts, ball/soccer fields, horseshoe pits and a fitness course. This park includes night lighting Foothill Park contains a total of 3 acres of land (0.9 acres owned by the City and 2.1 acres of land owned by the school district), It fronts on Seaton Avenue, and facing north and south of the park is Foothill School. The City-owned por- tion includes benches and turf area. • Gardiner Park, at 19085 Portos Drive, includes two children's playground areas, for 2-5 and 6- 12 year-olds, benches and picnic tables, a drink- ing fountain, open turf area and a pedestrian pathway on 2.1 acres of land. • Bell rove Park is a linear a 2 acre park that parallels State Route 85 and contains a children's • Hakone Gardens is a specialty park consisting of play area and picnic tables. ~ 15.5 acres and located at 21000 Big Basin Wad It contains a picnic area, hillside and high trails, • Br okQlen Park contains 0.7 acres of land at a bamboo park and water-strolling_gardens, a 12734 Brookglen Court. Improvements include a Cultural Exchange Center, tea ceremonies, foun- children's playground, half-court basketball dation offices, food service, restrooms and off- court, night lighting, climbing equipment, picnic street parking. The park is one of 12 sites desig= tables and open turf area. nated by the National Trust as part of the Trust's nerai Plan 11 Au ust 25 2006 Saratoga Ge g , Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Save America's Treasures program. It is avail- able for weddings and special events. Historical Park, includes .5 acre of park located at 20460 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Site of three of Saratoga's historic buildings: the Historical Heritage Museum, Saratoga's first library build- ing (circa 1927), and the McWilliams House that was built in 1865 by the town's blacksmith. The site also contains a eucalyptus tree grove, off- streetparking and security lighting. Kevin Moran Park includes 10.3 acres, of which 4 acres are developed, and is located at 12415 Scully Avenue: Improvements include picnic tables benches, drinking fountain, basketball hoop perimeter pathway with 4 par course sta- tions grass turf area, security lighting and con- nection to a VTA crossing_point over Hwy. 85. • Pollard and Ouito property. At the northeast corner of Quito Road and Pollard Road is a .6 acre open mace parcel that contains an unim- provedpath. • Ravenwood Park is located at 13830 Ravenwood Drive across from Raven Court and includes a small tot playground area and benches on 0.45 acres. • San Marcos Wilderness Park includes 10 acres of land between Sobey Road and Fruitvale Ave- nue at Crisp Avenue. This is a natural open space area with a trail that goes through it. • Springhill Court property includes a 0.2 acre parcel at the end of Springhill Court that was dedicated to the city as park land as part of the development of the adjacent subdivision. The parcel is in its natural state with no improve- ments. Wildwood Park is a 4.1 acre park located at 20764 Fourth Street that includes 2-5 and 6-12 year old children's play area with age appropri- ate play equipment, volleyball area, horseshoe pits bike paths, stage and amphitheatre, barbe- cues drinking fountains, grass turf area, pedes- trian pathway and. security lighting. In addition to Citesparks, there are several rer gional parks that, while not owned by the City of Saratoga, are located partially or wholly within its Sphere of Influence and/or immedi- ately adjacent to its boundaries, and thus provide an additional source of parklands for the communitiy. These parks include Villa Montalvo; Stevens Creek Park, Sanborn Sk lie CountxPark and Fremont Older. (See discussion under R~ional Parksl. Exhibit OSC 1 shows the location of existing Parks and Open Space Resources within or adiacent to the Saratoga Planning Area• Saratoga General Plan 12 August 25, 2006 • - ~. ~ - J:,,~.,...~: r ,r,°° ~~` Draft Open Space/Conservation Element P ~L~FOR~Ii • x V Exhibit OSC-1 ~ lld 12 1 i11Qp ~a.~~w_~ City Limit -••--•••°~•• Sphere oflnfluence Parks i QS within Sphere. of Influence 0 Parks / OS outside Sphere of Influence • PARKS AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES Saratoga General Plan 13 August 25, 2006 SOURCE: City ~fS:~ruiogs, July 2Q0&. Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Large Residential Lots Tl.' • non .,F «4 n,w;nll„ b J r ~ o ~r TL, .a i .7 l,;ll~:.lo~ +;rL.:« rl,o r:..+ n«.1 Y ~ b~ J+ Regional Parks and Open Spaces. Three major regional parks exist within, or partially within, the City's Planning, Area and are accessible to Saratoga residents. The three parks are Montalvo Arboretum, Stevens Creek Park and Sanborn County Park. These parks total of 1,830 acres. Montalvo Arboretum includes 175 acres of woodland in the hills straddling the south-. ern boundary of the City. The majority of this open space is located within the County unincorporated area, but is par- tially located within the City of Saratoga and is it entirety within the City's Sphere of Influence. The land is operated in trust by the- Montalvo Association and is leased to the County on a long term basis. The site contains the Arboretum and recrea- tional open space. The Villa, which pro- vides cultural and music activities and programs, is owned and operated by the Montalvo.. Association. The .park. is main- tained by the County with Federal assis- tance. _ -. - -Upper- Stevens .Creek Park is _ a multiple purpose park in Cupertino's Sphere of In- fluence. It is accessible to Saratoga resi- dents by trail and scenic road. The park contains 655 acres including a 92-acre, non-power boating reservoir popular with fisherman and boaters, picnic areas, over 6 miles of single track and multi-use trails which connect with the Mid-Peninsula Open Space Fremont Older Preserve, and a 28 station roving archery course and ranee, which is omen to the public. Sanborn County Park is a part of a larger regional Skyline Park. The Skyline Park contains 1,000 acres and extends from Sanborn Park to Skyline Boulevard. It is one of a series of multiple-purpose recrea- tion areas and trails, .which complement Castle Rock State Park and create an un- disturbed corridor along the scenic moun- tain highway. These trails are part of an even more extensive trail svstem that links the Santa Clara and San Lorenzo valleys with Castle Rock State Park, Big Basin Redwoods State Park. and the Pacific Coast. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District lands Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) is a governmental agency dedicated to the acquisition and protection of open space lands. The MROSD holdings include over 320 acres within Saratoga's Planning Area. Among them is Fremont Older Open Snace, an 739- acre preserve located on the urban fringe and extending to Upper Stevens Creek Park to the Saratoga General Plan 14 August 25, 2006 • • • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • • north and west. This open space resource offers a varie of experiences to hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians. Trails Over the years, the City has encoura eg d the dedication of a -comprehensive and intercon- nected system of multi-use trails in the community that link to the regional, county- wide trail system as well. The trails allow a range of bicycle riding, hiking, walking, jogging and equestrian uses as well as an alternative to motorized transport: Develop- ment of the trail system in Saratoga is aided by the 1974 Trails Master Plan, that was updated and adopted by the City in 1991 as part of the Parks and Trails Master Plan. This plan was coordinated to complement the existing County Trails and Pathways Master Plan. The City has approximately 29 linear miles of existing- and dedicated trails. In addition, there are approximately 12 linear miles of proposed trails. Exhibit OSC-2 shows the location of existing and proposed trails within Saratoga as shown on the Ci~'s Existing and Proposed Trails Map. which has a common boundary with Upper Stevens Creek Park's eastern boundary. The Cityis planning a trail that would link Saratoga trails to the County trail coming out of Stevens Creek County Park into the Mount Eden Valley. Similarly, the City is helping_plan the Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail, which envisions a trailhead near Hakone Gardens that would connect Saratoga to Sanborn County Park and then to the Skyline-to-the-Sea Trail, a hike that begins at the Saratoga Gap on the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The Skyline-to-the-Sea trail winds through redwood forests into Castle Rock State Park and down into Big Basin State Park. Hikers emerge 34 miles from the moun- tain ridge onto Waddell State Beach on the Pacific Ocean. The trail would connect through a 65-acre former quarry owned by the Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department, which is on the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains between Saratoga and Sanborn County Park. The Santa Clara County Roads and Airports Department and the City of Saratoga will work together to enter into a joint use agreement once the County determines feasibility for development of a trail through the abandoned quarry. Military Facilities Open Space Linkages The City's existing open spaces and parkland are currently spread throughout the valley areas and the hillsides. However, the continu- ity of open spaces and connections through trail systems are important in order to enhance the scenic value, provide public access, maintain existing wildlife pathways and ensure the. enjoyment of the open space system. Especially important is the connection of public facilities and parkland through a multi-use trail system. An example of these linkages is the Parker Ranch Loop, a segment of trail that connects Saratoga to the Fremont Older Open Space and, Section 65560 (bl of the California Government Code requires Open Space Elements to address "open space in support of the mission of military installations, that comprises areas adjacent to military installations, military training routes and underlying restricted airspace that can provide additional buffer zones to military activities and complement the resource values of the military lands." No such military lands exist within or adjacent to the City of Saratoga. Saratoga General Plan 15 August 25, 2006 y! °~~~~:~~~~" ~ Draft Open Space/Conservation Element ~~ ~L/FOF~P . •~ ~ P . ~. ~ ~ti _ - -~-~_~-_ ~ r ~~ .. m~ x ~`+t I '' ~~r~ ~-~ ,~ . ,~'' ~ _ ~ ~. • CITY OF SaRR70GA EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRAILS DRRFT FOR REVIEW EN TRA ILS C OM M RTE E LEGEND Exkting City Traik muuuu Proposed CiblTraik ~aa~i Other Existing Public Traik ~~~~s Other Proposed Public Traik aau®r City LimiS ~~ Sphere oflnfluence ~ ilrteriak Saratoga Parks -- - Other Park Resources Public Schook _,.~.~- laks o a:s rv r Dugust 1,2006 Au ust 25 2006 Saratoga General Plan 16 9 , • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • • RESOURCE AREAS Undeveloped and Agricultural Lands There are two basic land resources to conserve in the Saratoga Planning Area -undeveloped and agricultural lands.: Approximately ninety ep rcent of the land in the City is developed. In addition to the 900 acres of undeveloped land in the incorporated City, there are approximately 700 acres that are essentially vacant in the Sphere of Influence. Most of these lands are located in hillside areas and are subject to significant constraints such as steep slopes and unstable soils These hills, and further away, the mountains, are valuable scenic open spaces which balance the growing urbanized areas. The conservation of these unspoiled open spaces with their scenic views and undisturbed wildlife habitat and native plants, as a permanent greenbelt around the City, is essential for the preservation efforts of the City's rural character and well-being; Insensitive developments endanger this last valuable natural resource,. The preservation of ecological balance is essential for a better quality of life in the future. Agricultural uses in the City include more than 150 acres of land. Of this total, 109 acres have been designated agricultural preserves under the Williamson Act. The intent of this act is to avert the premature development of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses through lowered property taxes on contracted land. The act permits a lower County tax assessment based on agricultural use rather than development potential. In defining agricultural uses as they relate to Williamson Act lands, Government Code Section 51205 further states that where the term `agricultural use' is used, it shall also be deemed to include recreational and open space use. Mineral Extraction Mineral resources in the Saratoga vicinity are limited primarily to sandstone and shale. Currently, there are no mines or quarries known to be operating in Saratoga or its Sphere of Influence. Geologic Hazards The land's capability of supportin development varies rg eatly throughout- Saratoga and its where of Influence. While many areas offer problem-free development sites, many others contain hazards such as soil erosion, landslides, soil subsidence, and'severe earth shaking Much of the Sphere of Influence, in particular,- is characterised by unstable soil conditions made even more hazardous to development by the steepness of the terrain. The San Andreas Fault, which crosses through Sarato ag 's Sphere of Influence, presents another serious hazard to any development within the fault zone. A major earthquake along the San Andreas Fault is expected to occur in the next several decades. In 1906, Santa Cruz Mountain residents suffered losses resultiri f~ rg ound displacement, ground shaking, and landslides. During smaller earthquakes, the same phenom- ena may occur; however, with far less intensity and extent. The Safety and Seismic Safety Elements of the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan more specifically define the geologic hazards existing in Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence. Flood Plain and Flood Protection Saratoga is located in the North Central Flood Zone of the Santa Clara County Water District. Creeks in the City under District jurisdiction are Calabazas, Rodeo, Saratoga, Wildcat, and San Tomas. In general, flooding from these creeks has been confined to the relatively narrow flood plain directly adjacent to the creeks. Exhibit OSC-3 shows the location and extent of the 100- Saratoga General Plan 17 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element year flood plain as identified by the Federal EmergencYManagement Agency (FEMA). In the past, however, homes have been con- structed in these flood plains which maw subject to severe damage. In January of 1982, a severe storm affected the entire peninsula causing a significant amount of damage. More recent flooding has occurred in the lower lying areas of the City. Since 1982, several of the City's creeks have been widened and deepened to improve their water carr~g capacity. The Water District's main activities in Saratoga have been the routine maintenance of channels, including silt removal, clearing of underbrush and other debris, and erosion control. Saratoga residents have expressed disapproval of any plans to channelize the natural watercourses, aruUlrig,_that flood control systems should be developed that utilize natural systems and enhancement and restoration of natural features that can diminish flood flows acid rates of flow. In response to this, the Water District has suggested that adequate flood plains be estab- lished which would include less land on either side of the creek bed but would in some cases require some dike or levee construction parallel- ing its banks. In mid-1974 the Citespassed a Resolution authorizing_citizens to purchase flood insurance under the provision of the Federal Flood Insurance Program Act. In addition to the insurance the City conditions subdivisions to improve streams or drainage ways to prevent flooding The Water District is notified of any proQosed devel~ment that mi hg t impact a Water District stream. Development in Saratoga and .its Sphere of Influence will have the potential to intensify runoff by adding more impervious surfaces, increasing stormwater flows to the local and regional flood control network. Continued cooperation between the City and the Water District will ensure the maintenance and protection of the flood control network. Fire Hazard Area Portions of the hillside areas and certain other -areas of-the-City -are considered high-risk fire areas by the Saratoga Fire District and the Central Santa Clara County . Fire Protection District, which are the two fire protection special districts that provide fire suppression, fire prevention and emergency response to the City of Saratoga. The Fire Districts consider_ the hillside portions of the Saratoga plannin arg ea to be hazardous fire areas. In some instances, dwellings are, or could be, located near dense tree and brush areas with limited access for emergenc~e~c uipment and in places where provision of a reliable and adequate water s_pply ma~not be available. A map of the Fire Hazard areas is shown at Exhibit OSC-4. The Fire Districts and Saratoga Building Division continue to carefully review plans for development in hazardous fire areas to ensure that an adequate emergenc}_response can be achieved that building sprinklers and effective alarm systems are provided and that an adequate water supply with appropriate water pressure is available. Saratoga General Plan 18 August 25, 2006 ~J • s ~yLIFO~~;t• ~' Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • Fachibit OSG-3 FLOODING POTENTIAL. City Limit. •~-~•~ Sphere of Influence -+~..-~- 100-year Flood Plain (approx. ) Saratoga General Plan ~ o ~~¢ t,z ~ n,l,~ J ~.--=-mm-;~~ 19 August 25, 2006 $QI:RC:E: FEJ~1.4, Ftaud Insurance bate b9ap, City oPSaratpg&. 3.)uly 19JT. Draft Open Space/Conservation Element ~.. k .--- ° ~ - ;~, '"" • ~ ~I~r" a ~~rry I ~ KEN ~~~~c: 4 ~ a ~, .+' y ~~O 1 a ~• l ~I ~ pis ~~`-~ ~.~5 Y 4r .r qT q O N ~, , s~~5. pro ~~n as " .~~~". ~ .~ Al~.~a.. ~ ... ti _ ~ b~ '{~ s a m ~xp 6 a O 0 Po ~ ~~~ • TCdros'~ w ~" ~y ,` A ,a~ •~• a..., . ~,..~...~....d.. ~... ~.....~.. ®......,.. r~ .. A a 7 Q w SOURCE Cotmty of Santa Claza, 2006. Exhibit OSC-4 HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA City Limit --••-••--•• Sphere of Influence °•;b;,=;,;_:° Designated Hazardous Fire Area, ~'``"'"``~A~" Early Warning Alarm System - 0 114 112 I mile Road Saratoga General Plan 20 August 25, 2006 C • • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • • Water Supply Domestic water is supplied to Saratoga b San Jose Water Company, a private company serving central Santa Clara County, including the City of Saratoga. Water is available from three sources: local groundwater, which is -extracted-via a series of -wells;--local surface water, primarily streams and runoff from local hillsides; and, imported water from Santa Clara Valley Water District. Well and stream water is purified at the San- Jose Water Company treatment plant in Los Gatos. The San Jose Water Companydoes not supply water to areas more than one lift (300 feet) above the City's service system. Before more construction is allowed in portions of the Sphere of Influence or the western hillsides, additional water sourceL, and an economical water distribution stem must . be identified that will allow a reliable delivery of an adequate supply and pressure of water for domestic and firefi hg tiny City's water supply. These areas should be protected from significant urbanization in order to maximize continued production of the local water supply. (See Exhibit OSC - 5) Water puality -The City of Saratoga is a participating-agency in the County of Santa Clara Non-Point Source Pollution Control Program. This program is to protect lakes, river, creeks, streams and other bodies of water in compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ~NPDESI Permit requirements. Under this program, local development projects, both public and private funded, must incorporate Best Management Practices into each development in order to protect water quality during both construction and post-construction phases of a proiect. Adherence to water quality standards for development proposals is the responsibility of the City of Sarato~ purposes. The San Jose Water Compan~pdated its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2005. Based on population projections made by the Association of Bay Area Governments (an annual 1.5% growth rate), the UWMP found that the San Jose Water Company will have suffi- cient c~acity of local water available to serve their service area until 2030. The UWMP found that water shortages would occur in the event of an extended, multi-year drought during this time period but methods are included in the UWMP to ensure that adequate water service would continue. These methods include additional groundwater pumping, acquisition of additional imported water and implementation of water conservation techniques. Watershed Protection Areas Portions of the higher elevations of the Santa Cruz Mountains within the City's Sphere of Influence~rovide water runoff into local streams and recharge wells that provide a portion of the Saratoga General Plan 21 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element R E a u s? m . i , rr~,~,~,ri (,rJ ,j/%i '~ rf ~!,r~%rf' i ,j~rlrry^i rJJj~`f rf l~,'r~/,' j'j i r I r'~r . !%J ~rl. r firrr,.r:;r~ r r^! i r'i r ! 1 f f rr J r f r~ rrf ,' f'r'J i r'F/~~arS~!r !r , f ~~A~ Road rr ' '. /::ryr'""Y,&ii~J~ r`r•frl ..•' i -- ---- Jrr,~ ~rrr! %~r~jrl frir. f.•rr J!; i r' , r • i . rs'i j r :rr• i' , jr 'r f f ,jr• l,iJ Jj+,r J, 1 r. %j`r,+J ~ J'r• rr % r~.' ~ i r j j'i r i r i;r f i,i rrrrJr !/ /r! '! rf // rJ i l i rf,Y~~r`.f fr ',9a}~'ar 'i jJ/ i` ^i1 CwcAvenue ` fly j = Ji , ~. ' : r ! r ,J,. f' fr~ . ,f; ~ j r~jj• r`,Rb,uMr/. . }rf ryi/,.r ^'`. . r!/ ,'frf• %~l^J`jJ r rr f /~~. ~,~,! fff ,r ~ J~! !r r / r r r !'. r~ jr // .'rJ .!t"% fJ ~ r~i rr r r r jr ijr f:' `•'jrJ , J~ o l :fir l , rir,' r /: r'rrr !,/J j r irr j' {,1 a A f'~^./ 'B • r,r' /,jJ f; ' j ~rr~ I r ~ p Jr ; / rp4L,`~~~ rF,y rr % J,t J' j % J J /~! f i ~ PG i ~ ' ~ ;.,r• ~ f°d • ~/ i rr r` r',lr.% r e 'g j rr. : r f , ' -~ 1i. rfriirJ:'rJrJ,r,+ ~+r.% G 1Tfia O' rrfff f f ,i rj r i r f / f l~J ,J ,' f ~ ~Q. !';'' r /; i fr'rirJ • jlrrr j f ,r' J/f//, • ~; !` ~ o f~ ~/ i i rr r ! j~ /~ f r1 /` o i '~' ' /`r'~i : :r ' r .f r /irrr r~CO"P~, ,tl r' / %".rr ,, . r ~ r frfrr J r ~ p~endale Avenue r r f'j r r rl f jr `r ~fi%i r /: r .!iri, ! J r' r ~. +,, '`r: ,r % ir''r/ f/,r r J J l rlr. / ~ 1 i f f ,! r'+f rJ f r jrr ij r j f rrr r, rr~ rr r f r , r'f.ir, fJ. +rj'r, r, r /~/r r/~,%/'r~' rri ri,ijff /r%iiJ`J'.~" '~JKAUf rJf f r J,~/ r > frj r • irjri•~'r 'd r ' ,r , J'1~AB i i! r f%J + +' S r • : rr ~, d • r . ,j r f r j . ~ ; J frr' . ~.~ Grp "~ r,/ ~ f, : ~rr,l,,' J~, r rt r i ~ rf r f ?i g9~ t~ `f fir'r ' ',/ri';J,^. j I J f rri B~ ~~ c,.. r. .,,, :' . J r i s /fiij ; ,°~,~ r ri ~ f f// /• Cd r' .' r r' r r frr ' r ^ r` "~ ~J r _ ri i I r ,fi; r,1f+ ;rf 1/./f ~dP' r`~frf ~ r~.` i.f` f~~ ,rrrJ'r +rrrf / rJ , ~, ,/ri ,^ ffir ,r^+' f f lr~J~'(',~~5`,}~1r~~J~ i!/ f` , f r ~r ,`; r` Ir.J'rJ / ~n j'r r,r/ ' ^/rtt• rr > ;J frir , r rf ~lJr •' f J rJI r~r r`rr r J f/ f r r r J r r r f,/ r[r~ r r'rir,//} if/ ~f rir r'f r ff• ,,rr i .+r r , f r'r r~+ .r` 'r+ !ir J,/~t f frr ; rl f !'jf /I j r , f ~` rtr'.r f r fi`,J J'. ' f ~' 'frir: r.fj i/`rfrj /f/f: i,•/ i! :fr'/~ i ff r'r ; ref i'~t'r`~r r r~ f t , r frr rjr r j% j r`1 r!r'r''r / ~/ J r! /rr r f J f t ,r `J rr r' t/rr,J` f i f f f r /'jI,,,J;' J- r r J~ i f ,i'r ,~j j,i~~r' fr' .~, f f 'f' } f , rf/,rr i~} ' f ~,y%irr/rf l r ,f /r /•• r'/ jr ,r` J~ f r f,,rri~ i = r~jrrr'Jr 1-Y s / .r r rr ` Jf'f`.rr f r ,f '' '` r'/ rr +r f'r ~~l ''rf ~''~~%r ~ .j ~`neyni~IM~ r" f r ;' i r'Jr i % J / ! j+rr + f+r r' j r ! ~ s/ . i ~ ~ W Ic ., ri J Jr`,i i f~ f rr f ~, r r/~rj r' r J,r J J ; r f ICA, jtiar(~fi, i` '' f/ J r+r~f(p~NE~3Y1~,/'r'~/'i'r+ r!r'iri //r/rf f r`,t rr+r % j ?J~' i .r r r ~i T' r ! ~ r r ! '- . i t /j jf,^;%ri~"r%i!i 'r r`,'' r~~:• rrir~.'r~i'r! rf J.rrffO~enStfS@~' r. `! •~`~ r~s~ r J,• r r ,1., .~~f f' r tr' rri fisuia c is %r' - ! r` r ~ ./ t r ,r j r1r ff'~ f ji frrr/i ;t r i r i^rr'r ! ~',i~,~r'j ~'r r SOURCE: City of Saratoga, July 2006. E~diibit OSC-5 WATERSHED RESOURCES City Limit ----------•- Sphere of Influence Watershed & Hillside 0 114 112 1 mile Saratoga General Plan 22 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Plant and Wildlife Species Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence are charac- terized by a diverse array of wildlife and plant ~ecies. The landscape varies on the foothill and mountain slopes from dry chaparral to larger woodland, where stands of various oaks and native species predominate. Common to this area are the Live. Black, Valley. Blue, Tan Bark and Scrub Oaks, Madrona, Buckeye and California Bay Laurels. Strands of Dou lam forest and some groves of Coast Redwoods are found along many stretches of the Santa Clara Valley side of the ridge. The Montalvo Arboretum covers 175 acres of woodland that extends up into the City's Sphere of Influence. Within the park confines there are almost two dozen identified plant species. The Arboretum offers citizens and visitors the finest opportunity available to view a comprehensive collection of native plants in their natural settin . Since the Saratoga Planning Area contains -two discrete habitat types-the urbanized area and hillside area, plant and wildlife species are described accordingly below. Urbanized Areas The flatter portions of the Saratoga Planning Area exhibit plant and animal species typical of urbanized areas, including a combination of native and introduced trees, grasses and shrubs which serve for landscaping_purposes. Undeveloped areas are typified by native ,grasses and ruderal species. Planning Area may include the California tiger salamander and red-leg eg_d_frog. Both species are listed as Threatened under the Federal Endan erg ed Species Act. Hillside Area The Santa Cruz Mountains harbor mangy spe- cies of reptiles, amphibians, birds and mam- mals. In addition to the more common varie- ties, several rare species are known to live in these mountains or to re ug laxly frequent the area in search of food and shelter. The California Natural Diversity Data Base, maint ned by the California Department of Fish and Game, lists several threatened and/or endan eg red plant and wildlife species that may occur in the hillside potion of the Saratoga Planning Area, including coho salmon, steel- head trout, Zavante band-winged agr sshopper, California tiger salamander, California red- leg eg d frog, Cooper's hawk, San Francisco garter snake, Alameda whipsnake, white-raved pentachaeta, Ben Lomond spineflower, Marin western flax, Tiburon paintbrush, cow ceanothus, Santa Clara Valley dudleya, Metcalf Canyon jewelflower, fountain thistle and San Mateo thorn-mint. This list is based on secondary source material prepared by both the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. men Space and Conservation Ele- ment goals and strate ~egi s require site specific surveys for sensitive biolo ig'cal species prior to actual development. The one ~ecial status bird species that may still exist in the urbanized area is the burrow- At the present time, the only wildlife preserve inp owl, which is listed as a Species of Special in the Saratoga area is the 175-acre Montalvo Concern by the California Department of Fish Arboretum which extends up into the City's and Game. where of Influence. The Arboretum is an official Audubon Society sanctuary for birds; Local creeks and streams extending through over seventy-five varieties of birds have been the flatter urbanized portion of the Saratoga identified on the property. together with nu- Saratoga General Plan 23 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element merous varieties of rare plants and insects. The grounds of the M'ontalvo Arboretum are maintained by the Santa Clara Coun Parks Department. Arbor Resources _ The City of Saratoga owes much of its beautYto the wooded hillsides and native and ornamental trees found throughout its neighborhoods. The City of Saratoga has also historically reco n~ ized the importance of planting and preserving tree resources as an invaluable asset to the commu- nity in terms of increasing the natural scenic qualities of Saratoga, promoting_natural ventila- tion providing erosion and acoustic control and increasing_property values. The preservation of such trees supports the health, safety and welfare of the City residents by preserving scenic beautX, preventing soil erosion, protecting ~~inst landslides, counteracting air pollutants, maintaining_ climactic balance and decreasing the effects of wind velocity. The Tree Protection Regulations: The City has adopted by reference the 2001 version of the International Society of Arborists Standards. These standards, together with Saratoga's Tree Regulations contained in Article 15-50 of the Saratoga Munic~al Codel, establish the basic standards and recommendations for the protec- tion and preservation of trees in Saratoga. The City's Tree Regulations are designe, d to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest to preserve and protect significant historic heritage values, and to enhance the unique aesthetic character and environment of the City. In addition, in recognition of the value the city places on the protection and preservation of trees, the City Council has adopted an ordinance that provides a process for designation of certain trees as heritage trees. Once designated, they will be listed as a designated resource, similar to other designated cultural resources discussed below. Cultural Resources Saratoga has a colorful history dating back to 1846 when Bill Campbell and his sons estab- lished asawmill on Quito Creek. The discovery of mineral springs in the area soon prompted development of several luxurious spas, remind- in~ local residents of similar eastern spas. From this memory came Saratoga's name. Orchards were planted and covered the land until the late 1940s when they began to be replaced by homes. In recognition of the historic character of Sarat~a, the City has adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance to protect the irreplace- able heritage resources. The Ordinance creates a Heritage Preservation Commission to inventory historic resources, recommend to the City Council specific .resources which should have historic designations, and act as an advisory body to the City Council, Planning Commission, and other agencies as to the impact of proposed new development on historic resources. A list of designated local historic landmarks is available in the City's Community Development Depart- ment. The following historic landmarks, which are included on National and State of California Historic Registers, exist within the Saratoga Planning Area: • The Warner Hutton House, located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. • Paul Masson Mountain Winery, located on Pierce Road. • Miller-Melone Ranch. located at 12795 Sara- toga-Sunnyvale Road. • The Saratoga Foothill Club, located at 20399 Park Place. • The Saratoga Toll Road, eg nerally located at beg'nning of Third Street and Big Basin Way. • Villa Montalvo. located at 14800 Montalvo Road. • The Welch-Hurst Building, located at 15800 Sanborn Road. Saratoga General Plan 24 August 25, 2006 • ~i Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • In addition to City landmarks dating back to the 19`i' century, several archeological sites have been identified in the Saratoga area. Two specific sites have been log eg d by the State Archeological Inventory Survey "on or near Saratoga Avenue, adjacent to the Saratoga -High - - School". Other, more general areas have been indicated by archeologists to contain potential sites requiring further investi atg ion. Saratoga General Plan 25 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element OPEN SPACE/RESOURCE PLAN The City of Saratoga intends to implement the following course of action to ensure that additional darks, trails and resource conservation areas are developed, protected and preserved. - -Park Standards The City shall seek to attain a park goal of five ~5) acres of developed municipal parkland per 1 000 residents. This is based on the National Recreation and Park Association standard and is a common metric used by other communities in California to measure adequacy of parkland. Parks maintained by regional entities are not included in this goal. City Parks The City shall maintain, and where possible improve city owned lands as appropriate to increase the city's supply of public parks. In addition the -city will continue to encourage dedication of lands for park use with subdivi- sions of 4 or more parcels. In the year 2020, with a population estimated to be 33,300, the. CitX would require 165.5 acres of parks. Cur- rently there are 87 acres within the City. High land costs and the limited amount of undevel- ~ed land will pose challenges to the City in seeking to attain its goal. City Trails Development of a comprehensive trail system has been a priority of the community for many years. The Existing and Proposed Trails May identifies~roposed trails that when completed will provide the community with a trail system network that Qrovides open space linka eg s for greater access to recreation activities and natural resources within and beyond City limits. The City continues to require dedication of trail easements as a condition of development adiacent to planned trails. (Refer to Exhibit OSC-2 Preservation ofNatural Resources Preservation of natural resources, including a=uricultural resources, sensitive hillsides, rare, threatened and endan eg replant and wildlife ~ecies water resources and others has been a Cit~priority for a number of years. The City_will face particular challenges in the northerly_portion of Saratoga which is currently deficient in the amount of parks, primarily due to planningpolicies in effect when this portion of Saratoga was subdivided in the 1950s and 1960s.. Saratoga General Plan 26 August 25, 2006 • • • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element IMPLEMENTING THE OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT The Open Space/Conservation Element can be implemented in a number of ways as identified below. Other implementation opportunities may be open to the City as well. Dedication of parks and trails The City can and should require dedication of both land for parks and trail easements wher- ever feasible when considering subdivision maps (parcel maps and tracts) and develop- ment proposals in the community. Dedication requirements should be imposed as needed to mitigate the impacts of proposed development. Where appropriate the City should also im- pose fees to assist in financing trail develoQ ment. User fees and charges Recreational fee revenues are placed into the City's General Fund. The City may consider increasing the amount of such fees, as needed, to recover the full costs of providing both direct recreation services and a portion of the costs to maintain such facilities as well. Tax revenues The City could choose to pass one or more of the various taxes that would raise additional funds for the development and/or maintenance of park and other open space resources. Such fees include parcel taxes, utility taxes and others. Land use regulations In association with the Land Use Element . land use regulations can be developed to encourage on-going agricultural operations; limit development in and adjacent to flood plain areas, limit development in areas that contain sensitive plant or wildlife species and protect watershed areas .and scenic views. Land use regulations should be coordinated with amendments to the City's zoning o~ rdi- nance to ensure effectiveness. State grants The State of California has adopted several bond programs in recent yeazs that provide full or partial funding for park acquisition and development, trail development and similaz recreational facilities. Master Plan of Parks and Trails In 1991, the City adopted a Master Plan of Parks and Trails. This document provides important guidance for development of the City's parks and trails and also includes a number of specific methods to expand park and recreation facilities within Saratoga_It will be updated as needed to meet current and future needs, and to ensure that it comple- ments and provides linkages to the County Trails and Pathways Master Plan and Midpen- insula Open Space District trails system. Intergovernmental proiects The City may elect to work with other local and regional agencies within Santa Clara County for the provision of parks, open spaces and other recreational facilities. Such a eg ncies include but are not limited to Santa Clara County, the Santa Clara County Water Dis- trict, the Midpeninsula Open Space .District and other incorporated communities in the Coup Saratoga General Plan 27 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element GOALS AND STRATEGIES TL. r,•4., nF en,- I ~~ee ~~es 1~'3e e eg g nl ...l; non nL.n.l In«.ln «l n„* and ~ f1 w ~ el•~'~ i - e ~6~3~ Ct}3'1TIILS TYC, t ' }-vie i ~\ 41,n .Y, eti ~ S ,.n,l «.-na„ n4:,,« „F ~eE~ee ~e~ r-n .nl. f n .t.•: n.,14 „rnl In«,lnn«.~ 1 C\ 41.n i c n1F oii~ L, «.7 nFe4. ~L.y ..1, iv~ ~-r ec ..» ci ».. .,» ...J »b.' ., ~ _ «4n1 l,n.,n«,7n ~e~~~,~ Tl. n r:4, i l ~, .. .;1 t . ,,,.v * „ : ro~>z . e~ S 4' nF.,nl„nl.i n .. ~n4..:4,. 41+.-n....L. ~it~ t ~E ~ ~~ e ..ln4:n t «n «,1 s ~ e-- sEFs: ~ve, s ~s n,ln „F.. F «a:,,;,l, Is •Y" .n' E4~~~e43 e s, , , nk; «.7 4b.n L.n n' n aauv ;b s~ee~at~ee n>, 41,n «1,,,~;,,nuu ~.~e~~ 4-~ ~f9eeSSr. 9~e13 S~3E~ «4 ..«.] F..4....n .- nn4:n«nl n,7n nF ~~' TL.n .-n4n.7 L.:lln;.~ln l:r;..2~..~1~ .1 n4 nF ~' n n4n nL.n n on n.l 1., ol~ ~;,,nl.. n~n n.. nl n«:«.. .,.aonl 4n .,~1,:11~ _II 1.: n., ] 4l . 1 • '4 .i 4 11 L,'lln:,l n nlin• 41.n n44n n.l ,.low .....:1.. n;,ln« nn f n ..nl n4n.7 kn „14„ ~ «nl ,.n4;n«n T.'v:n4:« n . n ,-n ll.. n n n n : n4:L.ln .:41. 41.n 1 . 7 4 .,: 4 nF 41.n n n t .......... ........... «.a n «1„ n ' l...ln .. n n4 n :n«nl 4.-n:ln n nr~7n .,.,.i n nll n4: ~ nnn ono.-:n« n 4nl.ln n4.,rnn nl 4:. s ....l.n TL .v ~f nn.-~ 4L.on4 nr /Dn..l T~fn~~.,., nt4i,,...,.~. «i.4 ^ n n.-+ „F_tl~, a r:4..~n ..n4n . : , 1 • :4n ~ n i,:n4nr:nn n., 4: n,7 4i. 4b. .....~ .. .»... Y o r:+<, t,,..,,;~„° ^F ~~ -= ---=-------- v '-- - -- -'-~ -~ '.a «4n „F 4L.u L. :lln:.ln n«,] 4 t.n n «;4,. - b 4b.n n:4..~n «nl L,nn_~l+n non«4:n1 nF t. n;«,. ~ ~ 4~ TL,n l~:l vw..b tn .. ,; ale- b.n41, anrie~e Saratoga General Plan 28 August 25, 2006 • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • , • ~e ~s~~ ..,1 n ..,:,nr ,,.,,, ;..+n..n:~. r nn,:,,..nl i~ nan.l l.:iln;.-inn .,.~1 ~1~,.,11 n ..1,. +l.o Don;.7e«t:nl +L.nnn ln...ln nl.,...l,l tb,n,. L,n,..,.,~n ..n,-t .,~+1,n !`:~-..~n na :««,. «l,n r:.,. ' , , • i v 8 D Tav ic . f e +. ~nl A «.. .rn..:at~_s- m,T.,ti:~.,- ~ £~,ri ,.,+ol„ t.nl.i ln.,.7n to nt.. +.,:...+~ .,4' n..n., n nn nl. nn 4L.n ,.n4n1..1; nl.w.n..4 ..~ 4..n:1 n«.7 ' f n ' zrr ~~~.~ ~~v~~ ~ e~~ 's Qes~~e~ a~eas .,.an:..~ •L.n n = ~ ,l~ .,t1sLn.~,n.~, ,. wee-e€-~ePei3 spaee 3~r--tie ~ ~~~:11 > > .i.nF , .: lt en..n.n,.n~~ nt,:t:ti. Saratoga General Plan 29 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element ~~°~,~, ,. •> ; ~~ IIL~ e ~s3~e-6~-&~FiE~~2~ • ~r~r„cr,.7c~ax~aa~7arr~la~-. ix H, as(a,~„.~.........,..»i.,.... »... ~, .. ..... tl2ilYY.S'~~'C7eC~Ye~Ltr'~lYVLIr-4L.° 1.:11 n:.7°n 4,. 4l.° ai3C~--1~3s~30iie~--A~3ei4 s~3i}^c°n ° °,..1.,,.°.,l,lo i C~1.° ..1. n1.1° «a:nl ~r~~ 1 tl n i ^ ~l c r"' =i° ~ :~.^ i~ " =v- in ir 6ir r R . .. . ;. e~ ~.,.,..... •b k " ~~ s ea~e ;- ~ ~ i -ee~s ega s ~ a ~ , e~es e>• 3s e&C~3 ~ v "` 1 s~~e ~ c~si zxxuefOae@ sE& ercxef r ce s vx si i , ° ~; t# ve ti l ; a ~ e-~ ~es~ >•ee-sea~ - mss- es- i - g „Y___' sea~e-v~eivs. '~ke~c~'e~e; ~eve~e~~e~~~ i~-~~~~~Leget~e~. jOCG.vu ~aau.~..u. v va ___ ~__~ ______ -~~___.-_ _ _1 caara~9~S Ei~t~'~-~E2~t-~e-S~3~~ ~e-~Y21~ Saratoga General Plan 30 August 25, 2006 • • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • • - - rid ~ t# ~~ n, : e x, e «._n,tn,t ,.._n,t:«,. t:.«:.n,t ,t:... , ...««:,,« „~«n..,..nt > > e-~ae~et--ems-seal e~~tb~e~ iT~e : }t~e~~€ Se~ente~e ~ S ~e~e fie ~ s ~ - ct+ntt nt...tn .n t..n4; ..« nF 4 t.n ntn f •4 ~~]]~~ {4QQ ~n1 ~, , 7Silet~etY1A[G"~t: Ct~, n«-[R1~T1'IG~Q.~EL n n~C ~7 • l1~.~VCQ.12CiQ1~Z f ntn ~ n n..nnt,., rrt,n r;h.~~ ,, nnv~ ~t,ntt t..n « .o,t ~teiTiZ~ nt,ntt nt...tn t~...{ «nh « n ~ e€~}~ .,dn «l.n«a nd nl. «4..n t n f f . f Saratoga General Plan 31 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element *~-Iliit~~se~t~g,--b~~etse ~ tie--s~i~-ate ni`s~eFeocs-O~rx~ss-3'zs2~eFkcs. Tt,e r;h.. „~' en nh,,,. ~' ',1 h ~ Q h....n Tl.e«o ; nh«~v... n ~«h ...... ........b ., »l:.t.... ...., ~CI'ili'~'S-'S~'NJC ~ ~~y--~-~IAtega ~eE~ h t.:l., n :• o..,nL.l YO-ae~3(~v~~3e~i~fiiay ;- >~ses ~e~e en «,o n ., Y.,. ~.,.,~ ~V B~'~E, ~~e~eee _h~s ~n]]L_or1,.:lr .., .....,~ .,. ,,..,., e }} ar e€--ee~ee~e~s~e~k -'~ m} e tee --es e .- i~° ~ -c ~ 2 ~ c z r r -~ reefeElt~9ixfl 1,•11 •a a ht.« 1, h hb,o ~ennhn_rt., vu v~c ~rric ~....,: grr nrrrJic~c-icrcFrS~ uixQ~ss Iricxxs-~z-nl~en~iuisc~.....~ ..., ::t ................ ... »,.., =re~e~~--t~a~rg~te~--t#e-E~e-~~g 1' 1. h ..f'hl.:n h«n:1n .~e4......-1~ t ln~~ hl+ r:h.. n a,.«h~a hb.u 11.T,.nh..« T«n:ln n..a 1 7 a b l l l D hk Dl L,:,.L, ~ l h.. n„. n e«, e, h . . n. . e. ..., n .~. ~i--was -~ke~+ 4as~e~- t ex~ ~~re~-- c=rc~x Y ~ - e~t .a' h a hn ^ to orl.4_41+e a ntir. nr ~~ nhc. r a:rn-srQrrluccci cG cv T '1 .7 DnhL....n. ixpz ,,...... ..... ....... ..b ..,.,»...~ ,n Tin nhe« Dln.. 1n D .,1 T....an 7~Toh.....«L A ..:..«nl n..nh...++ ..............b. ..»..,> ........ 4' l.'1.' 1.:..,,,.1;,,.. n...l 1,,,«nel..nn1. «:.1:.... h,-n;ln ~~ b 1. 11 t. n.e.l ,:.1+:,.1. : ..l.,.len h«n;ln ..:h1.:« ATI~GG'CVPV GI'IZTl .J 1 ..». .J ~ .»... ».......b. ..». 1 ,1 .ell h..n:rn ,.. ,;,1;.,,, n ~ ~.~.,, hl+.+ ~:+.. ,.c en nhn. n h.+ hl.,, ln.,an T...,.1 A,,,.,..n.~;.,,, l ~.._4~,s._ TL,o ('': h:.. ol,nll Yri. n---~---°-- - ». - -- ---- --v ----- en s e t~ ~ E -~~: ~ ~~e ~ee- e ~ea ,I ~s . > > f r ^ZIG C'Y~P'V~1~~~. ~Y7. Ctlvl'4iTfal7V nl 1 v.h «. nT~~i~~}~ , .i.....,......y 1 ,v. ..+ nL.nll L.e .. .,«nl: o ~ 4 .a hb.e ilia CGQ-RITIVII'~LIIIi~ 1 1 1 h 1 hnc« n ~r,d CTS20Gj ~'OI RIICGv, w~v .v.vv nho .1 f ~.. nl n e a ,.L.'..L. ' Ivi'mzcs r .., .. ..b ........... .. ... m'c~aiici z~ ~~~=eleP~te1:~E e~t~ ~14a4n~enel~ee-~i} ~~S-s~2d~-sec~ivxiizr~e~~it~3--Q~ eirtiiics ni,~ec~-x}-eaC~ ~~a~t Seg~e~~. T« ....,.n. ,. „n~ ua~ivci'h-cciiccn-vrirl'n-vic~a~zi° n. j' .., °,.........; 1 j°.'? ~~^^..''^^ 1 :hl+ „l. ,•*ic"ei-groiip~~o-irlaiirmiiT ix dY1T 1 h .1 ra a a ,ao..ei,,.,o`i~.,:41. ne.,n;h:., SC7GRTGRj 'QG.nTl'~~IT{y~GII~Q vYv.. .. a.sa v.......... Saratoga General Plan 32 August 25, 2006 C • • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • • ~~-ETeel~s~e-~'reil ~es~rieHe~t.-'fie--C~ TT~~^~„. ~ ~P €ea~~~t~a~s-s~~-~e ~es~g~e~ a~~e}e~ea #~ meo« «>,e a :L,_1:«, ooa.. ,.v ., 11 e,..,,o..«.. X1.,,,.,1.1 1,~ «...,1 e ~„F ,. «1,..,,,,..1, «1,0 , „F..;.,.....,.,, e ~ > > n~i-uii-iiri6iinsrsi9". ~ 1~ir Qaiio ~t,•'•.Tavnia-vc ..,, .., ..«o Saratoga General Plan 33 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element e tl4ete~-~e~ ~Ze~ieles i~se-e€ m-- i- i t, ~ L.:L L.: ..1: ..a 1.,. et,..,.1. ~a ~~ „o TV_ ~T. ~~ r 1 a n.. .,.~ ...,. ~,. ...,...,.,~;,,,, 7 .1 fi a t a :mot .,F~L.o , ..,ro«..~-fir ~ ~ 6r 1,.~,a .,4e.,a:,.a ~6~~3 s~ --f~- es;--9~if ~ Tl ~ l =1' L, ~ 4' •L.: 7i i ~ n'~l i-=ri i- ~ S ~ t r ux i -~~er-~~ ~~e-tie- a~a ~r - a ~ ~ ` r-v~iix 1' l E2S5 ~ uxxu --czric e i} rgei4e~- o .~xxux ~ ~ac e 1 « a Y b Y re~ieV~~e 4•- i~••• 1.n4.. u i, 1.'4 .a 4«. 4, ...1 .n4o«,..n..n ~.. a ..... J u ... .~ ~ ~ir ~C ~~4 0 .~1~1~..«:«.e ~ G~-~ Cr- 1 brltrLT 7 ' ,." ~ ms€~ b a .l.e T r.,:« ea c*~f ~ ~rer~-e e «~~~ ~4., u .. ~., o r s ,~~ t. 41 ~ , 1, ((yyyy~~ "YP2e~~GT ~ • ^b t ~ 4 ~ ~~ ~es sere---Rs e es g~-gt Knee--~ ; e n v Z ° T r e 7~ 11 ~S.e] n C ~errrmn~TC ~ i rr •F a c..,,,. c..~«e.,..or,...~ ~«. Saratoga General Plan 34 August Lb, ~uut; • • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element t € t# ~ ~ bt~ w t€ -t -ee~eep e e - -~~ e a~e- s l,nn„+:~,1 n .oll nn l .nnltl,,. .nil ,.ln..« ,,,11 1 ...1..«,..,,1 .mil eEa~°at~e~e~; -a~--arne~tlrate~ seas to n .>,~ ,.o .... «a 1.,,1L~~ .' ~~ > > > > t ~ > eters aye > ~ n.n. ,an..an -~ e~ee~ a~ ' t ° r v€ ;'~ » n :»: :1 cir cr i cvir3 ma~ .. vix- ....., .. .. j, . . . - e HS +^ n n ^+ ; ~~ ame amore@s~-~aee ,.F .~. nn.ln.l F r n n n;t;n.,z ~.r:....+o ' te t~ ~~ ~ ~i x ~ee---a€Ee~ t ~e~ u er~ e~e a e ZC [lnlln., Tn.,nl.,,~ri.~.+ >;..r :«fill ,1n.,..l,.«..,n«a •hL.n 41nt1..«.ln +L.n !'':+.. nL.nll n n;.-lnr .. ..nt; o,ln ..F41..,+« hL. L. :?i ni ' - a ..,,..t ......... .... n «.1 ,nL.n.l.. 1... ~9~( ~x J 1~ ~ E '~ ~~t~e~ - e€ ~eve~e ~e~t~a l ,~ee~ ,~,:rce~s ° - r ~ ; 1. t.•+..+.. nL.nll t.o :.l0«+: 4; e,1 n«,1 .,r~to,.ra(L n,.l,,,... n.. ~~ a ran+n»;nln ran„nt,.«.,,n«*_, .;4~,~,~ , aEt--ems t ~~ ~--tt~ -}~ ~~ p ~c ~ ~g e ~ ~ hnn+.,r .1 L. m~au-arcnrrcccax c°ir`i~riviancicc: «fcm-n4;«.~ , .i 4L, 41,u-ur~~.,r__nt .. .~ ~rrr b,»...... ............, ..».».». a~~ a----a~. a96~: See~~~ew ~.,:~..,., >,nnl~,l,.,,r n~ .. o ;.~ c ..... :,a,.nr, ~~ e~£S~ U:nh..«:n/T n«,1«,n~l~ ,. ..«: C'nn«no Sarato a General Plan 35 August 25, 2006 9 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element General -Oven Space E~ Goal OSC 1: To provide and maintain open mace resources of local and regional si ifi- cance accessible to the public. Strategv OSC 1.1: Prepare an open space management plan in conjunction with the Capital Improvements Program. The Plan would identify open space needs as well as the appropriate use and ongoing mainte- nance needs of open space areas. Strategv OSC 1.2: Encourage and facilitate ^ n,:°nn *°~,,.':.. cYc~ cYccc. the participation of individuals, citizens, groups civic organizations, and those hav- T~°•'°'°«'^'°«* «^'°«*i°~ inkspecial needs, such as the physically dis_ abled, in the men space planning_process. Goal OSC 2: To preserve the natural and rural °ot~t~~=~ ........c ..:.~ .......zbc character of Saratoga. 4 non n«.~, ,: n,.;,:1-.. ° .rte the-C-~: Strategv OSC 2.1: Ensure through the pub- ___ _. lic review process, that all development pro- D posals public and~rivate are sensitive to the natural environment and the commu- ~+ r ~°°~ ~'°°^____°*°_ n«°« «___ pity's open space resources. ..._., ~_ . _. -____ - - r --- ~l ~ , ~ v...,. .°.................. ».... ........... r« ..` nrn +• >, „ >,° ,.;,: °~, *~~ ° n ° «° « ° Parks T,, nt,n„ n,..a° ,.,.+ ,.~ >, Goal OSC 3: To provide and maintain parks ~, • _ « « ~. .*'a + """ """~- ---~-~ --.la„~.e ,~~;~;*~*~-n„a which are located, designed,` and improved to ~~ •r , ~, +., ,•°*°+;,,« ; ,,,~,,;•,; serve the needs of the residents, the community, ' °b and the ne~hborhoods of Saratoga. s -$ensit~-'1'rens€er T,,° r:'•. °>,°" n°«n:a°r Strategv OSC 3.1: Ensure that .existing and ---~~~-de~a;~€e;~ future parks and dedicated open spaces re- mainpart of the public domain in perpetuity. Strategv OSC 3.2: Preserve open space and a. ,,.. + T>7 f~>,in ,n«°«, +„ recreational resources provided on school «,....,,,~~-ate «~. ~ ~;.,..,... :~ .., ~ee~--~ev~t-aiv-a~-€re~tant sites and surplus school sites through joint use agreements, acquisition and/or land use controls. Saratoga General Plan 36 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Goal OSC 4: Strive to achieve a ratio of 5 acres of park and open space area per 1,000 residents. Trails and Onen Space Linkages Goal OSC 5: A city-wide system of hiking, _~- bicycling,. _and-..horseback riding trails shall be provided within the community, which includes regional trail linkages with Citv, County, State, and re ion pal parks, and other publicly owned open space lands. Strategy OSC 5.1: The City shall continue to use the Parks and Trails Master Plan as a day-to-da~guide for the development, main- tenance and financing of trails in Saratoga. Strategy OSC 5.2: The City shall promote the acquisition of trails throu hg_purchase, dedication, or gift. Strategy OSC 5.3: Trail planning, acquisi- tion, development, maintenance and man- agement shall be coordinated among the various local and County volunteer a eg ncies as well as local, regional, state, and federal agencies which provide trails or funding for trails. Strategy OSC 5.4: Trails shall be estab- lished along traditional routes whenever fea- sible, consistent with the Parks and Trails Master Plan. Strategy OSC 5.5: Trail development, pa- trol, and maintenance responsibilities shall be coordinated with all entities involved in each trail segment. In most cases, develop- ment responsibilities shall be borne by the property owner with maintenance activities undertaken by the City. • Strategy OSC 5.6: Trails shall be located, designed, and developed with sensitivit~to the resources and environmental hazards of the areas they traverse, as well as their po- tential impacts on adiacent lands and private property, including_potential impacts to pri- vate property owners' privacy and security Trails shall be designed to City specifica- tions, require minimal rg_adirig, and include effective erosion control measures. Strateev OSC 5.7: The Citv shall regulate developments along designated trails in or- der to provide sufficient trail right-of--way and ensure that development adjacent to the corridors does not detract from the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the corridor. Strategy OSC 5.8: The City shall not ac- uire lap or develo trail easements or publi access easements along Wildcat Creek or Saratoga Creek, across sin lg a or multi-family land uses as designated in the Saratoga General Plan abutting said creeks, or adjacent to said creeks between the -cen- terline thereof, and any single or multi- family desi agn ted property: This policy statement shall apply to Saratoga Creek from Prospect Avenue south to Tollgate Road, and to Wildcat Creek from Quito Road south to the Villa Montalvo Arbore- tum property line, with the exception of the section between: 1) Carnelian Glen Drive and Douglass Lane, 2) Gardiner Park and ~ringhill Court, 3) Crestbrook Drive and Via Monte Drive, and 4) Via Real Drive, as shown on the Trail System Maw Strategy OSC 5.9: Whenever feasible, trails shall be designed and developed to meet the accessibility needs of all segments of the population. Strategy OSC 5.10: Trails shall be designed with adequate ingress and egress points to minimize the need for parking at trailheads. Where parking is provided, it shall be de- signed in a manner that is as unobtrusive as possible. Saratoga General Plan 37 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Scenic Open Snace Resources Goal OSC 6: Preserve the hillside lands in their natural condition and inherent natural beauty. Strategy OSC 6.1: Through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance, designate lands in the_hillier portions of the Saratoga Planning~Area for open space- managed re- source production that allows very low den- sity residential uses while maintaining a sig- nificant amount of open space. StrateGV OSC 6.2: Public use and enioy- ment of the unincorporated hillside areas for recreational_pumoses shall be encouraged through direct or indirect public land acgui- sition encouraging both private and public recreational uses. Appropriate regulation of privately held lands to obtain maximum use of open mace resources, such as the estab- lishment of trail and open space easements, should be consistent with conservation of the natural environment. Strate v OSC 6.3: Future land uses within the western hillside or an~phere of Influ- ence expansion area shall be reviewed by the City through the development review process to ensure consistency both with ex- istingpatterns of land use in the unincorpo- rated hillside areas and with the City's de- sire to maintain the area as predominantly men space and rural. Goal OSC 7• Preserve and protect existinG view sheds view corridors. and scenic open spaces. Strategy OSC 7.1: Future land use propos- als within the western hillside area shall be reviewed by the City through the develop- ment review and environmental review processes to ensure that improvements blend in with the natural environment. Criteria shall include but not be limited to the use of unobtrusive colors, controlled rg ading lim ited disruption of natural vegetation, use of structural height limits and structural design and density Guidelines. Special considera- tion should be Given to the eventual devel- o~ment of a canopy effect of tree growth. Agricultural Resources Goal OSC 8• Encourage preservation of land uses for open space and agriculture. Strategy OSC 8.1: In evaluating future land uses efforts shall be made to maintain aGri- cultural lands as a component of .open space and to preserve the rural and agricultural heritage of Saratoga. The City shall discour- age the cancellation of Williamson Act con- tracts. Strategy OSC 8.2: Encourage land owners to enter into new Williamson Act Contracts. Watershed Protection and Water Quality Goal OSC 9• Protect existing watercourses in the community and enhance water quality in surface and subsurface water sources. Strate v OSC 9.1: Retain surface water- courses in their natural condition to the greatest extent possible. StrateGV OSC . 9.2: Concentrate develop- ment in those portions of the community least susceptible to soil erosion and mini- mize rg adin~and the introduction of imper- vious surfaces Where appropriate, consider the use of on-site detention or retention ba- sins to minimize stormwater runoff from sites. Strategy OSC 9.3: Implement land use con- trols to protect watershed lands on the upper elevations of hillsides. Water Supply Saratoga General Plan 38 August ~5, ~uun • • • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • t Goal OSC 10: Maximize efficiencies in the use of the City's water supplx Strategv OSC 10.1: Implement water con- servation provisions of the San Jose Water Company's Urban Water Management Plan. Biological Resources Goal OSC 11: Protect and enhance sensitive vegetative and wildlife habitat in the Saratoga Plarming area. Strategy OSC 11.1: Minimize development that would encroach into important wildlife habitats, limit or restrict normal ran a areas, or restrict access to water food or shelter. This includes limitation on installation of barrier fencing in hillside areas. Goal OSC 12: Support appropriate mana eg merit for sustaining the health and increasing the extent of urban forest resources in the City. The specific vision is to increase overall tree cover, tree health and consequent tree benefits in an suitable, cost beneficial. and sustainable . manner. Strateg OSC 12.1: Development projects should include the preservation of protected trees and other significant trees. Any ad- verse affect on the health and lon evity of native oak trees, protected or other signif - cant trees should be avoided through appro- priate design measures and construction practices. When tree preservation is not fea- sible,~individual development projects shall include appropriate tree replacement as ap- proved by the City. Strategv OSC 11.2: Through the develop- ment and CEQA process, preserve, protect, and maintain riparian habitats and creek cor- ridors. This includes requiring biolot?ical surve~f parcels of land that could contain sensitive species or their habitats prior to allowing development on these parcels. Strategv OSC 11.3: The design of parking lots shall be evaluated for opportunities to reduce large continuous expanses of asphalt and to promote the establishment of visually interesting and aestheticallypleasing park- in~ lots. Strategv OSC 11.4: The City should pro- vide information and assistance to the public in the preservation and care of native trees - whose existence can be threatened b ronmental stress and development. Strategv OSC 11.5: Mature vegetation shall be preserved whereverpossible. Arbor Resources Strategy OSC 12.2: Trees used for new or replacement plantings should be selected primarily for low water use characteristics. Strategv OSC 12.3: To further support the City's urban forest resources build on the City's Tree Regulations, the City should establish a Community Forest Master Plan that will identify focus areas of the commu- nity in which to implement tree mana e activities, inventory and assess trees, sum- marize data and specify benchmarks. Fire safetyshall be an important consideration when evaluating the preservation of native ve etg a, tion. Goal OSC 13: The preservation of native and other plant species indicative of Saratoga's cultural heritage shall be ig yen priority over development and provide for the perpetua- tion of such species. Strategv OSC 13.1: To further preserve the city's inventory of arbor resources, the City should encourage owners to consider formal designation of herita eg trees. Saratoga General Plan 39 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Strategy OSC 13.2:. The city shall encour- a~ public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City's past and foster civic. and neighborhood pride and sense of identity based upon the recognition and use of the City's heritage resources, particularly as it relates to the designation and preserva- tion of heritage trees. This can be done by publicizing information about herita eg tL rees and the benefits of designation of heritage trees on the City's Website. Cultural Resources Goal OSC 14: Through coordination with and implementation of other related General Plan strategies, encourage preservation of the City's heritage by providing for the protection of irreplaceable historic and cultural resources representing,. significant elements of City and regional history. (Refer to Historic Character Land Use Element Strategies and Implementa- tion Pro rg aml. Strategy OSC 14.1: Support activi- ties/events that highlight Saratoga's rich his- tory as the "Valley of the Heart's Delight,,, such as theyearly Mustard Walk event at the Central Park or Heritage Orchard. Air Ouality Goal OSC 15: Improve local and regional air quality b~ensuring all development projects incorporate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants. Strategy OSC 15.1: Require development projects to com.~ly with Bay Area Air Oual- ity_Management District measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions due to Q;rading and construction activities. Strategy OSC 15.2: Encourage use of trip demand measures as part of major commer- Saratoga General Plan 40 August 25, 2006 r~ ~~ cial and office development projects to re- duce dependence on auto use. • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM: General Open Space Goal OSC-1: To provide and maintain open space resources of local and re iog_nal significance accessi- ble to the public. Responsible Agericy~ Public Works/Community Development - - ---- ---- Funding~Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: OriQO1nQ Related Strategies: OSC 1.1, 1.2 Goal OSC-2: To preserve the natural and rural character of Saratoga. Responsible Aaency: Public Works/Communi Development Funding. Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing ' Related Strategies: OSC 2.1 C7 Parks Goal OSC 3: To provide and maintain parks which are located, designed, and improved to serve the needs of the residents, the community, and the neighborhoods of Saratoga. Responsible Agency: Public Works/Community Development Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: OSC 3.1, 3.2 Goal OSC 4: Strive to achieve a ratio of 5 acres of park and open space area per 1,000 residents. Responsible Agency: Public Works/Parks and Recreation Commission Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: OSC 3.1, 5.1 Trails and Open Space Linkages Goal OSC 5: A ci -wide system of hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding trails shall be provided within the community, which includes regional trail linkages with Ci ,County, State, and re ig opal parks, and other publicly owned open space lands. Responsible Agency: Public Works/Community Development/Pedestrian, Equestrian and Bi- ~cle Trails Committee Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: OSC 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10 • Saratoga General Plan OSCI-1 August 7, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Scenic Open Space Resources Goal OSC 6• Preserve the hillside lands in their natural condition and inherent natural beauty. Responsible Agency: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: OSC 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 Goal OSC 7• Preserve and protect existing view sheds; view corridors, and scenic open spaces. Responsible Agency: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: OSC 7.1 Agricultural Resources Goal OSC 8• Encourage preservation of land uses for open space and agriculture. Responsible Agency: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: OSC 8.1, 8.2 Watershed Protection and Water Quality Goal OSC 9• Protect existing watercourses in the community and enhance water quality in surface and subsurface water sources. Responsible Agency: Community Development/Public Works Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: On og ing Related Strategies: OSC 9.1, 9.2, 9.3. Water Supply Goal OSC 10: Maximize efficiencies in the use of the City's water supply. Responsible Agency: Community Development/Public Works Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: On og ing Related Strategies: OSC 10,1 Saratoga General Plan OSCI-2 August 7, 2006 • • i c"'L,Eon~',4l` Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Biolo,2ical Resources Goal OSC 11: Protect and enhance sensitive vegetative and wildlife habitat in the Saratoga Plan- ning area. . Responsible A ency: Community Development/Public Works Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: OnQOing Related Strategies: OSC 11.1,11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5. Arbor Resources Goal OSC 12: Support appropriate management for sustaining the health and increasing the extent of urban forest resources in the City. The specific vision is to increase overall tree cover, tree health and consequent tree benefits in an equitable, cost beneficial and sustainable manner. Responsible Agency: Community Development/Public Works Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing ~ Related Strategies: OSC 12.1. 12.2, 12.3. Goal OSC 13: The preservation of native and other vegetative species indicative of Saratoga's cultural heritage shall be ig yen priority over development and provide for the perpetuation of such species. Responsible Agency: City Council/Heritage Tree Committee Funding Source: General Fund; Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: OSC 13.1, 13.2 Cultural Resources Goal OSC 14: Through coordination with and implementation of other related General Plan strate ies, safeguard the heritage of the Citeproviding for the protection of irreplaceable historic and cultural resources representin significant elements of Ci and regional history. (Refer to Historic Character Land Use Element Strategies and Implementation Program). Responsible Agency: Community Development/Heritage Preservation Commission Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: OSC 14.1, LU 12.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9 Air Quality __ _ _ _ _ . __ . Goal OSC 15: Improve local and regional air quality ensuring_all development projects incornorate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants. Responsible Agency: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: OSC 15.1, 15.2 • Saratoga General Plan OSCI-3 August 7, 2006 • Attachment 3 • • Existin and Pro osed,General Plan Land Use Designations g P • Existing GP Proposed GP Existing Zoning Comments _Category _ _ - _ Category Residential RHC (Hillside RHC HR (Hillside No change * -Conservation)-= =-- - _ --- - -- _ -- Residential) - RVLD (Very Low RLVD R-1-40,000 No change * Density) RLD (Low Density) RLD R-1-20,000 No change * M (Medium M R-1-10,000 No change * Density) R-1-12,500 R-1-15,000 RMF (Residential RMF R-M 3,000 No change Multi-Family) R-M 4_,000 R-M 5,000 PDR (Planned PDR none No change * Development Residential) MUPD Redesignate as MUPD Text Amendment: (Manufacturing Medium No change. Designation is not listed Use Planned Density per in text of Land Use Element; appears Development) existing on Land Use Map only and is applied development to one area only, east on Saratoga Avenue between SR85 and McFarland Ave. Land Use Map Amendment Delete from legend and redesignate area to appropriate residential density, as developed, which is the RM (R-1-10,000) designation. Implementation: Rezone area to the R-1-10,000 Zoning District. * Per Measure G, no changes are allowed in these residential categories. • Existing GP Proposed GP Existing Comments Category Category Zoning Commercial: CR( (Commercial CR Various Text Amendments: Add language Retail) commercial which clarifies that 100°~ coverage zones only applies to downtown Saratoga Village Specific Plan area; add -for new commercial development 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. Also, no single .tenant of said development shall exceed 15,000 square feet of floor area. PA (Professional PA PA Text Amendment: Eliminate p~~) reference to FAR; amend maximum building coverage to 30°~, consistent with Zoning Ordinance standards. Land Use Map Amendment: Redesignate an approximate 9.7 acre site at 13025 Saratoga Avenue, on the west side of Saratoga Avenue approximately 1,000 feet north of State Route 85 to the CR (Commercial Retail) land use designation. The purpose of the proposed change is to encourage commercial land uses on this site to strengthen the community's economic base. Gateway Delete none Text Amendment: Delete existing Landscaping category, which has only been applied on Land Use Map to two small parcels at the corners of Prospect Road and Saratoga- - Sunnyvale Road. The Saratoga- Sunnyvale Gateway Guidelines have been adopted for the area and address standards for development, including mixed uses in that area. Land Use Map Amendment: Delete Gateway (G) designation from Land Use Map. Redesignate the two affected arcels to CR Exhibit 3 . • • Ci • • Existing GP Proposed GP Existing Comments Category Category Zoning PDM (Planned Delete Various Text Amendment: Development commercial, Remove this category from the text Mixed) and multi- of the Land Use Element. Add family policy stating that mixed-use is residential allowed in all commercial zones. This is already provided for in Zoning Ordinance. Land Use Map Amendments: Delete designation from map. Affected properties are to be redesignated to land use designations that conform to existing development as follows: To CR (Commercial Retain Commercial properties fronting on Prospect Road and Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road as described in Exhibits 3 and 4 To PA: (Professional Administrative) Office complex parcel located at the southeast comer of Cox Ave. and Saratoga Ave. See Exhibit 8. To RMF (Residential Multivle Famil Multi-family residential properties located immediately adjacent to the east and west of commercial properties fronting on Saratoga- Sunnyvale, south of Prospect Road. See Exhibits 3 and 4. Public/Quasi Public/Communi Facil ities CFS (Community Merge CFS with Various Proposed Text Amendment: Facilities); PF PF and QPF residential and Revise text to combine with PF and (Public Facilities) commercial QPF categories with CFS. All CFS and QPF (Quasi- districts sites require a use permit for new Public Facilities) development or expansion of use. Land Use Mai Amendments: Redesignate PF and QPF sites as CFS, RM-10 and RLVD, See Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 8 10. Zonin :City may consider new Public Facilities/Institutional Zoning District. Existing GP Proposed GP Existing Comments Category Category Zoning Open Space OS-NR (Natural Delete None Text Amendments: Resource Delete from Text. Preservation) No changes to Land Use Maa as it does not list this category and no such easements have been incorporated in the Map. The City controls and documents easements more appropriate through the subdivision rocess. OS-MR (Open OS-MR R-1 zones No change Space-Managed Resource OS-R (Outdoor OS-R R-1 zones No change " Recreation OS-P (Open OS-P Residential No change (Applies only to Space-Private) Open Space Saratoga Golf Course). Existing GP Proposed GP Existing Comments Category Category Zoning OS-PHS (Public Delete from text None Amendments: Health and Safety Delete from text. Preservation) No changes in Land Use Map needed. This category is not shown on Land Use Map. Development is restricted by other policies that cover issues (i.e. geotechnical clearance, creek setbacks, etc PUC (Public Delete from text None Amendments: Utilities Corridor) and map Delete from L.U text and GP map, as it is no longer applicable; lands within this designation as shown on the Land Use Map now fall within the Route 85 roadway and right of way. Show as SR 85 right of way. * No changes allowed in text per Measure G • • • S ecific Plans currentl not shown or referenced in text or ma Saratoga Village Show SP CH-1 & 2 Proposed Amendments: Specific Plan boundary and Reference added regarding SP & list on map. included as Appendix Land Use Map Amendments: Show SP boundary on Land Use Map. Hillside Specific Show SP RHC Proposed Amendments: Plan boundary and list on map Reference added regarding SP & included as Appendix Land Use Map Amendments: Show SP boundary on Land Use Map Other Amendments: RLD RVLD R-1-40,000 L , d Use Map Amendments: (no change in Redesignate four parcels at 28010, zoning 28020, 28021 & 28011 Audrey designation) Smith Lane, from RLD to RLVD. This will make them consistent with other parcels and development on Audrey Smith Lane. Development at higher density .(per existing GP designation) has potential cumulative impacts on adjacent properties. See Exhibit 6 RLD RVLD R-1-40,000 Land Use Map Amendments: (no change in Redesignate one parcel at 20170 zoning Bonnie Brae, two parcels at 20152 designation) & 20161 Hill Avenue, and one parcel at 14931 Vickery Avenue. Parcels include some topographic constraints, and development at higher density (per existing GP designation) has potential cumulative impacts on adjacent properties. See Exhibit 6 • t ~~~~~ . r ~ y Prospect Road , PRC ~ J N Z ~ E ~ Q• } 4 11 A~ 4 J I ~ ~ rJ W J z i. ~ ~ O OA ~ ~ . ~aTD~ ~rrt~ ~ d . omm \ ~ m t Y s '~ ARR N ~ Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 3 ® PDM/G to CR ® PDM to RMF r ~1 • r~ ® PF to CFS ® QPF to CFS SR85 PUC to SR85 ® PDM to CR ® PDM to RMF • Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 4 HERRIMAN-~ BMtON SUNNYVALE- SARATOGA ROAD L ..~.; ~ ~ ~~ ~ AVE ~~ Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 5 ® QPF to CFS ® PDM/G to CR • • • • >~ ~` ~\ I~ I ~ ~ SARATOGA-LOS ~~ GATOS ROAD i ~~~ r 1~i ~rT t -N Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 6 ® QPF to CFS ® RL~ to RVL© ® PF to CFS ~ PA to GR Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 7 ® QPF to CFS PF to CFS ~ , SR85 PUC t0 SR85 • • Land Use Map Amendments ' Exhibit 8 ® QPF to CFS ® PDM to PA ® PA to CR ~ MUPD to RM10 sRSS PUC to S R85 ; ; : c QPF to RM 10 ,., Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 9 ® QPF to CFS ® PF to CFS • ~~ ~J U • ~~ Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 10 ® QPF to CFS ® QPF to RVLD • • CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Joyce Hlava, Jill Hunter, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Yan Zhao and Chair Linda Rodgers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2006 ORAL COMMUNICATION: Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 21, 2006. 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, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). CONSENT CALENDAR: - None PUBLIC HEARINGS: All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #05-220 (503-25-028) STANLEY/FLANAGAN, 14567 Big Basin Way; -The applicant requests approval for a Sign Permit to construct a freestanding multi-tenant identification sign at Plaza Del Roble. The proposed sign will consist of beige brick with rustic dark nameplates inscribed in beige and the center name and address applied in terra cotta. The bricks, dark wood framing, and earth-toned accents and the will complement the architectural style and color of the center. The sign is approximately 22 square feet in area and 4 feet in height at the peak and will be situated in the brick planter at the entrance to Plaza Del Roble at 14567 Big Basin Way in the CH- 1 zone. (Suzanne Thomas) 2. APPLICATION 07-049 (386-26-070 & 386-26-071) NORTH CAMPUS, 19848 Prospect Road; The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment and Negative Declaration to revert to the previous General Plan designation of Public Facilities from the current General Plan designation of Residential. Development, or change of use, is not proposed at this time. (John Livingstone) 3. APPLICATION 07-087 Citywide, The City of Saratoga is proposing an ordinance that would make project conditions of approval permanent. This would prohibit future uses or modifications to a project design that are inconsistent with prior conditions of approval and require any changes of conditions of approval to be reviewed by the original approving authority. (John Livingstone) 4. APPLICATION 07-088 Citywide, The City of Saratoga is proposing a review of the current Administrative Design Review process. This review will include suggested improvements to the existing administrative procedures and possible improvements to Article 15-45 of the City Code. Some of the ordinance improvements may include but are not limited to requiring all applicants to have story poles, increasing noticing requirements, enhancing neighborhood meeting requirements, requiring new on-site noticing requirements, and revising the design review findings. (John Livingstone) DIRECTORS ITEM: - None COMMISSION ITEMS: - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on September 21, 2006 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.sarato a~ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planningnu,saratoga.ca.us _____ _ ~=-pRAFT MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone,. Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt, Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of August 23, 2006. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of August 23, 2006, were adopted with corrections to pages 5, 9 and 34. (6-0- 1; Commissioner Hlava abstained) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. David Mighdoll, Ronnie Way: • Said he was saddened to see an item missing from tonight's agenda. • Reported that at their last meeting Council requested that the Commission at its next meeting further consider the matter of recording permit requirements. • Explained. that Council gave the Commission direction to report back on one of two available approaches. Council is leaning to all-inclusive. • Said that there is mandated timing for consideration of this item in order to meet Council's November 20th deadline. Director John Livingstone clarified that at the last Council meeting, Council directed staff to expedite the return of this item to the Planning Commission. However, there is legally required noticing that must occur prior to an item being placed on the agenda. Therefore, this item has been scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of September 27th and will still meet all of Council's dates for the October 4th and 18th meetings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 2 Commissioner Nagpal asked if there was insufficient time to have noticed this item for today's meeting. Director John Livingstone replied it was impossible. Commissioner Nagpal said that she watched that Council meeting on television and would be interested in learning how other cities handle permit conditions if possible. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2,. the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on September 7, 2006. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Rodgers announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06-367 (503-24-064) -LEE, 14493 Biq Basin Way (Saratoga Cleaners): This item was continued from the August 23, 2006 PC meeting. Request for Design Review Approval to construct the addition of an 879 square foot commercial tenant space at the first floor level, a 620 square foot 3-car garage, and a 1,377 square foot apartment at the second floor level of an existing 2 story structure located in the CH-1 zone. The existing 3,224 square foot structure consists of a service establishment at the street level and two apartment units at the second floor. The 4,277 square foot site is located in Parking District No. 3. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Associate Planner Lata Vasudevan provided the staff report as follows: • Reminded that this application was continued from the August 23rd Planning Commission meeting. • Said that one issue was the proposed number of dwelling units that would have required approval of a Variation of Standards by the Commission. If this Variation of Standards was to be approved, staff had recommended that the two existing dwelling units be deed restricted as low-income units. • • Reported that the applicant has since revised his plan to include just two rental dwelling units so a Variation of Standards is a non-issue at this time. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 3 • Said that the issue was raised about the materials, specifically the doors facing Turkey Trot, the garage and the rear facade. • Reported that the plans have since been modified to now include wood doors for both the existing and new storefronts. • Advised that a letter from the project architect was received explaining that the applicant wishes to keep the fire doors as they proposed, metal and painted to match the facade. • Said that staff also recommended wood carriage-style garage doors. While the applicant has not yet shown this detail on the plans, the letter states that the applicant is willing to comply with this requirement and included an example from a brochure that is made of fiberglass but wood-like in appearance. • Reported that at the August 23~d hearing, staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the project with the condition that all doors and garage doors, including the side roll up door, be wooden per approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. This requirement was included in the attached resolution. • Said that staff added a condition of approval requiring that the doors to the trash enclosure be replaced with self-closing or gravity doors. • Assured that good wood-like materials are available. ~, • Stated that the resolution can be modified to require that all doors be wood or wood-like material with design specifications to be approved by the Community Development Director. • Distributed a color material board and a photograph of the proposed, paving along the storefronts and eastern facade. • Reminded that considerable discussion regarding the awnings took place at the last. hearing. The applicant is proposing brown canvas awnings. • Said that the applicant proposes- to re-stripe the parking spaces to accommodate access to the proposed three-car garage. Public Works staff has reviewed and approved this proposal and provided conditions. There will be no reduction in the number of spaces provided. • Stated that in conclusion, the project is in compliance with design criteria and standards and required findings. • Recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review and Conditional Use Permits with conditions of approval. • Said that a modified resolution has been provided with technical corrections. • Said that Condition 9 has been added that requires any new signage to obtain a permit as per Code. • Stated that a sentence was added to Finding F to read, "As conditioned, wood or wood-like material used for storefront doors and the rear and garage doors will compliment the hisforic character of the Village." • Said that one correction should read Article 15.55 and not Section 15.55.030 as originally drafted. • Said that Condition 18 is modified to add the word "or" between State or Federal Court. • Stated she was available for questions and that the applicant and architect are in the audience. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Cappello asked on which side, in addition to the storefronts, would the pavers be used. Planner Lata Vasudevan replied between the Chamber of Commerce and the new building. Commissioner Zhao asked what kind of retail use is proposed for this new retail space. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that per the applicant it is not yet been decided. -=Commissioner-Hlava_asked_where_the landscaping plan is located. _ Commissioner Cappello said it was the last page of the plans. Commissioner Hlava said that the plan shows pavers but the walkway reads exposed aggregate. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that it is correct as shown on the landscape plan. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Warren Heid, Project Architect, 14630 Big Basin Way, Saratoga: • Pointed out that he had submitted a letter to Planner Lata Vasudevan this afternoon to help to shorten the meeting by answering a few questions. • Said that the pavers will be used as shown, with exposed aggregate slab from the gate back. • Said that he searched all over to find a local company that carries carriage house doors. • Distributed a brochure that shows doors that are made of fiberglass but look like carriage house doors. • Explained that they don't make them out of wood because they are too heavy. • Said that fiberglass would be painted in tie in with the building in appearance and have all the bells and whistles to look just like a carriage house door in design. It is satisfactory to meet the City's requirements. • Admitted that he finds this. to be .a better appearing door than the panel garage door that had originally been proposed. • Said he would like to re-address the issue of gates for the trash enclosure. • Reminded that the trash enclosure was built when the parking districts came in. They all look the same, with wooden slats in chain link fencing. None of the others are self-closing. • Explained- that two other trash enclosures on private property installed by the owners of the property are wood. • Said that since this enclosure was installed as part of a parking district, he'd like the Planning Commission to re-consider whether or not these really should be changed. • Said he was available for questions and thanked the Commissioners for their consideration. ; Commissioner Hlava asked about the fire door facing Third Street. She said that she thought that the original requirement was that all doors be wood. Will the fire door be wood? Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Warren Heid re lied no, it would be metal that is painted to match. He pointed out that P this is a boiler room and there has to be a protective door as a fire door. He said that he does not know of any wood .doors that are fire doors. Commissioner Hlava said that is what she thought too. Mr. Warren Heid said that the building would be very neutral with the colors matching with the limestone. Commissioner Hlava said it seems reasonable that this needs to be a metal door. She asked if the resolution would need to be changed to reflect that fact. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the resolution says that all doors should be wood so the Commission will need to modify it to allow the fire door to be metal. Commissioner Nagpal asked it was possible to have awood-like door that still meets fire requirements. Director John Livingstone said that this, detail could be left subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. He offered to research for something of a higher quality than astandard metal fire door. Ms. Kathleen Casey, Springer Road: • Stated that the Cleaners have been in Saratoga for quite a while. • Reported that this building was sent before the Heritage Preservation Commission to review it as historic. • Pointed out.that there is a valuable garden area that is to become an apartment. • Stated that the backside of the building is just as important as the front side. • Opined that this property has been important to Saratoga for a long time. • Stated that apartments are not needed in the downtown area and this proposal results in a loss of open space and will result in there being no green area left. • Said that she has not reviewed Mr. Warren Heid's design very closely. • Suggested that the back be reviewed and that it be made as beautiful as the front of the building. • Reiterated her belief that apartments are not as important as commercial space and that it is important to not building apartments downtown. Mr. William Heid reminded that the only part of the building that is historic is the limestone walls to the east and west. He advised that he was on the Heritage Commission when this building was considered and it was only considered because of the limestone. He said that the shape of the building is not historic. The County approved the building before the City was incorporated .and they were able to provide this very boxy building. This project was originally approved about five years ago but because of delays the project approval expired. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 6 Chair Rodgers pointed out that there are two aspects to this application tonight the Design . Review and the Conditional Use Permit. She said that she would like the Commission to deal with the Design Review first, followed by the Use Permit. Commissioner Cappello: • Stated that he likes the design and changes made to it since the last meeting. • -Said that expo§irig the limestone-walls"will"add"to the aesthetics of the Village and make it an even more charming place than it is today. • Agreed with Mr. William Heid that the real historic aspect of this building is its limestone walls that are covered up with paint right now. That is really a crime. Sandblasting to expose the limestone walls is great. • Said that he also likes the rear garage door selected that will help with the aesthetics in the parking lot area. The rear of the building is a very important aspect as is the front. • Stated that he would like to see the side fire door that faces Turkey Trot Lane be changed to something that is more aesthetic and more appealing to the design. If something could be identified that is fire safe and still add to the appeal that would be great. • Said that he would leave it up to staff, working with the applicant, to select that door. • Reiterated that he does like this design and is in favor of the project as proposed. Commissioner Kundtz: • Admitted that he likes the fact that a Variation of Standards is no longer required with the elimination of the third dwelling unit. • Said that he likes the design and the solution for the back. • Stated that he is less inclined to think -that awood-like door is necessary for the fire door. A metal door can be painted to blend in more with the exposed limestone rather than .trying to find awood-like door that may stick out and not blend as well. From an aesthetic standpoint, the painting of a metal fire door is acceptable. • Said that the front door should be wood if possible, wood-like if not. • Added that the use of a wood-like door for the trash enclosure might be an enhancement to the project. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that she feels this is an historic building as it is from 1884 or thereabouts. • Stated that this is a marvelous building that somebody ruined in the 1950's or 1960's. • Added that she is delighted to have it go back to the way it should be. It will look so much better. • Said that she is a little concerned with the concept of a wooden door for the shops. • Explained that when a customer leaves the Cleaners with their arms full, it might be too heavy pulling a wood door open, especially for -some seniors. • Said she trusts staff to pick something that is very tasteful and good-looking but not necessarily heavy. • Said that a metal door on the side can blend in with the wall. There is no need to draw the eye to that door. However, the back door should be good looking. There are wonderful products that can be selected. She said that-she does not mind if they are wood-like. • Reminded that two apartments above are there now. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 7 • Said that the Village gardeners had a dream about what they could do with that open space. Unfortunately, those dreams don't always come #rue. • Said it would have been lovely as a park but it's not going to happen and she understands that the owner wants to develop his property. • Stated that the Village gardeners will remove their birdhouse and move on. Expressed her disappointment that no one from the Village saw the proposed plans even though an email was sent out asking people to go over to the cleaners to look at them. Three people let her know that they had gone but there were no plans evident. • Stated her hope that in the future we all work together in the Village. When somebody is changing and doing some work we all need to come together and reach agreement instead of shock. • Said that she thinks that people are generally happier if they are included in the process. Citizens should get the chance to see what is happening. Commissioner Hlava: • Expressed her regret at missing the last meeting. • Said that she is disappointed to see the three dwelling units reduced back to two and that she would have liked to have seen at least one low-income unit. • Reminded that affordable housing is a major issue for Saratoga as there are so few places available for firemen, teachers, etc., who cannot afford the kinds of prices we all have experienced. She added, that she is both sad and sorry about that. • Said there is some consolation that one of the two dwelling units will be 1,300 square feet and might be at a reasonable rent. • Stated that as far as design issues, she is okay with fiberglass wood-like doors and the painted metal fire door. • Added that she shares Commissioner Hunter's concern about the use of heavy wood doors in the front. retail spaces. • Pointed out that the doors there now are not really attractive. The metal and glass look is pretty old-fashioned. • Suggested leaving it up to staff to come up with something that looks good but maybe not a solid wood door. • Said that she is nervous about aself-closing trash enclosure gate. While it might be lovely, for the residents,. it may become a real issue for the driver collecting trash. On one hand, it might look better with something other than slats in chain link but on the other hand the other enclosures will look bad. • Said that a nice job was done with the pavers and landscaping that will provide some greenery. Commissioner Zhao: • Said that she likes the fiberglass wood-like door. • Reminded that at the last meeting she was not in favor of a wood door in front of the Cleaners and thinks that a fiberglass door will be a good choice but she will leave that to the owner and staff to decide. • Said that the she would like to see wood-like doors for the trash enclosure as well. • Stated that in general she is okay with this design and this project will be nice for Downtown Saratoga. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 8 Chair Rodgers asked Commissioner Zhao for her impressions on the door facing Turkey Trot Drive. Commissioner Zhao said she would leave that to the applicant to work out with staff. Wood- like would be best. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that there are lots of composite materials available. -- =•-Stated=that=_at-the=end-of_the_day-she=would-=like-to_see-wood-or wood-like-doors and leave the decision to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. • Said she does not want to see a metal fire door but rather wood or wood-like door and lease the rest to the discretion of the Community Development Director. • Said that the front and carriage doors look great. • Said that she would also leave the decision on the trash enclosure materials to the discretion of staff. • Suggested adding the options of wood or wood-like doors to the Resolution. Chair Rodgers: • Said this is now a much nicer application. • Thanked the applicant for taking the time to come back to the Commission. • Said that she likes the carriage house door concept and would add wood or wood-like to the Resolution. - i • Stated that she had not thought about -the weight of the wood door -for seniors but presumes that working with staff that issue can be researched so we don't have the problem with doors being too heavy. • Said that as far as the trash enclosure, it is as important that the back of the building look as good as it can. She said that she would like the trash- enclosure to be solid rather than slats with chain link and with aself-closing mechanism. If that becomes a problem, staff can take that into consideration. Director John Livingstone said that staff is recommending aself-closing door. This is a gravity door so that if it is left open, they will gradually close on their own. Commissioner Nagpal asked if these doors are not spring loaded. Director John Livingstone assured that they slowly close. Commissioner Nagpal said that this is similar to the door used between a house and garage that closes slowly. Director John Livingstone said the operation is a matter of simple gravity. Chair Rodgers said she could support this for the trash enclosure, saying that it would be nice to have something that is not left hanging open. She asked the Commissioners for their comments on the Use Permit. aspect of this proposal. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 9 Commissioner Hunter said that it is a shame there are no affordable units gained here but the Commission has to defer to the owner. She said that this project is fine as far as she is concerned. Commissioner Cappello: • Said he is glad not to have to deal with a Variance of Standards tonight. • Expressed appreciation for the changes that have been made to the project. __ _Agreed.that_t would have been_nice to have_a deed-restricted low-income unit in there but thaYs not the project before the Commission. • Said he loves this project and would like to see it go forward. It is an asset to the Village and this Conditional Use Permit is acceptable to him. Commissioner Hlava sought clarification that in the CH Zone, .the applicant will be able to put in any type of retail use. However, if an office use were proposed, a Use Permit would be required. Tonight, the Use Permit approves retail uses in this new commercial space. Director John Livingstone said that's correct. General retail uses are permitted uses. It is just a straight business license and no discretionary review is required. Chair Rodgers: • Said she also wished there could have been low-income housing here in the Village as it would have been a good addition. • Stated that she is also happy that the Commission does not have to do a Variation of Standards because she thinks that might well have set a precedent. • Said that having two dwelling units without a Variation of Standards is important and perhaps more important than having the low-income housing although such housing units are needed in the area. • Stated that this is going to be a good addition to the community and she can't wait to see those limestone walls exposed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving Design Review and granting a Conditional Use Permit for Application #06-367 to construct a 879 square foot first floor tenant space, a 620 square foot three-car garage and a 1,377 square foot apartment on the second floor of an on .property located at 14493 Big Basin Way, with the added requirement for wood or wood-like doors and garage doors with the design specifics to be approved by the Community Development Director, and allowing a metal door for Door #2 (boiler room) to be painted to match the limestone and modifying Finding F, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 10 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.2 APPLICATION #06-206 (403-28-069) NGLIEM, 18344 Baylor Avenue: This item was continued from fhe August 23, 2006 PC meeting -The applicant requests Design, Review Approval to remodel the first floor with an approximately 321 square-foot addition and construct asecond-story addition consisting of approximately 753 square-feet. The total floor area of the proposed residence will be approximately 2,974 square- feet. The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26-feet. The net lot size is 7,840 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (THERESE SCHMIDT) • Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that this item was continued from the August 23~d Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to re-design the project to meet Municipal Code requirements. • Explained that the applicant met with staff and the architect, has re-designed the proposal and submitted the proposal to the neighbors to receive additional comments. • Reported that staff has just received two additional comments that were not included in the packet.. Both are in support of this application. • Informed that one neighbor is requesting denial of the application based on it being a two- story home. • Said that design changes have been made. • Clarified that the proposed driveway is not a wraparound. What was assumed to be a wraparound driveway area is actually walkway area. • Stated that the project meets Code requirements. • Explained that the re-design includes adding windows to soften the right elevation so you don't see a massive stucco side when driving down Devon. • Added that the material has been changed from stucco to wood siding and the paint colors have been changed to match the predominate colors in this neighborhood. • Distributed a color board depicting a mossy green paint color. • Said that staff is recommending that a second color be used, perhaps an almond shade, for the garage and trim. • Explained that originally, the house was only stucco and would have been the only stucco house on Baylor and would have stuck out. Now it blends. • Said that a false hip roof to the front has been added to give the illusion of the second story being set back. The 753 square foot second story has architectural details to soften the mass and bulk. The addition of hip roofs over some windows of the second floor helps give the appearance of dormers and softens the facade. • Reported that staff looked at this design carefully because this is a predominately. single- - story neighborhood. However, there is no single-story overlay and the Municipal Code allows for two-story homes to a maximum height of 26 feet. • Said that the applicant has designed his home at 21 feet and most single-story homes are 18 feet tall. Staff did not find it unreasonably large for atwo-story home. • Explained that staff took lot widths into consideration. They range between 67 and 70 feet. This parcel is 70 feet wide. In many other neighborhoods, widths are just 50 feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 11 • Said that this proposal is not unreasonable and does not interfere with views and/or privacy. • Said that ,the applicant meets setbacks, is setting the second story in and is using architectural features to soften the appearance of bulk and mass. • Recommended approval and reported that this project is Categorically Exempt under - CEQA. No geotechnical clearance is required and no trees are proposed for removal. • Suggested one addition to the conditions of approval under Community Development Department, adding Section D to Condition 3 (Trees) to read, `To protect the ordinance- -- -- --sized__E/m_tree.,_located_near the _front property line, from damage during construction, a five-foot high chain link fence mounted on blocks shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits. Said fence shall be removed prior to issuance of occupancy permits." • Recommended approval. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the additional paint color for trim is included in the draft resolution. Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes, it is included in Condition #2. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this lot is larger in size than others in the immediate area. Planner Therese Schmidt replied that it is the same size as other lots in the neighborhood that are 70 feet in width. It is an approximately 7,900 square foot lot. Commissioner Na al clarified that this lot is not larger than any other lot. 9p Planner Therese Schmidt replied no it is not but it is one of the larger lots on the street. There are several lots at the 67-foot width. Commissioner Nagpal said that perhaps if the lot were larger, it could be a mitigating factor. She pointed to Plan Sheet A3.2 that still shows stucco in the arch located in front. Planner Therese Schmidt said that only the arch in front of the pillars is stucco in order to give. definition to the home for the entry. The pillars are wood. This offers additional architectural relief. Commissioner Nagpal asked if stone had been considered for this arch feature. Planner Therese Schmidt replied that there wasn't.any discussion of stone to this point. Commissioner Nagpal mentioned the vinyl roll up garage door and asked if there was any discussion regarding providing more character to this feature because this is a front facing garage? Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes, there was. She explained that since the last Planning Commission and through interaction with staff, the aluminum roll up garage door with windows was seen as rather busy and staff asked the applicant to tone it down. What is now proposed Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 12 is more of a carriage door appearance without actually being a carriage door because of the architectural integrity of this neighborhood. Staff wants to see the garage door blend in. Commissioner Nagpal asked if any community meeting was held .since the last Planning Commission meeting since so many people had shown up at the last Planning Commission meeting with issues regarding the proposed design. Planner Therese Schmidt replied that she did not believe there was an actual community meeting. She reminded that from the point of the last meeting there was the three-day holiday _-_- _ =-=so-ther-e was-difficulty for_the applicant__to get_a_hold -of_alLof his__neighbors. She: added that at lease one neighbor did come in and review the plans and one called. Commissioner Hunter: • Said she is concerned about this lack of a community meeting since this was a continuance due in part to the number of neighbors who showed up at the last meeting .and spoke about this house and most said that they had never been approached by the applicant. • Stated her concern when people are not going to their next door neighbors but are going to neighbors down the street and on the next street. Peoble who are directly being impacted should be included in the process. • Said that it appears that not a lot of consideration is being given to that fact. Planner Therese Schmidt explained that the neighbor behind was notified and did respond negatively about this proposal. Commissioner Hunter asked if only one letter was received. Planner Therese Schmidt clarified that only one new letter since the last meeting. Commissioner Hunter said that she did not get the rest in her packet. Planner Therese Schmidt reminded that this was part of the original packet and generally items from one packet.are not repeated in the continuance packet. Commissioner Cappello pointed out that since the design has changed the concerns previously raised might not even be the same. Commissioner Hunter said that's true. Chair Rodgers advised that she has three speaker slips for people wishing to speak to this item, including some from Baylor. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Sue Tu, Applicant, Baylor Avenue: • Said that when they moved into this neighborhood they were not aware that they could not build atwo-story home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 13 • Said that plans to do so are one reason why they paid what they did for their home. It offers a big lot for which they paid a lot. Their child plays in the backyard. • Stated that they need atwo-story to accommodate their growing family. • Assured that their home has been designed to meet Code. They have followed the rules and exhausted their savings. They also have worked on this proposal for 14 months: - - -- --- __- - - -- - - - - - - - Commissioner Nagpal explained that at the last meeting the issue of community in_v_olvement was a bia_ concern.__ She asked__w_ hat outreach _was m__ade to discuss this project, with the neighbors. Mr. Hien Ngliem, Applicant, Baylor Avenue: • Said that after the last meeting they tried to approach neighbors but most were out of town for the holiday. • Advised that they did meet with a few and most were supportive. Commissioner Nagpal asked how many neighbors were approached. Mr. Hien Ngliem said that they left information with five neighbors and three responded. They also told their architect to reduce the. project and it is now only four feet higher than, the rear neighbor's house at 21 feet versus 17 for aone-story. It looks more like a one- . and-a-half story house. Commissioner Na pal asked the difference between the front elevation heights of the 9 existing versus proposed home. Mr. Hien Ngliem said the existing home is 17 feet. Commissioner Nagpal said that the difference in height is only four feet. Mr. Richard Schultz, Baylor Avenue: • Said that he lives across the street and next door to the oldest two-story home in the. neighborhood. There are no privacy issues from it as they can't oversee his yard. • Described the difference between a 21 foot high two-story and a 17 foot high single story home. A one-story home has no windows overlooking neighbors. Atwo-story home does. • Reported that he was never contacted for either the first or revised set. of plans. He has never seen the neighborhood notification templates. • Said he would like to see this applicant get the additional living space they need. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Richard Schultz if his main concern is privacy. Mr. Richard .Schultz said that privacy doesn't affect him directly but he is concerned for his neighbors' privacy as well as setting a precedent for two-story homes in the neighborhood. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 14 Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Richard Schultz if he has any questions or comments about the design. Mr. Richard Schultz said his concern is the windows looking into neighboring houses. Ms. Patti Ploshay, Baylor Avenue: • Reminded that the neighbors expressed concerns at the last meeting. • Explained that she is the next-door neighbor and was never contacted or shown the plans. No attempt was made. --==•=Said=this-proposal-is personal-to-her-, -her_=husband-and- heir three--kids.- T-heir privacy, views and sunshine are impacted. • Said that what she loves most about this neighborhood are the neighbors. • Reported that one neighbor put in a basement to gain extra living space. • Stated that she would not have bought her house 18 years ago if she had known that a two-story home would be built next door to her. • Said that it is not fair to build atwo-story at the disadvantage of others. Commissioner Hlava asked if Ms. Ploshay is the garage side neighbor. Ms. Patty Ploshay replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if it is the side with three windows that will. overlook her property. Ms. Patti Ploshay replied correct. Mr. Joe Ploshay, Baylor Avenue: • Reported that he was at the last meeting as well. • Reminded that the Planning Commission was pretty adamant about the applicant reaching out to the neighbors. • Explained that his wife is home and accessible. • Stated that there are privacy issues but he is willing to work with the applicant. • Said that he did a straw poll of the neighborhood, which consists of 200 homes. Of the 46 that remodeled, all were single-story. • Stated that this neighborhood was designed as a single-story neighborhood that offers privacy. • Said losing this privacy would 6e a detriment to the value of his home. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the impact of windows overlooking his property is a privacy concern. Mr. Joe Ploshay said that the- back window also overlooks his backyard. He explained that the original plans had no windows on his side. The plans shown to a neighbor did have windows on his side. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 15 Commissioner Nagpal said that the standard is unreasonable views into living s-paces such as bedrooms. Mr. Joe Ploshay said that from his backyard he has views of trees and birds. Sunlight falls on his citrus trees and garden. The morning sun would be blocked with this addition of a second story. Ms. Doris Chen, Purdue Drive: • Said that she lives behind this property. • Reported that the applicant did not leave a notification form or attempt to contact her directly. • Added that her family was home during the holiday weekend. • Advised that the rear of her home is all windows. • Said that she is new in the neighborhood having moved in just two months ago. • Said that one bedroom is also at the back of the house with French windows. With a two-story overlooking, she would have to keep her.curtains closed. • Added that her kitchen is also at the back. • Stated that intrusion on her privacy is her concern. Commissioner Cappello asked where Ms. Chen's home is located. Ms. Doris Chen replied directly behind this site. Commissioner Nagpal asked if one of the proposed windows would face her bedroom directly. Ms. Doris Chen replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Chen if her home is two-story. Ms. Doris Chen replied it is a one-story. Chair Rodgers asked Ms. Chen how far the back of her house is from the property line. Ms. Doris Chen replied she did not know. Commissioner Nagpal asked if planted trees would address her privacy concerns. Ms. Doris Chen said she did not know if trees would be high enough to screen views from a second floor into her house. She reported that she used to live in a two-story home and she could see into the yard and windows of her neighbors. Mr. John Cuickshank, Baylor Avenue: • Said that his house is located three houses to the right from the subject property. • Advised that he has just remodeled and spoke to all surrounding neighbors about his plans and kept them informed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 16 • Added that he was working outside during the Labor Day holiday weekend laying sod. • Said that this applicant never contacted him. • Reported that he moved in 9 years ago and his deed stated that no two-story homes were allowed. • Said that he bought into this area. He wants to live in Saratoga and not in Cupertino where people are building monster homes. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Cuickshank if he has any suggestions to improve the design. Mr. John Cuickshank, Baylor Avenue: • Said he just saw the drawings tonight when he came to this meeting. • Stated that it is possible to build a 2,800 square foot single-story home on these large lots. • Advised that he has a pool in his backyard and if his rear neighbor were to put a second story on his home, the privacy when using the pool would be lost. • Reported that this applicant took out a large tree and replaced it with a small one. • Said these neighbors are not being neighborly hand they should talk with their neighbors. Ms. Gail Poffenberger, Baylor Avenue: • Said her home is located two doors to the right of the subject property. • Advised that she was at the last meeting and has the same position today that she did then. She still opposes this project. • Recounted that this development was constructed with 200 homes using four different floor plans. Most have a large expanse of back wall with windows overlooking the rear yards. • Explained that she has 19 feet of windows. out of the 50-foot width of her home. • Said that atwo-story is not just looking into a yard but also infringes on the privacy of the home. • Added that this remodel, with windows on all four sides, will be looking into all neighbors' homes and would set a precedent. • Said that planting trees at the back fence is a fine suggestion but that is where the power lines are located. Palms recently had to be removed. Therefore the power lines are an issue for any- trees planted along the back. Mr. Hien Ngliem, Applicant, Baylor Avenue: • Said that the- house next door to the right would have no windows exposing his house. There will be windows eight feet off the floor that will only offer sky view. • Said he is willing to put in obscured window or stained glass. • Stated that his son plays in the rear yard and he wants to preserve that space. • Pointed out that there is a 35-foot distance from the window to the fence and probably another 50 from the fence to his rear neighbor's house. • Said he had to the city planner and was given a booklet on designing atwo-story home. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 17 Commissioner Hunter pointed out that of 46 remodels in this neighborhood only four were two-story additions. She asked Mr. Hien Ngliem why is he not considering asingle-story addition. Mr. Hien Ngliem said he wants additional space for his growing family Commissioner Hunter said that with an 8,000 square foot lot there is room for asingle- story home to accommodate his growing family.. Mr. Hien Ngliemsaid~that~to go with-a -single-story and have a-design that is workable, he would have to demolish the existing home and rebuild. That is not within his budget. Commissioner Hunter asked if there is no possibility for aone-story versus two-story addition with his budget. Mr. Hien Ngliem said that he would like an office to work at home in the evening. -They also want a master bedroom suite downstairs to accommodate visits from their parents. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Hien Ngliem if he is proposing no clear glass for the windows along the right elevation. Mr. Hien Ngliem replied yes. He said he actually prefers this as this side of the house is facing west and obscuring the windows will help make the room less hot. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that Mr. Hien Ngliem did not attend the last meeting. Commissioner Nagpal asked if it had been communicated to Mr. Hien Ngliem how important community involvement was to this Commission. Mr. Hien Ngliem replied yes. He reminded that even before he had gone around and chatted with his neighbors. Some had their minds made up against him. Others said the project was fine and would add character to the neighborhood. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the most impacted next-door neighbor. Mr. Hien Ngliem said he had spoken to that neighbor. He needed a window to break up that wall but assured that he is not interested in looking into his neighbor's backyard. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter: • Pointed out that this is the second project this evening with neighbors being inadequately notified by an applicant. • Said that she is not asking neighbors street to street being personally contacted but it is most important to talk to all adjacent neighbors. • Said that the applicant is new to a neighborhood with neighbors who have been here for 15 to 20 years. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 18 • Reminded that this is predominately aone-story neighborhood and the applicant needs to work with the neighbors. • Stated that there are other options available. This is a large lot and an addition can go back in a single-story format. She is not aware of a big price difference with that option. • Reiterated that the applicant needs to make the effort to communicate and negotiate with the neighbors who have been here a much longer time. • Stressed that part of being a neighbor is working together to reach agreement. • Stated that she will not support this application as a two-story can be done in a better degree. " • Suggested that the applicant go back and work with the neighbors. Commissioner Kundtz: • Likened this situation to the saying, "surgery was a success but the patient died." • Said that the elements of the findings have been met. • Stated that Saratoga is all about community. • Cautioned that he does not subscribe to the belief that neighbors get to decide the type of home another neighbor gets to have. • Said that his concerns would: be met if it were clear~~that the applicant had adequately attempted to involve his neighbors but there is no evidence of such meetings. • Suggested that the large number of neighbors protesting his plan should. have sent a much stronger message to this applicant. • Said he has no objection to astory-and-a-half option. • Said that he cannot support this request due to a sense of community. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that he is of a different opinion. • Said that it is good practice and the neighborly thing to do to work with neighbors. The applicant has to live among his neighbors. • Stated that from a findings standpoint this project can be supported. The building height is only going to be four feet higher than asingle-story home. • Said that the applicant has done a reasonable job making windows smaller. He is willing to use obscured glass windows to avoid views into his neighbors' yards. • Pointed out that this Commission has approved many projects more unreasonable than this one and he sees no reason to deny this one. • Stated his support for staff's recommendation. Chair Rodgers asked Commissioner Cappello to address community compatibility. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that this is a neighborhood in transition. While there are only four two-story homes right now, more and more homes are going to remodel. • Said it would be outstanding if this were asingle-story addition but nothing in the Code prevents atwo-story home. • Said he has no issue. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 19 Commissioner Hunter said she does not remember a project where less effort was made to talk with neighbors. That lack of talk is a problem. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that talking to neighbors is a nice practice and the Planning Commission can promote that concept but the lack of doing so is not a basis for denial of an application from his standpoint. • Reminded that the Commission can't deny based on that fact. The neighbors were notified per the Community Development Department notification and were welcome to - -come -fo the City-fo review plans in advance of--the meeting. Additionally,-this-is their forum for commenting on those plans. • Reiterated that there is nothing in the findings that indicates the requirement to have those discussions with the neighbors although it is a good practice and something the Commission should promote but he cannot deny this project based just on that. Commissioner Zhao: • Said she has sympathy for the applicant's situation. She understands that they have worked hard to try to achieve the American dream to build-their dream house. • Stated that at the last meeting the Planning Commission had strongly suggested that the applicant work with their neighbors and the community, since this is predominately a single-story neighborhood. • Said that she respects a homeowner's rights and would like to .see this applicant building a house to accommodate their needs- but she also has a concern with the findings including interference with views and privacy, especially for the neighbor to the right. • Said that she cannot make the necessary findings for compatibility with bulk and height and therefore cannot support this application. • Stated that she cannot make Findings A and E. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that this project is very difficult for all of us. • Recounted that she was on Council when this area was annexed into Saratoga. • Stated that it was anticipated that there would be issues in the future with -the fact that the area was originally developed with standards that were not typical with the rest of Saratoga. This kind of application is exactly what that is. • Said that she missed -the last meeting but read the minutes and report from that meeting. • Suggested that it is hard to be the first to do something. In the future, there are going to be a lot of these types of issues in this area. • Stated that she is a little concern about the gentleman's mention of CC&R's. She said that she did not know that document's impacts. Is it possible that a deed restriction is there that impacts this? Does it overrule what the City does? What's the rule on that? City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that CC&R's are purely- private civil matters and members of the community can decide if they want to enforce their CC&R's through the courts. The City does not enforce CC&R's nor does it apply them. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 20 Commissioner Nagpal asked if staff knows whether there is a deed restriction on this property. Planner Therese Schmidt said that she read the title report and did not see a deed restriction prohibiting a second story. So it may be in the CC&R's, which is a separate and private civil issue. Commissioner Nagpal said that she believed that one speaker this- evening said this restriction is included in the deed. Commissioner Cappello cautioned that the man was talking about his own home and deed and not this subject home. He said that it surprised him to hear that restriction was included in a deed as he had never known a deed to include such a detail. Chair Rodgers pointed out that .quite often the CC&R's are part of the package when people sign off at closing to purchase their home but it may not be a part of the deed but rather a separate document. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that she can make the findings. • Said that a 21-foot height is not unreasonable and does not interfere with views or privacy nor does she think it is incompatible in bulk or height. • Said that since she can make the findings she feels that she needs to vote in favor. • .Stated that she frankly wished that was not the case but it seems to her that it is the reason the City makes these kinds of rules. • Reminded that there are other second-story homes including one across the street from this one. It is reasonable that this owner would believe that a second story was allowed when he bought this home and that he would also be able to have one. • Said that they have gone a long way in terms of this design to try and minimize the impacts that atwo-story would have in the neighborhood. • Reiterated that she can make the findings and would support the staff recommendation. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that she kept wishing, as each Commissioner spoke, that the applicant would rush to the microphone and ask for a continuance so that he would have the opportunity to work with his neighbors. • Said that it is the community involvement issue that really, really, really has her depressed. • Said that the applicant still has that opportunity because the best project would be the project that comes from some kind of compromise since the applicant will be living there. • Stated that this is what she is struggling with and that is why she is focused so much on asking questions that relate to privacy and unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 21 • Said that based on the information the Commission has been provided by public .testimony this evening, there were a lot of people who talked about not wanting a second-story. However, there is no requirement in the City right now and Code allows second-story homes. This is just one of the first new second-story additions in this neighborhood. • Reminded that this proposed home is just 21 feet high, more like aone-and-a-half story and that the applicant has worked a lot on his design. Unfortunately, the applicant was selective on his approach with neighbors. • Stated that bottom line, she can make Finding A. She can find for compatibility but would want changes in design with the stucco in front and with the garage door being more of a carriage style. • Said she would still like for the applicant to ask for a continuance as it appears to be a rushed application. It would be a lot better to reach a compromise that all can live with. • Said she offers a reluctant and by-the-book type of support. Chair Rodgers: • Admitted that she understands the concerns raised by Commissioners Hunger, Kundtz and Nagpal regarding the involvement of neighbors but Code does not currently require that. • Added that there is a pendulum swing that goes back and forth between requiring neighbor consultation versus property rights and allowing people to build what they want. The Commission is trying to strike a balance and will take a look at this issue in two weeks when it takes a look at noticing requirements. • Said that for now, she is looking at Design Review findings and it seems that it is a. very close issue. It is a stretch to say it meets requirements but if it goes just a little bit over the line, she thinks that she is going to say that she requires that there be a little bit more room here. Instead of just saying that the views and privacy, bulk and height issues are just met, especially when this is the first two-story in a neighborhood, then the applicant has to go just a little bit further to make sure it is excellent design and perhaps look at a transitional house as being astory-and-a-half off the back of the house where there is a greater distance between the windows of one house to the one behind when separated by two yards. • Stated that although there is technically no requirement that houses in this neighborhood continue to be single-story, when you are the first one to go to a second story there is a requirement to really solidly meet all of the requirements of the Design Review findings. • Said she cannot make the findings at this point in time. • Advised that it appears to be a 4 to 3 vote for denial at this point. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer asked for clarification as to which findings are not considered met. He reminded of the possibility for a continuance. Commissioner Hunter said that she has problems with excessive bulk. The house is not cor~npatible with bulk and height. There are views and privacy impacts. She cannot make Findings A, D and E. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 22 City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested referring this back to staff to allow them to draft new findings for the next meeting for adoption. The applicant can appeal in the meantime if he so chooses. Commissioner Nagpal suggested that the applicant be consulted on his preference between a continuance or a vote for denial this evening. Mr. Hien Ngliem said that since the last meeting with the planner, he did not have a lot of time to go around the neighborhood. He wants to go back now to see exactly what changes are needed to make everyone happy. Director John Livingstone said the option is a continuance to a date uncertain to allow as much time as necessary. When the project is ready, the neighbors would be re-noticed for the next available hearing. Mr. Hien Ngliem said he prefers that option as he needs time to brainstorm as to what modifications can be made to make everyone happy. He cautioned that it is very hard to get everyone happy at the same time and he is not (sure how he -can make all of his neighbors happy. It is hard enough to make everyone within a family happy. Chair Rodgers: • Said that the Commission does not ask him to make all his neighbors happy. • Added that what he is hearing from the Commission is that when you are the first house to be going up with .a .second story, it is perhaps more important that you talk with your neighbors because they are the people who you are going to have to live with when this home is completed. • Stated that the Commission is going to be looking for a good design that is perhaps transitional rather than a stark two-story. • Pointed out that the applicant is hearing this from a fair number of the Commissioners this evening. This should be consistent with what the neighborhood expects for the future. • Suggested that Mr. Hien Ngliem work further with the project planner. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised that the appropriate motion would be to continue this item to a date uncertain to allow redesign. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission CONTINUED to a date uncertain consideration of Application #06-206 for atwo-story addition to an .existing residence at 18344 Baylor Avenue to allow for' redesign and neighbor input, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 23 *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #07-061 (393-43-042) RODRIGUEZ, 13664 Camino Rico: -The .applicant requests a Modification to Design Review .Approval _ granted March 8, 2006._ The initial approval granted demolition of 32% of the residential structure's exterior walls; however, during demolition extensive termite and weather damage was found resulting in full demolition of the structure. The approved design as well as the approved floor area of 2,785 square- feet, iricluding the garage, will not be modified. The maximum height of the proposed residence will be not higher than 22-feet. The net lot size is 10,003 square-feet and the site is zoned R-1-10,000. (THERESE SCHMIDT) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Modification to Design Review Approval. . • Explained that the applicant received approval to demolish approximately 32 percent of the existing structure's exterior walls and add a small addition of approximately 200 square feet. However, during the demolition process, the contractor discovered termite damage and extensive wood rot that resulted in the entire demolition of the home. • Said that this is back before the Commission in a public forum to give the neighbors the opportunity to understand that it is going to be essentially a brand new house and not just a small addition. • Reported that the project floor plans and exterior facade will be exactly the same. The applicant is not requesting any modification or changes to the actual floor plan or to the exterior building materials and/or height. • Added that this is more an opportunity to bring this back to the Commission to let the Commissioners know what happened in the field and to give .the Commission the opportunity to look at it as a new structure. The Commission could require, additional modifications to the approval at this time but that is not what the applicant is requesting. In fact, the applicant has signed an indemnification agreement with the understanding that the Commission could make changes but they have gone ahead and are continuing. construction out of fear of the rainy season that is going to be upon us shortly. • Recommended approval of this modification. • Stated that the applicant is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the arch above the garage is an actual window or just an ornament. Planner Therese Schmidt said that it is just an ornament and no window is proposed. It is an architectural feature. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Lupe Rodriguez, Applicant, Camino Rico: • Said he is the property owner. • Added that staff has reported everything that needs to be said. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 24 • Said that damage was found and it was felt that it would be an inferior house to retain • that damaged wood. For the safety of his family, it was decided to take the wood out and replace it with new wood. Commissioner Cappello asked Mr. Lupe Rodriguez if he has discussed his situation with his neighbors. Mr. Lupe Rodriguez replied yes, each and every one of them and none had a negative reaction. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer advised the Chair to invite. any members of the public to make comments. There were no parties present wishing to speak. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Hunter said that she is pleased that the problem has been worked out and since exactly the same house will be reconstructed I as was there before, which the Commission approved, this is fine with her.. All findings can be made. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission adopted a .Resolution granting a Modification (Application #07-061) to a Design Review Approval allowing for full instead of partial demolition (due to termite damage and wood rot) and reconstruction of a residence on a property located at 13665 Camino Rico, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Rodgers called for a brief break at approximately 9:43 p.m. Chair Rodgers reconvened the meeting. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.4 APPLICATION #06-017 (397-27-030) MORRISON, 14234 Saratoga-Sunnwale Road: The applicant requests Design Review/Tentative Map approval for the construction of twenty two- story town home units. All town home units are three-bedroom units with attached two-car garages. Some of the units include basements. The maximum height of the buildings will be 30 ft. The net lot size is approximately 2.08 acres (90,515 square feet) and the maximum building coverage is 39.3% of the site. The site is zoned RM-3000. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is being considered for this project (DEBORAH UNGO McCORMICK) Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 25 Contract Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review and Tentative Map approval fora 20- unit town home development. Each town home would have three bedrooms and two-car garage and some would have basements. The maximum coverage is 39.3 percent of net site. Maximum building height is 30 feet. The zoning is RM-3000. • Explained that an Initial Study was prepared for this project. On the basis of the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and a public review period began on July 7th through August 7, 2006. Comments were received and responses to comments are included in the packets together with .copies of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Two agencies responded, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and West Valley Sanitation. • Reported that today at 4 p.m., comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration were received from tenants at Brookside Apartments. Staff has not yet had the time to review these comments. They are requesting a 30-day continuance to respond to these concerns. • Advised that a Mitigation Monitoring Plan has also been prepared, which is also included in the packets. • Informed that the environmental determination is part of the project and before the project itself can be approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration needs to be approved. That's why it is mentioned first. • Gave specifics in terms of the project. The site is a 6.08 net acre parcel that is currently developed with a 20-unit apartment complex that was constructed in about 1962. It includes three one-story buildings and one two-story building, a swimming pool and carports. The two-story building is located adjacent to Saratoga Creek. • Explained that access to the site is from Saratoga-Sunnyvale -Road and provided through the Neale's Hollow Center driveway that also serves as primary access for multi-family residential developments to the east of the site, a town home and apartment development. • Provided a history of the site. It consists of approximately 44-year-old buildings. It is not listed in the Historic Resources Inventory. Prior to development with the apartments, the property was used for agricultural purposes (orchards). The apartments were developed in the typical style of the 1960's using wood frame construction and stucco exterior with asphalt roofs. The buildings themselves present no evidence of historic significance. The- - ~ applicant reports that the landscaping on site was installed in the late 1960's, early 1970's, including the clustering of redwood trees in the middle of the site and most of the oak trees on the site. • Reported that the Community Development Director made the determination that the site did not warrant further historical evaluation. • Advised that a letter was submitted to the Heritage Preservation Commission last month requesting that it be reconsidered for historic value. The Heritage Preservation Commission placed in on their oral communications agenda yesterday. The considered it and decided not to place it on the agenda for further consideration thereby concurring with the conclusion of the Community Development Director. • Advised that the original proposal was for 25 town home units at a density of approximately 12.1 dwelling units per gross acre. The RM District allows up to 14 units per gross acre. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 26 • Reminded that a Study Session on this project took place on December 14, 2005. This application was originally submitted in July 2005 and has been in process for a little over a year. The purpose of the Study Session was to provide input to the applicant on the proposed project. Notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the project site. Study Sessions do not require neighbor notification but the City -does as a common practice. • Stated that at the time of the Study Session, the town homes were proposed as three- bedroom units with six different layouts ranging in floor area from 2,400 to 3,100 square feet. Basements were proposed on some of the units. The parking ,ratio for the original proposal was 2.5 spaces per unit, which included two spaces in a garage per unit and the remaining 8 spaces as guest parking. This met the minimum standard. • Said that two neighbors attended the Study Session and their concerns generally related to the parking and circulation issues. • Advised that the Planning Commission provided input and their concern was primarily density of the project, removal of trees and inadequate amount of guest parking. There was also some direction to evaluate the potential for direct vehicular connection to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road as opposed to continuing access through Neale's Hollow. • Reported that the applicant has revised the project and came down to 20 three-bedroom town home units with basements. The density is now closer to 10 units per gross acre and they are now in blocks of two, three or four units per building. Before they were larger and more modular building blocks. The height remains at 30 feet, which is allowed in the RM District. The proposed architectural style is Craftsman. The existing drive is retained and they have added a loop system to provide access to all units, which was also part of the original proposal. Changes have been made. They include the fact that all units have two- cargarages and one has athree-car garage. They now all have a driveway where before they were directly on the curb with no driveway apron. That provides two additional parking spaces per unit. In addition to that, the guest parking is now 14 spaces where before it was eight. • Explained that 95 trees were identified in the original report. They are proposing to remove 45 trees, seven of which are oak trees. Forty-five (45) are to be retained or relocated on site. The cluster of redwood trees will be retained. Most trees along the periphery of the site are going to be .retained. Three or four trees are being removed on the northeastern side of the property. Other trees being removed are non-oaks but some are large. • Stated that the project conforms to the RM District requirements. That district does not have a ,maximum impervious coverage restriction but it does have a maximum building coverage and this project conforms. The reason for this is that in an RM District you will have driveways as a way to provide access. If you start reducing that ability you won't be able to get very much access to the site. • Reported that common open space is not really required in the RM District. This project is providing 18,142 square-feet of common open space or 907 square feet per unit and this is exclusive of setbacks. Of that, 13,753 square feet is located in the central common area and 4,569 square feet is in pathways and other areas throughout the project. • Said that there is about 150 square feet in average of private open space per unit. This provision of private patio areas is another change from the original proposal. The units in the center of the site have their private space facing the common area and they are provided with low 42-inch high walls that provide privacy while alsoopening the area up. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 27 Those units fronting Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road will have patios that will be located far below grade. • Announced that the project will also provide a direct pedestrian connection to Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road .that will be ADA compliant. A wall is proposed with landscaping to replace an existing wire fence located along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Some illustrations of this proposed wall were provided to the Commission and demonstrates how much of the buildings will be visible from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. • Stated that the architectural style is Craftsman. • Explained that traffic circulation will come from a new two-way road to a private loop. Access to all units will be from the private-loop and a small traffic circle will be located at the entrance. • Stated that in response to -the concerns raised at the Study Session, staff referred this project to its peer review consultants, Fehr & Peers, to look at the potential for having a second point of access direct to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. They just basically looked at what the potential is for a secondary access along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. The conclusion they reached was that the existing driveway adequately serves the proposed volume of traffic. • Agreed that there will be more cars because these will be larger units but it still falls within the threshold of acceptable levels. Anew driveway would introduce another point of conflict along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, which is an arterial road that is already designed to serve high traffic. Part of the concern is the point where this project would potentially have a direct connection, the southwestern most point. It was determined that drivers would have to make u-turns at the office complex to enter and exit the site. In general, Fehr & Peers would not recommend a second point of access. They did have some site- specific requirements or recommendations for fire access. Fehr & Peers recommended that a direct pedestrian connection be constructed from the site to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and that is now included in the project. • Said that the Fehr & Peers report, from January 2006, included a recommendation that the guest parking spaces all be standard in size rather than compact. Since that time, the applicant has increased parking per unit to include two more spaces per unit and 14 guest spaces with no more than 25 percent of those being compact. • Discussed the removal of trees. Reminded that 45 are to be removed. The 37 trees located within the public right-of-way and along the adjacent property will be protected. The City arborist recommends that any oak trees that are removed be replaced with a combination of 36 and 48-inch box oak trees and that other replacement trees should be 24-inch box containers. The central tree will be a 72-inch box. Bonding for the trees is required. • Reminded that this project is located adjacent to Saratoga Creek.. A study was done and a structural setback was identified that needs to be complied with and mitigations are required for anything that encroaches on this setback. Currently the project does not encroach. One area will need to be worked on in the creek to upgrade a current outlet to the creek. This is all- being reviewed by SCVWD and is being designed in accordance with their requirements including plant materials. • Said that the wall proposed along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road frontage is four-feet high when viewed from the road. It will require final approval from the Public Works Department including landscaping in front to help soften the look of the wall. The applicant Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 28 is also required to replace an existing walk from the bridge all the way out to Walnut Avenue. • Said that this project is compatible with the adjacent properties. One letter was received from a resident at Victor Place where the concern was raised regarding privacy as it relates to his backyard that will be nearest to the most northwestern unit of this development. The distance is 27 feet and the minimum required is 25 feet. That lot is actually at a higher grade. - -- - -- - ~ - • Stated that staff feels this project has been designed to minimize privacy impacts. The landscaping along that corner will be retained. - - ---•-Said-that-neighbor--notification-was-sent- to-owners-within 500 feet:. Two-letters in response were received. One was from the Homeowners Association for the Executive Town Homes Association of Saratoga (east of the site) raising concern regarding parking and traffic. • Reported that geotechnical clearance was required and obtained. • Advised that visibility from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road has been addressed through design. What will be seen from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road is approximately 13 to 15 feet of the upper story because of the grade and a depressed site. • Stated that staff has made the Design Review and Tentative Map findings and prepared draft resolutions for both the Design Review and Tentative Map applications. One minor modification is recommended by staff for the Tentative Map resolution requiring that CC&R's be recorded with the final map since the homeowners' association will maintain the wall along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. • Recommended approval of the Design Review, Tentative Map and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration should be approved first, followed by the Tentative Map and the Design Review Approval. Commissioner Kundtz asked where the pillars for mailboxes would be placed. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied at the entrance next to guest parking. However, the applicant is working with the Post Office for an alternative location. Commissioner Nagpal asked to whom questions about the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be directed. Is it the applicant? Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick advised that staff and consultants prepared this Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the biological study was limited to the riparian corridor or did they also. look for any other species of concern in that area. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said the study was of the area and existing conditions. This is not a riparian corridor of the highest quality. Commissioner Nagpal repeated her question as to whether the biological study was specifically directed to the riparian corridor. She said that her question is whether the consultant did a biotic study to establish that there are no endangered species that we ought to be concerned about. She said that she did not believe that they did. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes. for September 13, 2006 Page 29 Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that she did not think they did. Typically, they will identify that in their study if there is something. Commissioner Nagpal said that she has a few more questions like this but maybe it will be best to direct them to .the applicant. -She -asked if a_copy of Phase I of the Site Assessment was part of the packet. ' Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said she has a copy available but it was so thick it was not made a part of the-Commission packets. - ~ -- -- --- ~- - -- - Commissioner Nagpal asked if the finding made was that there were no recognized environmental conditions that they were concerned about. Were there no concerns about the previous agricultural use of the site or any pesticide background? Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied no. She reminded that the use of the site has been residential for more than 40 years. She said that there might be a required Phase II report. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there are any recommendations for asbestos and lead based paint surveys during demolition of the existing buildings. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied yes and that mitigation is included in the Resolution. Commissioner Nagpal said that she did not see that in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that she would have to pull the actual report, as what the Commission has is just a summary. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there was any kind of initial archeological review. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied no. She said that there is a condition of approval for any project along a creek that states that should something happen during construction where some sort of artifact is uncovered, construction has to stop and an archeological study. done. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the traffic consultant is here tonight. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that Fehr & Peers was the City's consultant. She said that she could answer questions about that study. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that the report was prepared for the City and not for the applicant. • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 30 Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied correct. The applicant had submitted a traffic assessment. The City asked Fehr & Peers to do its own independent assessment of the traffic for the site. The conclusions provided are from Fehr & Peers. Commissioner Nagpal said that due to the fact that there are 20 apartment units and 20 town home units, Fehr & Peers is finding that the same number of trips will be generated despite the fact that the square footage of the new units will be significantly larger. Planner Deborah Ungo=McCormick said that traffic engineers use model calculations. This is _ -_~_thestandard-way_of.-doing transp-ortation_studies. _ -_-_-__ _ -- _~__:- - Commissioner Nagpal said she has difficulty believing that there will be no difference in daily. vehicle trips and that she would like to review the raw data prepared by the traffic consultant. She questioned the amount of common open space at 18,000 square feet. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that this is a total excluding setbacks but including walkways. Commissioner Nagpal asked if .the writers of the September 13th dated memorandum responding to the environmental report had provided any input prior to September 13tH Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that they are tenants of Brookline Glen Apartments. Another tenant at Brookside also was the one who sent the letter to the HPC requesting further historical evaluation. Commissioner Nagpal asked about hydrology and water quality and if there are operating wells on this property. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied that there has been nothing indicating that from the Water District. She added that because of the proximity to Saratoga Creek, this project would undergo extensive review and scrutiny by the Water District. Anything that goes on in this creek will also go through Fish & Wildlife. and the Army Corps of Engineers. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that this project would include digging down into a. basement level with a creek so close by. She said that groundwater levels are bound to be about 10 feet and so a pumping system might be needed to manage water in these basements. Commissioner Hlava asked if the concerns raised in the communication received today regarding the displacement of a substantial number of people with the replacement of apartments by town homes means that the Commission cannot pass the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that if this were an affordable project, a relocation plan would be required. In this case, this is a market-rate apartment complex. There will be some displacement but it is not necessarily an impact that would necessitate the denial of the Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 31 Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is usually based on impacts to the environment. It is a disclosure document about that. Commissioner Zhao asked about the existing living area for the apartments on site right now. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick replied that she believes they range in size between 900 and 1,500 square feet but would defer a more definitive answer to the applicant. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Eugene Zambetti, Applicant/Property Owner's Representative: • Explained that he is here as the representative of property owner, Dave Morrison, who is unable to be present this evening. • Described Mr. Dave Morrison as a 40-year resident of Saratoga who has owned Brookline Apartments for the last 44 years. • Explained that Mr. Dave Morrison purchased this site in 1960 when it was an old prune orchard that was no longer productive. In 1961, Mr. Morrison completed the private driveways. In 1974 he planted the clump of redwoods, which were just one-inch in diameter, five-feet tall and from afive-gallon can. • Assured that this project would preserve those trees and. several trees will also be relocated. • Said that the real issue here is the need to relocate some of the best residents we've had here in Saratoga for many years. • Explained that of the 30 units, five or six of the tenants happen to both live and work in Saratoga. • Assured that they are willing to do everything possible to assist with relocation. • Explained that over the last two years, while the average rent in the area has been about $1,320 for aone-bedroom unit, Mr. Morrison has been charging just $948 a month. He did this as a concession to tenants due to long-term uncertainty since they were aware of his future plans to redevelop the site. • Added that if redevelopment were not proposed, the rents would be between $1,600 and $1,,700 per month. Since the roofs are 25 years old and need replacement, the current rent after that replacement would need to be about $2,000 per month. • Pointed out that the story poles are on site and that 20 for-sale homes are proposed for this property. • Agreed that relocation takes time but they will assist. • Stated that Mr. Morrison was concerned about public noticing; which goes to the owner only. Mr. Jim Morley, President of JMS Enterprises: • Stated that he has lived in Saratoga since 1971 and is pleased to be here. • Said that this is a wonderful project that will be positive for the City and its residents. • Pointed out that many people, once children are raised, are looking to come down in size of home. They are known as Empty Nesters. • Advised that each of these units will have an elevator. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 32 • Said that the project design has evolved over the last 18 months including a Study . Session with this Commission. • Added that consultants, experts in their fields, were hired to participate in the planning of this development. Mr. Colin Gray, Vice President of JMS Enterprises: • Said that he is very excited to bring this remarkable project to Saratoga. • Stated that a great number of concerns have been addressed. • Showed a virtual tour presentation of the proposed development. Commissioner Cappello asked about the width of the road, as it appears really tight. Mr. Colin Gray replied it was approximately 20 feet wide. Commissioner Cappello asked if you could get two cars through there. Mr. Colin Gray replied yes, it is a two-way street. Commissioner Nagpal asked if there would be parking allowed along this street. Mr. Colin Gray replied no, there would be no parking on the street itself. Commissioner Nagpal asked how this is enforced. ~- Mr. Colin Gray replied through the homeowners association. He reminded that there are large basements for storage leaving the garages available for parking cars. That too will be enforced by the HOA. Commissioner Hlava said that although it has been stated that each unit has an elevator the plans for Units 3 and 6 do not and she finds that curious. Mr. Colin Gray said that that must be an older floor plan as all units will have elevators located just off the staircase. Commissioner Hlava asked if all units will be ADA conforming and if that was the intention. Mr. Colin Gray replied no, that's not the intention. Providing an elevator in each home is more just to ease the lifestyle in a three-level home. Elevators are more affordable and thus feasible now for residential use. Commissioner Hlava asked if there would be any ADA compliant bathrooms. Mr. Colin Gray replied yes, there would be two units with ADA compliant bathrooms. Commissioner Kundtz asked about alternative placement for the mailboxes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 33 Mr. Colin Gray said that the Post Office likes the concept of a single box gang. He showed on the site plan where this is proposed to be placed. He advised that they prefer to incorporate boxes at the end of driveways for each unit. Commissioner Kundtz agreed that at this price point, people might be reluctant to walk over to a central collection area.. _ _ __ ___ _ _ . Mr. Colin Gray said absolutely and that they are hoping to pursue something different from that. He said he believes they are making strides toward that with the Post Office. Commissioner Nagpal asked for the ratio of existing open space versus what is proposed. Mr. Colin Gray said that they don't have existing open space outside of the pool. Commissioner Nagpal said that the lack of common area open space is of concern. Mr. Colin Gray said that the majority of people they are selling to don't want vast amounts of open space but rather something that is easily maintained at lower cost. He said that there is a half-mile walk around all the units. Commissioner Nagpal said that the biotic survey seemed to concentrate solely on the riparian setback rather than looking at whether any endangered species are on site. Mr. Colin Gray asked if Commissioner Nagpal is speakin of the fro s that were brou ht 9 9 9 up. He said that they did not give specific direction for the study. They simply asked that a biotic survey be prepared on the property in its entirety to conform to the City of Saratoga standards. Commissioner Nagpal said that it looks like it was focused on the riparian corridor. IVIr. Colin Gray said that this is due to the fact that it was found to be the only area of concern. Commissioner Nagpal asked if any archeological database review was done. She added that it is not expensive to do so. Mr. Colin Gray admitted that he did not know if this was done. Commissioner Nagpal said she has questions about groundwater quality. Mr. Colin Gray asked if she is speaking to depths. He said that an original study was done in the winter during heavy rains. The water depth was down 18 feet in some area. Commissioner Nagpal said that she would like to see that data. She asked what study this was part of. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 34 Mr. Colin Gray replied that it was part of the geotechnical study. He said that basements would have drainage systems with pumps that will only turn on if water is present. Mr. Peter Ko, Project Architect: • Clarified that State Code requires that a pump be installed in the elevator pits. • Added that the basement itself will be waterproof. Commissioner Nagpal asked if they are assuming that there won't be water. Mr. Peter Ko said that the basement would be waterproof and the pump would be placed in the elevator pit in case heavy rains cause water buildup. Mr. Colin Gray said that they are not expecting water. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that a number of people are present this evening to speak to this project. As it is already 11 p.m. she suggested that they be allowed to address the Commission. Chair Rodgers thanked Commissioner- Hunter for this wonderful suggestion. Mr. Landis Mahaffey, Stoneridge Drive: • Introduced the Commission to his mom, Kitty, who stands beside him this evening. • Said that his mom is 91 years old and is facing the prospect of being evicted from the home in which she has lived for the last 30 years: • Asked how she will find another affordable apartment in Saratoga. She -will be displaced. • Pointed out that Brookside Glen Apartments is one of the last dedicated rental projects and is a precious commodity. • Questioned whether this is sound public policy to prevent people on fixed. incomes from living in the City. • Said he has heard discussion of trees and of town character. People are vital to. community planning. Renters are citizens of Saratoga also. • Stated that public awareness of this has been lacking and violates the spirit and intent to inform all involved of what. is going on. • Showed a photograph of the creek at the high water mark. Mr. Doug Neale, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Identified himself as the 43-year owner of Neale's Hollow. • Advised that his family has had a business in Saratoga for 59 years. • Stated that a major concern is parking and increased traffic. He said that traffic would overload. • Compared the existing 17single-bedroom and three two-bedroom apartment units with an associated 30 vehicles to this proposal for 20 three-bedroom town home units with the potential for approximately 78 vehicles. This is quite an increase and he is surprised that Fehr & Peer found no problems with this. He said he strongly disagrees with their assessment. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 35 • Said that he is concerned with the finding of no impact in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. • Explained that one of his tenants operates a school for children at Neale's Hollow. Increased traffic can be a recipe for disaster and jeopardize the safety of children and other tenants at Neale's Hollow as well as foot traffic. • Said he would like for the Planning Commission to reconsider having a second access to Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road from this development, which would eliminate problems at Neale's Hollow. If not, please do not grant approval of this project. Commissioner Hunter asked how many children attend the school at Neale's Hollow. Mr. Doug Neale replied that there are between 10 and 40 students per day. Commissioner Zhao asked what the school's hours were. Mr. Doug Neale replied between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. He added a concern about construction impacts with parking on his lot. Ms. Dianna Neale Espinosa, Oak Street: • Reminded that Brookside Glen consists of one and two bedroom apartments. This project will greatly increase the number of bedrooms and could double, triple or even quadruple the number of people and automobiles accessing this development. • Said that autos are a big problem and 2.5 spaces per unit are not enough. • Stated that Neale's Hollow needs its parking to 6e left available for its tenants and that this project will highly impact the area, which is a quiet area. • Said that with the number of people and cars increasing, noise will also increase. It would be more negative with a larger number of people living so close. • Stated her concerns as traffic and safety. • Added that she is not in favor of the size and number of units. There are just too many. Commissioner Hlava asked Ms. Dianna Neale Espinosa if her family still owns the town homes behind Neale's Hollow. Ms. Dianna Neale Espinosa replied #hat her brother developed the condominums there but does not own them any more. The family owns the seven units at Lauraville Apartments. Commissioner Zhao asked if these seven apartments. take access from Neale's Hollow. Ms. Dianna Neale Espinosa replied yes, they do. She reminded that her family also maintains that road. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the road is the City's or belongs to the Neales. Planner Deborah Un o-McCormick said. that a onion of it is the Cit 's and the rest g P Y ,belongs to the Neales. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 36 Ms. Dianna Neale Espinosa added that a piece of the parking area belongs to the City. Commissioner Nagpal sought clarification that private property will serve as access to this project. Ms. Dianna Neale Espinosa replied correct, there is an easement. Chair Rodgers asked if this is because the Neale family owned all this land originally. Ms. Dianna Neale Espinosa said that her father obtained the property when the State took his land on which he had operated .his business. He was given the opportunity to purchase this land. Chair Rodgers said she wanted to clarify that while Ms. Espinoza said the parking provided would be 2.5 spaces per unit, the actual proposal includes 4.6 spaces. , Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said it is actually 4.75 spaces per unit. Ms. Carol Mauldin, Arbeleche Lane: • Thanked the Commission for doing a good job. • Said that she is a member of the Rotary and has been in town for 41 years raising seven children who went to Saratoga schools. • Added that she belongs to the Historic Society. • Said that she is for this project as she is a realtor but she is against its size and number of units, which she feels is too big. • Predicted that the project would generate 200 'cars and that a traffic light and u-turns would be needed. • Stated that this is too much, too many, too congested, too crowded. • Added that the developer needs to cut three units and add parking. • Suggested that the residents who live there be kept informed about what is happening.. • Said she is against congestion and that good access to Highway 9 is required and that people already living here are going to be victims of this project. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Carol Mauldin where she parks when having a party at the back. Do they use Neale's Hollow. Ms. Carol Mauldin said that there is no parking available for parties. Ms. Susannah Ahmad, Arbeleche Lane: • Said that she is the President of the Executive Town Homes Homeowners' Association. • Said that this proposed development is similar to hers. • Explained that with the six town homes in her development there are four stay at home moms. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 37 •' Reported that when she bought into this development she believed the access was public but later learned it belonged to Neale's Hollow. • Added that she is very disappointed to hear that there is not another access proposed with this project. • Advised that they hold no parties at their house because there is no place to park. Instead they go to restaurants. • Said that the applicant came to them with their plans and later added parking to the proposal. • Said that this is a lot of units. • Added that .the owners should not be going through a parking lot to access their property. Mr. Jason Hunter, Arbeleche Lane: • Said he has the same concerns. • Said that the 20-foot road width is of concern as he thought it would be 30-feet wide. • Explained that there is a tight turn that is a potential danger for front-end collisions. • Said he is pleased with the improved parking provision and hopes to be able to use the guest parking on occasion. • Expressed concern over construction -noise at 7:30 a.m. and wished that noisy construction operations could be limited to after 8:30 a.m. Commissioner Zhao asked what parking is provided in his development. vi itor arkin s aces for Mr. Jason Hunter said that there are two-car garages and three s p g p a total of 15. Commissioner Zhao asked how many vehicles the residents have in total. Mr. Jason Hunter said that there are approximately 10 with one empty unit. Ms. Carol Mauldin said that her tenant wants to know the length of construction as her mom is asthmatic and will need to be away during construction. She also questioned if access would ever be blocked as a result of construction. Mr. Colin Gray said that the construction staging would occur without blocking the road. Mr. Daniel Kaypughian, Victor Place: • -Said that he lives on the northwestern corner of the property. • Said that he sent the letter mentioned by Planner .Deborah Ungo-McCormick. • Said that his concerns are more than indicated. It is a privacy issue. • Explained that his children play in the yard and he wants a fence to protect them. • Reported that he bought 10 years ago. • Advised that he is not against the development as everyone has the right to develop their land but that the tree removals proposed are excessive. Three oaks are to be removed near his property and he would like that to be reconsidered. • . Added that there is only 27 feet between the new building and his property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 38 • Asked that lighting be appropriate as right now there are no lighting impacts. • Said that the property owner has rights but needs to make sure that setbacks are correct. Commissioner Hunter told Mr. K that the Commission saw his house during yesterday's site visit. Ms. Kathleen Casey, Springer Road: • Said she is a resident. since 1956 and attended Saratoga High School. • Added that she has lived in six places in the Village and that available rental units are diminishing. • Said that this project looks just like the medical center in Palo Alto and would diminish the character of Saratoga. • Said that this is a bird preservation area. • Asked for two copies of the EIR to study. • Advised that she has studied rents. • Informed that she has 28 things that she will send to the Commission. • Stated that this is an inappropriate project. ~ • Said that Saratoga Oaks should have been a park. Mr. Jamie Tougas, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Said he is not anti-growth at all. • Added that if this were his property he would develop it too. • Said that communication about this project has been appalling and no feedback has been solicited from the existing tenants. • -Said he lives here with his 14-year-old son and got a phone call last- Thursday that a neighbor meeting had been set for Monday. However, it was cancelled at the last minute. He saw people standing around Brookside on Monday including a member of Council. • Pointed out that property owners get notifications but tenants do not. • Said that he has a lot of questions about this project and is speaking only for himself. • Said that the way this has been gone about is not right. Mr. Sunil "Neil" Gupta, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road: • Said that he is a resident of Brookside Glen Apartments. • Apologized for the lateness in response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration but they only got it about 48 hours ago: There was not enough time to deal with the complex issues. • Said that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is an interesting story but it is a fairy tale and not reality. • Said that removing 45 trees, displacing over 30 people (some of whom have lived here over 30 years), tripling the number of people, tripling the number of bedrooms, tripling the number of vehicles, moving a storm drain, installing basements near water tables in an earthquake zone has impacts. • Asked why a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not prepared. • -Said that the City's recommendation is shocking. lV _:~~,ratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 39 • Said that the garages don't look like two-car garages but smaller. • Questioned when an empty nester would want athree-bedroom house. • Reminded that it is a goal of the City of Saratoga to maintain its rural character. Ms. Jennie King, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road:- • -Said that she is a resident of Brookline Glen Apartments. • Said that she appears to be too late to speak to the environmental issues. • Read an Indian fable into the record. Mr. Kevin Bruce, Saratoga Avenue, was called but had already left the meeting. Mr. Kevin Cole, Harleigh Drive: • Said thaf ,the back town home development, Executive Town Homes, would not be passed by today's standards. • Said that some appear to be supportive with modifications and respect the owner's property rights for best use of property. • Stated his support for this well-designed project that is a valid project for the community. • Said he is a 27-year resident with in-laws who have been in Saratoga for 40 years. • Stated that this project is very consistent with other projects and he supports it. Mr. Michael Green: • Delivered a petition from the residents of Brookside Glen Apartments. • Said that an intersection is needed at Neale's Hollow and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. • Suggested a quick solution to the tenants' concern is to guarantee residency. • Said that if forced to move, he would have to change schools in the middle of his . senior year. • Advised that he studied Craig's List and rents in Saratoga range between $2,000 and $2,600. • Asked "are we not good enough?" • ..Said that if he is kicked out of his home the City of Saratoga is pretty much. changing his whole life including opportunities for college. Mr. Paul Clarke, Victor Place, was called but had left the meeting. Mr. Colin Gray: • Said that the resident testimony was heart wrenching. • Reminded that the buildings at Brookline Glen are past their useful life. • Advised with rents going up to $2,000 it doesn't make sense to make this into apartments again. • Assured that all efforts will be made to help relocate the tenants. • Explained that they manage 25 affordable developments in San Jose. • Reported that the. issue of storm water has been studied. All water will be drained from the site through a Storm Water Pollution Program that involves swales and percolation. By the time the water gets to the stream it will basically be clean. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 40 • Reminded that Fish & Game and the Department of Wildlife would review the project and provide conditions. • Assured that the light on site would be focused down. • Agreed that the rural character of Saratoga is loved but that lighting on the .ground for security is important. • Said that with the setbacks, views from the town homes above will not be impacted. • Said that it is unfortunate that the Executive Homes development did not provide adequate parking. This project will not have that problem with 4.75 spaces per unit being very substantial in addition to the provision of basement. space for storage ____^leaving_garages available for_the parking of vehicles. • Said that 45 trees will be removed and 45 new installed. Seven oaks will be replaced with 16 new oaks in 24-inch box size. The remaining removals include junipers, pines, privets, olives and two birches that, while not insignificant, are replaceable. Commissioner Cappello asked what it would take to accommodate a second entrance directly from Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to this site. Mr. Colin Gray said that the two best available consultants in the Bay Area have reviewed this issue and say it is not good. This area needs to stay with asingle-access point. Commissioner Cappello asked what if the access was built up so it is at the same level as Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. Mr. Colin Gray said that would cause the worry of hills and view corridor impacfs. The engineer says the access should stay where it is. Commissioner Cappello asked what if the access from Neale's Hollow was cut off with the creation of a dedicated access just for this development. Mr. Colin Gray said that this was investigated. Ms. Jane Lind: • Stated her concerns over the proposed demolition of Brookside Glen Apartments where she has been a tenant for three years and construction of a new town home development in its place. • Said that tenants are treated as less a part of the community with less of a voice. • Stated she has issues with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and urged a more thorough review. • Explained that it is already hard to turn left from Neale's Hollow onto Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road in the mornings. It is impossible due to traffic, specifically school traffic at the high school.. • Reported that deer commonly stroll through their complex's common area and eat their flowers. • Said that this project results in displaced tenants. • Stated that if the natural environment is ignored, 'it will go away. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 41 Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Colin Gray for a larger site plan that also shows Neale's Hollow. Mr. Colin Gray said it might be feasible to make a separate entrance.from Neale's Hollow, with a drive aisle and parking area. Commissioner Zhao asked about establishing one entrance and one exit. Mr. Colin Gray said that this results in the same issue of having two access points. Commissioner Nagpal said that there is no entrance but for Neale's Hollow and reiterated her question as to whether that frontage along Neale's Hollow is City-owned. Mr. Colin Gray replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Colin Gray if they are opposed to having a separate lane lead out to their development. Mr. Colin Gray said that the access point is there. It is where everyone enters the parking lot. It is the City-proposed access -point to this development. It would be the same entrance but perhaps with some redesign. Commissioner Deborah Ungo-McCormick reminded that some of the parking area is City- owned and used by Neale's Crossing tenants. Mr. Jim Morley said that alterations could end up taking spaces but could be done in some fashion but would take further study. Chair Rodgers asked about creating a wider entrance. Mr. Colin Gray said that would be no problem. He said that they could work with the Planning Division to come up with a better entrance design. He assured that they want this to be a special place in Saratoga and Jim plans to live here himself. Commissioner Hunter said that it seems that a continuance is needed so the applicant can go back. and work things out. She asked Mr. Colin Gray if he has an idea of the specific concerns. Mr. Colin Gray said that it appears to be traffic. He asked that the other issues be worked out this evening so that the next hearing can focus on solutions to traffic concerns. Commissioner Hunter said there may be a shortage of parking and that the project may . need to eliminate some units. Chair Rodgers asked Director John Livingstone on the feasibility of a continuance in lighf of the late hour. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 42 Director John Livingstone said he would defer that decision to the Commission regarding the late hour. Commissioner Hunter said that the comments made by the residents meant a great deal to her. Said that this is a nice looking development and the real issues are traffic, the closeness of the units and the street being too narrow. These are real concerns that should go back to the drawing board. Chair Rodgers suggested offering real specific feedback. Mr. Colin Gray pointed out that a narrow road slows traffic-down. Commissioner Hunter said she is concerned about the potential for an addition 200 cars on this roadway. Mr. Colin Gray assured that there would not be 200 cars. He said that traffic flow is great and only six homes would access Arbor Leche Lane. I Commissioner Hunter reported that her street is 20 feet wide and no head on accidents occur there as a result. Mr. Colin Gray reported that there is currently no fire access to the back and two consultants have said. this project's circulation works. Chair Rodgers said that this is a big project consisting of Design Review, Tentative Map and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Hlava: • Said she would have a hard time approving this project tonight since the neighbors have brought additional comments on the Negative Declaration. However, some of the comments made are not appropriate since there is already a residential development on the site with 20 units. • Pointed out that there would be some environmental upgrades with this development but it is important to make the whole environmental process mean something. • Said that while there may be traffic issues, the project will not result in 200 cars. The main issue is access. • Reminded that the City made a-deal with Neale's Hollow for use of City-owned parking spaces in return for maintenance. That deal .will need to be looked at closely. • Suggested that the project does not have to be changed that much. • Said that she does not see any other place to make an access. • Stated that she feels bad that the City approved asix-unit town home complex with inadequate parking buf this project cannot be asked to fix that problem. • Suggested a continuance to allow the development of answers to traffic and access questions but the applicant should not have to wait too long. Commissioner Kundtz: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 43 • Supported the idea of a continuance. • Agreed with Commissioner Hlava on the environmental issue. • Said that the traffic and safety are the key- issues. • Stated his belief that traffic studies are a bunch on noise. • Encouraged a community meeting on this project to determine specific details of needs for the tenants from the senior in high school to the senior long-time resident. • Said that more environmental, traffic, parking, communications and outplacement considerations are necessary. Commissioner Hunter: • Said she appreciates the rural nature of Saratoga. • Suggested that this applicant is trying to pack too many three-bedroom units where smaller units used fo be and she can't go for that. • Proposed removing some of the units to provide more parking. • Pointed out that people come and go all day. • Said that more work is needed. This is a big deal. The developer wants to be real proud of his project when it is done. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that she is uncomfortable with the access point. It doesn't fit although she understands the constraint but a compromise may be necessary. • Said that traffic, circulation and the entrance point needs further study. • Advised that she is an environmental consultant and the letter from the Brookline Glen tenants needs to be responded to. • Stated that she would like to see more open space, which may mean a reduction in density. • Informed that she is in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Zhao said she too supports the continuance due to three concerns -that include traffic, the entrance and the safety of the residents at the town home development as well as for children at the school located at Neale's Hollow. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that he has no issue with traffic or safety. The flow through the property has been addressed. • Said that the parking provided is-more than asked for by the Commission. • Said that he does not know enough about environmental studies and depends on those with more expertise to advise. • Said his biggest concern is the access point. He-said the grand project needs a grand enough scale entrance to support it. • Stated that he is comfortable with a vote tonight but a continuance seems to be in order. • Said that the applicant will need to be prepared to explain why a different access is not justified for this site and/or what it would take to modify the proposed access. Chair Rodgers: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 44 • Said that she had wanted to be able to approve tonight but there are still a number of questions. • Pointed to the wood-burning fireplaces in each unit and concerns due to close proximity of these units to each other. It is a simple matter but is the kind of thing that deserves attention. • Stated that this project has the potential to be a real gem. • -Agreed that it is difficult to make-this location work. • Thanked the applicant for the changes made since the Study Session. • Said that there appears to be a question on scope of the biotic study that also came up __-._with_another project near a riparian corridor. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the former project was also a subdivision. Chair Rodgers: • Said that this is a nice creek and the biotic issues need to be answered. • Agreed that access is a big questions and exiting onto Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road is a big problem. Traffic control devices may help resolve that issue perhaps by allowing only right turns. • Said that the parking agreement with Neale's Hollow needs work as there may be legalities involved. • Said that relocation of people needs to be considered and that the .Commission appreciates the efforts and willingness of the applicant to provide some assistance even though it is not legally required. • Reminded that there are fewer low-income rental units and they need to be conserved as they can. • Said that market survey results would be helpful. • Pointed out that most of the Commissioners want a continuance. Mr. Colin Gray: • Advised that this is the densest zoning district in the City and there are only a few properties with that zoning. • Said that while 30 units are allowed under the RM zoning, they have developed a project with 10 less units than allowed. • Reminded that the project asks for no variances, no exceptions and meets every rule. They have also made great strides in terms of parking. • Asked how quickly the work can be done to reach solutions. He explained that time is painful. • Assured that they are not opposed to working further with the Commission and City. Chair Rodgers thanked Mr. Colin Gray for his comments. She reminded that this is a difficult property. Commissioner Hunter advised that this project is also painful for the residents as well especially for the 91 year old who has been a resident for 30 years. Chair Rodgers asked if it might be appropriate to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 45 Director John Livingstone said he recommends that staff continue to work with the applicant. Mr: Colin Gray said he hopes it is not December before a Study Session can be held. Mr. Gene Zambetti agreed that it is a big deal to look at a subdivision. He assured that they could work with tenants on relocation. He asked if the story poles could now be removed so as not to cause continued distress to the tenants. Chair Rodgers suggested a straw poll of the Commission. Commissioner Hunter suggested instead that the residents of Brookline Glen be asked to raise their hands if the want the story poles to stay or to go. Chair Rodgers said that upon a show of hands in the audience it appears that a majority wants the story poles to stay in place. Commissioner Nagpal said it might be good to also post a site plan. Commissioner Cappello said that the applicant can work with staff and suggested a more informal Study Session that would allow more free-flowing discussion. Director John Livingstone said that this would be a little unusual after a Study Session has already been held. Chair Rodgers suggested that the applicant have such a discussion with the neighbors instead. Mr. Jim Morley said he would like to see this project come back before the Commission in two weeks time for a vote. Chair Rodgers said that it should likely be continued to a date uncertain. Director John Livingstone said that the notice for the September 27tH meeting went out on September Stn. The notice for the October 11 to meeting will go out on September 19tH He said he did not think the September 27tH meeting was possible with what needs to be accomplished prior but that the October 11tH meeting might be possible. Mr. Jim Morley said he would have to consult his calendar as he has a European trip scheduled than cannot be changed. Director John Livingstone said in that case this continuance needs to be to a date uncertain. • Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission CONTINUED consideration of Application #06- Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 46 017 to a date uncertain to allow revisions to the proposal and additional community input for a proposed 20-unit town home development on property located at 14324 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Carriage Style Garage Doors: Director John Livingstone said that since it appears that wood carriage-style garage doors are what the Commission prefers, staff could pass that recommendation along to applicants. Chair Rodgers said that it depends upon the architectural style of the house. She agreed that the Commission is seeking quality garage doors. Next Hearing on Town Home Development: Commissioner Hunter said that she does not want the material from tonight's item to have to be reprinted by staff and asked if the Commissioners should simply hold on to the documents for the follow up hearing. Planner Deborah Ungo-McCormick said that it would be good for the Commissioners to hold on to this material and staff will just provide new information in the next report. COMMISSION ITEMS Discussion on Taking Breaks During Planning Commission Meetings: Chair Rodgers asked what the feelings are about having breaks during longer meetings. Commissioner Hunter said that she feels sorry when people are waiting to testify. Commissioner Nagpal suggested playing it by ear. Permit Issue: Chair Rodgers reminded that the permit issue would come back before the Commission at its next meeting. She advised that Administrative Design Review would be brought to a future meeting. Director John Livingstone clarified that both would be on the September 27th agenda.. It is a pretty full agenda. Commissioner Hunter asked when the public would get a chance to address the General Plan. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 13, 2006 Page 47 Director John Livingstone advised that the environmental noticing has been done already. News ads are used and impacted property owners are directly notified. Saratoga's 50tH Year: Chair Rodgers asked staff -for the dates for special events to' commemorate the City's 50tH Year. Director John Livingstone advised that the Street Dance would occur on Saturday, September 16tH Commissioner Hunter said the event at Hakone is on Thursday, September 14tH COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at 1:20 a.m. to the ,next Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • S ..~ • • Item 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Type of Application: Date: APN: Department Head: . App # OS-220/ 14567 Big Basin Way James Stanley/Susan Flanagan (Owner) Suzanne Thomas, Assistant Planner~~ Multi-Tenant Identification Sign September 27, 2006 503-25-028 John F. Livingstone, AICP ~~~~ ~~ ~~ c\... ~. ~ .wsr .rOUIHl.~ .__Ji \ „C " ~ ~ ... .. ~ •. tf \ ~` _ N, i..l ~ ~ q i b: Il.~. ~ ~ ~ :~ s ~`I '~i ~ fix" $n:.`e zd ~ `p Q_ !~ ~, , , .,.y,~~~.,, ~" ~' 1.~ to 1,~~- ~. W`'~r,. , xls i (±;~ ry: ) +j~n ~ ~-!3la,s- ~ HLnnoe-...~ r .....,.~~. Hinnoiy• . , . ,: I~ir;i:- a ., + r tll 1 1 ~A~ \Lp r ; ~ ..- I ~ K I A I A I ` `~ ~.~&~ •^J ~Y'fH~ST.--T,k"" tl t '! ., a +~ ~y" °p+y~ ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~/ •• ~ ~ , i . 9 -~ ~ ' ~ n .. ~ ~ ~~ 9 ., ,~,,; ni JI ! 6 e r ~t~\.~ tpSf wl~~ ~iu~~u jyt y'~! r~ 7 5 .~ h. ~a ~••~ ~~ `~. , ° Subject 14567 Big Basin ~~ ~ ~ /` ~` °`' APN: 503-25-028 f.• / ~) ~: . I ~ f ~~ < ,~>~ "~. \~ 500' Radius 14567 Big Basin Way Application No. OS-220; 14567 Big Basin Way ~ . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY: Application filed: 06/21/05 Application complete: 09/04/06 Notice published: 09/13/06 Mailing completed: 09/09/06 Posting completed: 09/21/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval for a sign permit to construct a freestanding multi-tenant identification sign at Plaza Del Roble. The proposed sign will consist of beige brick with rustic dark name plates inscribed in beige and the center name and address applied in terra cotta. The bricks, dark wood framing, and earth-toned accents and the will complement the architectural style and color of the center. The sign is approximately 22 square feet in area and 4 feet in height at the peak and will be situated in the brick planter at the entrance to Plaza Del Roble at 14567 Big Basin Way in the CH-1 zone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this application for sign permit with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • ~~~ Application No. OS-220; 14567 Big Basin Way STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: CH-1 (Commercial Historic) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR (Commercial Retail) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 20,000 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Not applicable GRADING REQUIRED: None MATERIALS AND COLORS: The applicant is proposing adouble-sided brick veneer sign, which is framed by redwood, edged by brick pillars, and topped by tile. The brick and the will match that used on the building and surrounding planted areas. Name plates will consist of single shingles of mounted flat PVC, which will be cut and colored to simulate torch-cut metal. The vinyl letters will be in beige for the name plates and terra cotta for the sign heading. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed new sign is Categorically Exempt from.the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (e) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including accessory (appurtenant) structures. • Application No. OS-220; 14567 Big Basin Way ~~ PROJECT DATA PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENTS/MAX SIZE OF LETTERING: Not to exceed 6 inches 18 inches AREA OF SIGN: Approx. 22 square feet 40 square feet for a free standing identification sign for a site containing five or more separate uses in a commercial district HEIGHT OF SIGN: Approx. 4 feet 10 feet LENGTH AND WIDTH OF STRUCTURES: Brick Planter: Approximately 8 feet in length and 3 feet in width Brick Sign Frame: Approximately 7.5 feet in length and 2 feet in width PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting sign permit approval to construct a new freestanding multi- tenant identification sign to replace several portable single tenant signs that are currently in front of Plaza Del Roble (Attachment 3). All applications for permits to construct multi- tenant signs shall be acted upon by the Planning Commission. The project site is located at 14567 Big Basin Way in the CH-1 zone. The existing brick planter will be rebuilt to match the sign facade and the existing brick in the courtyard. It will be landscaped with a creeping vine. The non-compliant portable signs will be removed. The Saratoga Village Plan, adopted by City Council in May 1988, states that a monument sign is preferred when signage is required for a complex with numerous businesses. The sign should be located at the entrance to the plaza area, "where it can be seen both by drivers and by pedestrians entering the complex.... Such sign should be compatible with the colors and base and trim materials of the building where they are located." Plaza Del Roble can be entered from either Big Basin Way or the parking area at the rear and it is situated on multiple levels. Because of this arrangement, many of the storefronts are not visible from the street and, according to the applicant, there have been several occasions in which customers have been unable to locate businesses within the center due to the lack of signage. As a result, some tenants have placed portable signs along the sidewalk,- although this type of signage is prohibited by the Code (15-30.030). The proposed sign and the corresponding removal of the portable signs would improve the visibility of the businesses, enhance the shopping .environment for pedestrians and motorists, and help to maintain the orderliness of the community's appearance, while complimenting the rustic character of the Village. Application No. OS-220; 14567 Big Basin Way The proposed double-sided freestanding sign will consist of abeige-colored brick facade, which will be framed by redwood and edged with brick pillars. The tenant name plates will be constructed of rough cut flat pieces of PVC, which will be pin-mounted away from the surface and painted to simulate torch-cut metal. This technique was used on the Victorian Village sign next door to Plaza Del Roble. The lettering on the name plates will be in beige and the center name and address will in terra cotta. The sign will be topped by the caps to match the building roof. The letter height will not exceed 6 inches. The sign is approximately 4 feet in height and 22 square feet in area, well below the allowed 10-foot height and 40-square foot area allowed. The planter is already wired to provide optional illumination by 60 watt spot lights. If lighting is used, the sign will be illuminated from dusk until 10:00 p.m. The City shall reserve continuing jurisdiction over any permit for an illuminated sign and may revoke the same upon any failure by the permittee to comply with any condition set forth therein. Landscaping The brick planter will be rebuilt and the irrigation system that is already in place will be maintained. The existing landscaping in the planter will be replaced by mature creeping vines, which will be low enough to avoid obstructing the sign and yet enhance the appearance of the sign. The landscaping will be maintained by the owner of Plaza Del Roble. Modifications to Plans The applicant has made numerous modifications to the plans, while working with Staff to comply with the Village Design Guidelines. The height and bulk of the sign has been reduced, along with the number of colors. The edges have been given a stepped appearance to soften the visual impact from the sidewalk. The applicant has agreed to rebuild the brick planter, using bricks that will match the existing structure. Neighbor Review Letters All neighbors within 500 feet of the parcel were notified about the project and the applicant submitted notification forms from several neighbors. Staff has received no negative responses to the project (Attachment 5). DESIGN REVIEW FINDINGS The proposed project is consistent with Article 15-30 of the City Code. (a) The sign complies with the regulations of Article 15-30 and of the commercial district. The sign is located on the same site as the uses that it identifies. Because the site contains a minimum of five separate uses and is in the commercial district, a freestanding identification sign is allowed. (b) The size, shape, color, illumination, placement and material of the sign are compatible with the building it identifies and the visual characteristics of the Application No. OS-220; 14567 Big Basin Way neighborhood and other lawful signs in the area. The sign is compliant with the height and area restrictions for a freestanding sign in a commercial district. The dark wood, earth-toned lettering, beige brick, and the are compatible with the building it identifies and with the rustic character of the Village. The placement of the low- wattage spot light inside the planter, where it. will be screened by vegetation, will prevent direct visibility of the primary source of light. (c) The location and design of the sign does not obscure from view or unduly detract from existing adjacent signs. The proposed sign will not detract from the existing signs on adjacent buildings 'and it will allow for the removal of the numerous _ _ portable signs that are currently on the site. It will enhance the existing signage by providing a focal point for the identification of the center's tenants. (d) The location and design of a sign in close proximity to any residential district will not adversely affect the quality or character of such residential area. The site is surrounded by commercial properties. . Village Guidelines The proposed project is consistent with all of the following Saratoga Village Design Guidelines, which were adopted by the Saratoga City Council on 7anuary 2, 1991. (a) It is the intent of the sign guidelines to encourage signage that functions clearly to inform pedestrians and motorists of business names and services, but that does not detract from the architectural quality of individual buildings or from the streetscape as a whole. The proposed sign will clearly inform passersby of the names and services available within the center and thereby enhance the shopping environment. (b) The desirable materials for-signs are wood, glass, brick, metals with a matte finish, and paint applied to the building face. The proposed materials of brick, wood, and the are designed to be consistent with the rustic character of the Village. (c) Sign colors should relate to and complement the material or paint scheme of the buildings, including accenting highlights and trim colors. The numbers of colors on any sign should be limited to three. The three proposed earth-toned colors will compliment the building through the use of brick and the that is similar to that used in the existing structure. (d) Signs should have the capability of being lit for evening visibility. The existing planter is already wired to offer the option of evening illumination. Conclusion Staff finds that all the Design Review Approval findings can be made in the affirmative and that the proposed sign is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. The Application No. OS-220; 14567 Big Basin Way sign conforms to all of the standards and requirements of Article 15-30 of the City Code and • is consistent with the Village Design Guidelines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application for Sign permit with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTAC~NTS: 1. Resolution of Approval with conditions. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing labels for project notification. 3. Photo of existing sign. 4. Photosimulation of proposed sign 5. Letters from neighbors. 6. Reduced Plans, Exhibit "A." • • Attachment 1 • • Application No. OS-220; 14567 Big Basin Way RESOLUTION NO. _ Application No. OS-220 City of Saratoga Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA James Stanley/Susan Flanagan (Owner); 14567 Big Basin Way WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for. sign permit approval to construct a new freestanding. multi-tenant identification at the entrance to Plaza Del Roble at 14567 Big Basin Way; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of the construction of a new sign is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (e) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including accessory (appurtenant) structures; and WHEREAS, the a licant has met the burden of proof required to support the pP findings for granting said sign permit approval and the following findings specified in City Code Section 15-30: (a) The sign complies with the regulations of Article 15-30 and of the commercial district. The sign is located on the same site as the uses that it identifies. Because the site contains a minimum of five separate uses and is in the commercial district, a freestanding identification sign is allowed. (b) The size, shape, color, illumination, placement and material of the sign are compatible with the building it identifies- and the visual characteristics of the neighborhood and other lawful signs in the area. The sign is compliant with the height and area restrictions for a freestanding sign in a commercial district. The dark wood, earth-toned lettering, beige brick, and the are compatible with the building it identifies and with the rustic character of the Village. The placement of the low- wattage spot light inside the planter, where it will be screened by vegetation, will prevent direct visibility of the primary source of light. (c) The location and design of the sign does not obscure from view or unduly detract from existing adjacent signs. The proposed sign will not detract from the existing signs on adjacent buildings and it will allow for the removal of the numerous Application No. OS-220; 14567 Big Basin Way portable signs that are currently on the site. It will enhance the existing signage by providing a focal point for the identification of the center's tenants. a si in close roximi to an residential district will (d) The location and desagn of gn p ty y not adversely affect the quality or character of such residential area. The site is surrounded by commercial properties. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the Saratoga Village Design Guidelines, which were adopted by the Saratoga City Council on January 2, 1991: (a) It is the intent of the sign guidelines to encourage signage that functions clearly to inform pedestrians and motorists of business names and services, but that does not detract from the architectural quality of individual buildings or from the streetscape as a whole. The proposed sign will clearly inform passersby of the names and services available within the center and thereby enhance the shopping environment. (b) The desirable materials for signs are wood, glass, brick, metals with a matte finish, . and paint applied to the building face. The proposed materials of brick, wood, and the are designed to be consistent with the rustic character of the Village. (c) Sign colors should relate to and complement the, material or paint scheme of the buildings, including accenting highlights and trim colors. The numbers of colors on any sign should be limited to three. The three proposed earth-toned colors will compliment the building through the use of brick and the that is similar to that used in the existing structure. (d) Signs should have the capability of being lit for evening visibility. The existing planter is already wired to offer the option of evening illumination: Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for sign approval has been approved and is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The sign shall be located and constructed as shown on.Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference. The letters will not exceed 6 inches in height. 2. The height of the structure shall not exceed 4 feet, including the frame. 3. The total sign area shall not exceed 22 square feet. Application No. OS-220; 14567 Big Basin Way • 4. The Owner of the property, as a signatory to this permit, will ensure that the landscaping and the sign are maintained in good condition. 5. All future landscaping, if added, shall be native and drought tolerant species in conformance with the City's xeriscape standards. 6. All non-compliant portable signs will be removed from the site prior to issuance of the building permit. 7. The City reserves continuing jurisdiction over this sign permit and may revoke the permit upon any failure by the permittee to comply with any condition set forth in this Resolution. CITY ATTORNEY 8. 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. Section 2. A Building Permit -must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall ,become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. • Application No. OS-220; 14567 Big Basin Way PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, .State of California, this 27th day of September 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers, Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F: Livingstone, AICP,', Secretary, Planning Commission • This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames. approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner (Susan Flanigan) Date Associates or Authorized Agent) Applicant (James Stanley) Date I. ,, Attachment 2 • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar ,being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 8`h day of September , 2006, that I deposited 244 notices in the United States Post Office, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property described as: APN: 503-25-028- 14567 BIG BASIN WAY; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ,, Denise Kaspar '~ Advanced Listing Services • 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 27th day of September 2006, 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: 14567 Big Basin Way APPLICANT: Stanley/Flanagan APN: 503-25-028 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests approval for a Sign Permit to construct a freestanding multi-tenant identification sign at Plaza Del Roble. The proposed sign will consist of beige. brick with rustic dark name plates inscribed in beige and the center name and address applied in terra cotta. The bricks, dark wood framing, and earth-toned accents and the will complement the architectural style and color of the center. The sign is approximately 22 square feet in area and 4 feet in height at the peak and will be situated in the brick planter at the entrance to Plaza Del Roble at 14567 Big Basin Way in the CH-1 zone 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, September 18, 2006. Please direct this communication to Abby Ayende at (408) 868-1222. 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. • Suzanne Thomas Assistant Planner (408) 868-1212 SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 500' OWNERSHIP LISTING PREPARED FOR: 503-25-028 PAUL L & FRANCES FLANAGAN 14567 BIG BASIN 503-23-049 NANCY E KESSLER OR CURRENT OWNER 20626 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5831 503-24-023 517-08-011 CHARLES J & ELSBETH STAUSS PO BOX 1848 LOS GATOS CA 95031-1848 503-24'-030 MAHNAZ KHAZEN OR CURRENT OWNER 14519 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6011 503-24-070, 072 JOSEPH & HELEN BROZDA 235 LINDEN ST SANTA CRUZ CA 95062-1019 503-25-003 SAN JOSE WATER WORKS ACCOUNTING 374 W SANTA CLARA ST SAN JOSE CA 95113-1502 503-25-012 C H DAVIES PO BOX 2039 SARATOGA CA 95070-0039 503-25-022 THOMAS E PARKER PO BOX 756 CARDIFF BY THE SEA CA 92007-0756 503-25-032 KLAUS W & YVONNE PACHE OR CURRENT OWNER 14555 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6013 503-24-016, 035, 035, 074 503-25-031 503- 503-24-020 517-08-005 26-044 517-09-078, 083 RUTH LONG SARATOGA CITY OF PO BOX 2095 SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070-0095 503-24-027 503-24-029 MITCH & TRACY CUTLER GLEN A & BRADFORD YOUNG 14480 OAK PL 1027 LUCOT WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5929 CAMPBELL CA 95008-6408 '503-24-046 503-24-035 INN AT SARATOGA INC SARATOGA CITY OF OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070 20645 4TH ST SARATOGA CA 95070-5867 503-24-071 503-24-073 SAM CLOUD BARN JOSEPH & HELEN BROZDA 85 SARATOGA AVE 100 475 W SAN CARLOS ST 10101 SANTA CLARA CA 95051-7300 SAN JOSE CA 95110-2633 503-25-007 503-25-008 BIG BASIN LLC PAUL L & FRANCES FLANAGAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER . 14573 BIG BASIN WAY 14577 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6801 SARATOGA CA 95070-6804 503-25-013 517-09-071 503-25-015 JONGHOON & SUE KANG ZAMBETTI TRUST OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 34 14651 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95071 SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 503-25-026 503-25-028 INGER L PIERCE PAUL L & FRANCES FLANAGAN PO BOX 5496 14658 NELSON WAY AUBURN CA 95604-5496 SAN.JOSE CA 95124-3517 503-25-034 503-25-035 DETLEF ALBRECHT RONALD VERDOORN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20650 4TH ST 1 20650 4TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070-5893 SARATOGA CA 95070-5893 • =503-25-036 503-25-037 503-25-038 K & Y LIMITED KLAUS W & YVONNE PACHE ALLEN W & SAUNDRA HILL 14555 BIG BASIN WAY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER TOGA CA 95070-6013 20650 4TH ST 4 20650 4TH ST 5 SARATOGA CA 95070-5893 SARATOGA CA 95070-5893 503-25-040,041 503-26-018 503-26-022 KENNETH S & SWARAN BAHL ANN D BARBER TYLER D & BELINDA HEERWAGEN 14645 BIG BASIN WAY 14471 SPRINGER AVE OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 SARATOGA CA 95070-5827 14346 WILDWOOD WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5875 503-63-001 503-26-043 GATEHOUSE CONDOMINUM 503-63-002 MICHAEL OHEARN HOMEOWNERS ANTHONY YUNG 115 NEW ST OR CURRENT OWNER 13731 BEAUMONT AVE SANTA CRUZ CA 95060-4324 20810 4TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-4917 SARATOGA CA 95070-5844 503-63-003 503-63-004 503-63-005 MCGRATH TRUST SANDRA KAMIAK DAVID W MANTELLI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20810 4TH ST 3 20810 4TH ST 4 20812 4TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5844 SARATOGA CA 95070-5844 SARATOGA CA 95070-5845 503-63-008 503-63-006,112 503-63-007 MARCELLINE E HOUDE KATHRYN B WARREN SCHWENDINGER 1991 OR CURRENT OWNER 501 CLIFFSIDE CT 12724 PLYMOUTH DR 20812 4TH ST 4 RICHMOND CA 94801-3766 SARATOGA CA 95070-3958 SARATOGA CA 95070-5845 503-63-011 503-63-009 503-63-010 LAURA GRISWOLD ELSIE M COCHRANE STANLEY A & MIRIAM DEMARTINIS OR CURRENT OWNER 13615 VAQUERO CT 21315 SARATOGA HILLS RD 20812 4TH ST 7 SARATOGA CA 95070-4804 SARATOGA CA 95070-5376 SARATOGA CA 95070-5846 503-63-012 503-63-013 503-63-014 WILLIAM & DIANA ROGERS ROBERT M JAKOB BRIAN R & ANITALYNN TIGHE OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 6214 6374 CANDLEWOOD CT 20812 4TH ST 8 SAN JOSE CA 95150-6214. CUPERTINO CA 95014-4610 SARATOGA CA 95070-5846 503-63-015 503-63-016 503-63-017 JENG & ZEUU CHYI BRIAN B TIGHE JASON W & KATHY NOLET 15214 BELLECOURT 337 JUNIPERO PLZ OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070-6407 SANTA BARBARA CA 93105-3603 20812 4TH ST 15 SARATOGA CA 95070-5847 503-63-018 503-63-020 503-63-019 OLGA N T,VOV CRASE TRUST DANIEL DORSA OR CURRENT OWNER 20061 CHATEAU DR OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 14 20812 4TH ST 16 SARATOGA CA 95070-5847 SARATOGA CA 95070-4309 SARATOGA CA 95070-5847 3-021 503-63-022 503-63-023 CKY 2004 GUANGHUI QIAN MIKE J & LINDA BODEN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 19 20812 4TH ST 18 20812 4TH ST 21 SARATOGA CA 95070-5847 SARATOGA CA 95070-5847 SARATOGA CA 95070-5848 503-63-024 LORRAINE A WHEELER OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 20 SARATOGA CA 95070-5848 503-63-027 KUGLER TRUST 18481 MONTPERE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5200 503-63-030 JANET M GRANITO OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 12 SARATOGA CA 95070-5851 503-63-033 VIKTOR SCHRANZ OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 7 SARATOGA CA 95070-5851 503-63-036 JANARDHANAN S AJIT 67 FIGTREE 44 IRVINE CA 92603-0646 503-63-039 J H & LILLIAN SILBERSTEIN OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5850 503-63-042 STEPHEN & ANNE BOBORICKEN 11870 FRANCEMONT AVE LOS ALTOS HILLS CA 94022-4443 503-63-045 ALEKSEY BAKHAREV OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 7 SARATOGA CA 95070-5853 503-63-048 ROSE S KOOT OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 6 SARATOGA CA 95070-5852 503-63-025 THOMAS M & PAULA BRENNOCK OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 23 SARATOGA CA 95070-5848 503-63-028 TIM & LISA ARNETT OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 24 SARATOGA CA 95070-5848 503-63-031 LAURA BRASH OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 9 SARATOGA CA 95070-5851 503-63-034 RONALD A ANDERSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 8 SARATOGA CA 95070-5851 503-63-037 VERONICA CRUZ OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 3 SARATOGA CA 95070-5850 503-63-040 HOSSEIN & AZITA SOBHANI OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070-5850 503-63-043 CYNTHIA A ROESSLER OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 9 SARATOGA CA 95070-5853 503-63-046 DAVID M FRADIN OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 8 SARATOGA CA 95070-5853 503-63-049 SHELBY A LAWSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 3 SARATOGA CA 95070-5852 503-63-026 KIRK K & PI-CHENG YEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20812 4TH ST 22 SARATOGA CA 95070-5848 503-63-029 THOMAS E & SASCHA LALE OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 11 SARATOGA CA 95070-5851 503-63-032 EVELYN A LEE 2182 36TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94116-1645 • 503-63-035 ROGER B & ROSALEE EGGLESTON 12487 ARROYO DE ARGUELLO SARATOGA CA 95070-3010 503-63-038 KENNETH J CZWORNIAK OR CURRENT OWNER 20760 4TH ST 4 SARATOGA CA 95070-5850 503-63-041 TOM T CHEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 11 SARATOGA CA 95070-5853 503-63-044 LESLIE A BINDER OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 10 SARATOGA CA 95070-5853 503-63-047 JAY M STEARNS OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 5 SARATOGA CA 95070-5852 503-63-050 VICTOR & REGINA VELTON 4662 BLUE RIDGE DR SAN JOSE CA 95129-4301 503-63-051 503-63-052 503-63-053 • GEORGE & BEVERLY CINGOLANI AREVIG ANTABLIAN HIROSHI & TAKAKO FUJIGAMI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20740 4TH ST 1 20740 4TH ST 2 20720 4TH ST 17 SARATOGA CA 95070-5852 SARATOGA CA 95070-5852 SARATOGA CA 95070-5895 503-63-054 503-63-055 503-63-056 JOHN P & CHRISTINA BLACK BAKHYT ZHUMABAYEVA KATHLEEN SODERSTROM OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 12908 PIERCE RD 0 4TH ST 16 20720 4TH ST 15 SARATOGA CA 95070-3714 ~ATOGA CA 95070-5895 SARATOGA CA 95070-5855 503-63-057 503-63-058 503-63-059 JIN W & MIN PARK SALVADOR BORJA JANICE R GAUTHIER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20720 4TH ST 11 20720 4TH ST 12 20720 4TH ST 9 SARATOGA CA 95070-5855 SARATOGA CA 95070-5855 SARATOGA CA 95070-5855 503-63-060 503-63-061 503-63-062 HSUEH H & HUNG TAI SHELLIE WILLIAMS GEORGE E & NANCY KIRK OR CURRENT OWNER 11951 BROOKRIDGE DR 20270 LA PALOMA AVE 20720 4TH ST 10 SARATOGA CA 95070-3463 SARATOGA CA 95070-5960 SARATOGA CA 95070-5855 503-63-063 503-63-064 503-63-065 MEHRAN & AVIDEH SAMARDAR KELLY A WALSH DEBRA D JACKSON 915 MACLAY DR . 10230 SCENIC BLVD OR CURRENT OWNER SAN JOSE CA 95123-4530 CUPERTINO CA 95014-2726 20720 4TH ST 3 SARATOGA CA 95070-5854 503-63-067 503-63-068 503-63-066 HUNG BANG KATHERINE A FORTE RICHARD E & BARBARA STRAW OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 24179 SUMMIT WOODS DR 20720 4TH ST 1 20720 4TH ST 2 LOS GATOS CA 95033-9229 SARATOGA CA 95070-5854 SARATOGA CA 95070-5854 - 63-070 503 503-63-071 503-63-069 LESLIE DAVIS NOVELLE KELLY BARBARA K VAN DERVEER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 194 20700 4TH ST 12 20700 4TH ST 9 SARATOGA CA 95071-0194 SARATOGA CA 95070-5803 SARATOGA CA 95070-5803 503-63-072 503-63-073 503-63-074,094,096 NATALIE J WEISKAL WAYNE CHANG MICHAEL E & GAYLE ARCHER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 3791 PO BOX 7367 20700 4TH ST 10 LOS ALTOS CA 94024-0791 INCLINE VILLAGE NV 89452-7367 SARATOGA CA 95070-5803 503-63-075 503-63-076 503-63-077 DENNIS C & GRACE LEUNG MARK C LIANIDES SYLVAN E LEPIANE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15890 SHANNON RD 20700 4TH ST 5 20700 4TH ST 6 LOS GATOS CA 95032-5729 SARATOGA CA 95070-5843 SARATOGA CA 95070-5843 503-63-078 503-63-079 503-63-080 JOAN C GOLDMAN GARY G CHIAVETTA BRETT C HOLMES 1624 LYLE DR 2326 FATJO PL OR CURRENT OWNER SAN JOSE CA 95129-4810 SANTA CLARA CA 95050 20700 4TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070-5843 3-081 503-63-082 503-63-083 K & SUE TANAKA MABEL KAO LINDA & RONALD LAWSON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14090 ELVIRA ST 20800 4TH ST 11 20800 4TH ST 12 SARATOGA CA 95070-5815 SARATOGA CA 95070-5861 SARATOGA CA 95070-5861 503-63-084 503-63-085 503-63-086 ANITA A LEDBETTER DAN D DOUGLASS . ROBERT A & YVONNE DUNCANSON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 4TH ST 10. 20800 4TH ST 7 20800 4TH ST 8 SARATOGA CA 95070-5861 SARATOGA CA 95070-5861 SARATOGA CA 95070-5861 503-63-087 ERIKA NELSON OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 4TH ST 5 . SARATOGA CA 95070-5861 503-63-088 JOSEPH A & MILDRED PLICKA OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 4TH ST 6 SARATOGA CA 95070-5861 503-63-089 JOSEPH & SUSAN LONG PO BOX 2095 SARATOGA CA 95070-0095 503-63-090 MIN HU OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 4TH ST 4 SARATOGA CA 95070-5897 503-63-093 CARL DIERKES PO BOX 495 SARATOGA CA 95071-0495 503-63-098 MEHRAN & AVIDEH SAMARDAR OR CURRENT OWNER 20790 4TH ST 4 SARATOGA CA 95070-5896 503-63-101 ELIE YOUNES OR CURRENT OWNER 20780 4TH ST 11 SARATOGA CA 95070-5801 503-63-104 ANNA MEDEIROS OR CURRENT OWNER 20780 4TH ST 10 SARATOGA CA 95070-5801 503-63-107 KATHLEEN GALE 3720 CAPITOLA RD SANTA CRUZ CA 95062-2048 503-63-110 IvATALIA JIMENEZ OR CURRENT OWNER 20780 4TH ST 4 SARATOGA CA 95070-5849 503-63-091 FRED L & DORINE ALVORD 13782 CALLE TACUBA SARATOGA CA 95070-4921 503-63-095 DENNIS A & LINDA DUMONT OR CURRENT OWNER 20790 4TH ST 5 SARATOGA CA 95070-5859 503-63-099 SAI TING OR CURRENT OWNER 20790 4TH ST 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5896 503-63-102 MICHELE CASTILLO 1636 VILLARITA DR CAMPBELL CA 95008-1520 503-63-105 CHRISTINE M ZAK OR CURRENT OWNER 20780 4TH ST 7 SARATOGA CA 95070-5849 503-63-108. CL HOLTERHOFF 355 WOODLET WAY THOUSAND OAKS CA 91361-1326 503-63-111 BERT & VIVIAN BURGER 13575 OLD TREE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5415 503-63-092 MATHEW T FLENNIKEN OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 4TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070-5897 503-63-097 JENNIFER L PAOLI 16280 LOS SERENOS ROBLES MONTE SERENO CA 95030-3026 503-63-100 DONALD S & KATHLEEN MANZ?,GOL 12078 SADDLE RD MONTEREY CA 93940-6655 503-63-103_ JOY C YOUNES OR CURRENT OWNER 20780 4TH ST 9 SARATOGA CA 95070-5801 503-63-106 PETER H RHEE 1150 SCOTT BLVD D2 SANTA CLARA CA 95050-4547 503-63-109 RICHARD F & PATRICIA BADER 21120 MICHAELS DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5319 503-67-001, 002, 004, 006 KATHLEEN A FITZSIMMONS OR CURRENT OWNER 14605 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6081 503-67-003 503-67-005 503-76-001 • MICHAEL D & JANICE FITZSIMMONS MARY B BOSCOE FENG-YING LIN 165 SUMMERFIELD ST PO BOX 2423 603 FOREST AVE DANVILLE CA 94506-6142 SARATOGA CA 95070-0423 PALO ALTO CA 94301-2623 X03-76-002 503-76-003 503-76-004 EUGENE CHOW CATHERINE Y KWEI CATHERINE B HIRSCHMAN 1125 HUMBOLDT RD 1125 HUMBOLDT RD 530 RAILWAY AVE 722 BANE CA 94005-1728 BRISBANE CA 94005-1728 CAMPBELL CA 95008-3051 503-76-005 503-76-006 503-76-007 MICHAEL RUBENSTEIN OVIDIO & WENDY CALVO MARK. W HIRTH OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14593 BIG BASIN WAY 14595 BIG BASIN WAY 14597 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6069 SARATOGA CA 95070-6069 SARATOGA CA 95070-6069 503-76-008 517-08-001 503-76-009 VADIM_D STEPANCHENKO JUNE F CHEN WALTER S & MARILYN MARCHETTI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 2963 14599 BIG BASIN WAY H SARATOGA CA 95070-0963 20701 SAINT CHARLES ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6069 SARATOGA CA 95070-6032 517-08-002,003 517-08-004 517-08-010 LOUISE PALLA MICHAEL & CAROL MAULDIN -FRANK BEHNKE 8350 RAINTREE AVE 15345 BOHLMAN RD 14510 BIG BASIN WAY 161 RIVERSIDE CA 92504-2861 SARATOGA CA 95070-6356 SARATOGA CA 95070-6090 I 517-08-017 ~ 517-08-018 517-08-012 CRAIG AMBROSE JEANNE ALEXANDER DORIS K & FRANK BEHNKE ~ OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13691 BEAUMONT AVE 14683 OAK ST 14701 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4968 SARATOGA CA 95070-6029 SARATOGA CA 95070-6029 5 I'7-08-025 517-08-026 517-08-044 MARGUERITE BURKET ROBERT BARATTA-LORTON LUPE COMPEAN 14200 WOODVIEW LN PO BOX 2070 936 HARRIET AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-5556 SARATOGA CA 95070-0070 CAMPBELL CA 95008-5120 517-08-046 517-08-047 517-08-045 JENNIFER. TAYLOR MICHAEL J & DEBRA CUMMINS GEORGE MC KENZIE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 184 14672 OAK ST 14666 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95071-0184 SARATOGA CA 95070-6030 SARATOGA CA 95070-6030 517-08-048 517-08-053 517-08-054 GLADYS P HERNANDEZ KETAN A & SHILPA PADWEKAR MARC HOFFMAN 19641 CHARTERS AVE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070-4407 20713 SAINT CHARLES ST 20723 SAINT CHARLES ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6032 SARATOGA CA 95070-6032 517-08-055 517-08-056 517-08-058 OSCAR & ELAINE HARDISTY NANDA GOPAL CHARLES & DORIS BEHNKE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13691 BEAUMONT AVE 20729 SAINT CHARLES ST 20719 SAINT CHARLES ST SARATOGA CA 95070-4968 SARATOGA CA 95070-6032 SARATOGA CA 95070-6032 8-060 517-08-065 ~S BEHNKE 517-08-063, 064 DELOS KNIGHT OR CURRENT OWNER SRINIVASAM OR CURRENT OWNER 400 HAMILTON AVE 14655 OAK ST 1 PALO ALTO CA 94301-1833 14602 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6050 SARATOGA CA 95070-6041 517-08-066 517-08-067 517-08-068 TSAOYU WANG ALDEN T & MARCELLE BLOXHAM JEFF &GAYLENE WYATT OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 333 14608 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95071-0333 14598 BIG BASIN WAY A SARATOGA CA 95070-6041 SARATOGA CA 95070-6077 517-08-069 517-08-070 517-08-071 JEFFREY L &GAYLENE WYATT JEFF &GAYLENE WYATT TRAFALGAR INC OR CURRENT OWNER 14577 BIG BASIN WAY A2 247 N 3RD ST 14598 BIG BASIN WAY C SARATOGA CA 95070-6077 SAN JOSE CA 95112=5209 SARATOGA CA 95070-6077 517-08-077 517-08-078- 517-08-079 TRAFALGAR INC TRAFALGAR INC TRAFALGAR INC OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 555 15492 MONTE VISTA DR 20711 SAINT CHARLES STS SARATOGA CA 95071-0555 SARATOGA CA 95070-6278 SARATOGA CA 95070-6032 517-08-080 517-08-081 517-09-031 NAHM H LEE RICHARD SERMONE GIOVANNA R SCHENINI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14618 BIG BASIN WAY 14620 BIG BASIN WAY 20576 3RD ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6041 SARATOGA CA 95070-6041 SARATOGA CA 95070-6053 517-09-032 RICHARD J & LAUREL HESS 517-09-045 517-09-051 MIHAI T & MIHAE POPESCU- OR CURRENT OWNER BONREALTY COMPANY INC STANESTI 14563 OAK ST 12591 SARATOGA CREEK DR OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070-6027 SARATOGA CA 95070-3538 14613 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 517-09-052 517-09-053 517-09-054 LEXIE A SMITH JACQUELYN GLASS MAGDALENE CANINE OR CURRENT OWNER 14110 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN OR CURRENT OWNER 14611 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-5418 14607 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 517-09-055 517-09-056 517-09-058 JOSEPH A FITZPATRICK TONY & SHARON CHANG MISCHEL K POSTAS OR CURRENT OWNER 1416 JOHNSON AVE 438 W CAMPBELL AVE 14605 OAK ST SAN JOSE CA 95 1 29-4 1 1 5 CAMPBELL CA 95008-1953 SARATOGA CA 95070-6015 517-09-059 517-09-060 517-09-061 MIKE G & MONICA SALINAS PATRICK KIRK PETER LA BARBERA OR,CURRENT OWNER 1546 MONTALBAN DR PO BOX 26190 14560 BIG BASIN WAY SAN JOSE CA 95120-4829 SAN JOSE CA 95159-6190 SARATOGA CA 95070-60.14 517-09-068 517-09-069 517-09-072 CALI INVESTMENTS POLLACK PROPERTIES II LLC JAMES B SCHREMPP 14510 BIG BASIN WAY 14500 BIG BASIN WAY OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070-6090 SARATOGA CA 95070-6076 14587 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 517-09-073 517-09-074 517-09-075 RAY D REDMON WALTER MILLER GARY D ALFORD OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14589 OAK ST 14591 OAK ST 14593 OAK ST SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 • • • 517-09-077 517-09-080 .517-09-076 PATRICK MCGILL RICHARD & ANGELA JOHNSON JAMES P LALLY OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 21764 CONGRESS HALL LN 14597 OAK ST 20578 3RD ST TOGA CA 95070-9714 SARATOGA CA 95070-6075 SARATOGA CA 95070-6053 517-09-081 517-09-084 517-09-085 TIONG C & CANDICE ONG WILLIAM & LORRAINE WRIGHT DERALD R KENOYER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20582 3RD ST 20661 5TH ST 1 20661 5TH ST 2 SARATOGA CA 95070-6053. SARATOGA CA 95070-6803 SARATOGA CA 95070-6803 517-09-086 517-09-087 517-09-088 CHARLES M & DIANE SKINNER DAVID SHEN - MICHAEL J & ALINA MORETTI OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20661 5TH ST 3 -20661 5TH ST 4 530 IRVEN CT SARATOGA CA 95070-6803 SARATOGA CA 95070-6803 PALO ALTO CA 94306-3950 517-29-001 517-29-002 517-10-047 DOUGLAS M CATES LARRY W GRACE SARATOGA UNION S D OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070 14662 BIG BASIN WAY 14662 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6047 SARATOGA CA 95070-6047 517-29-003 517-29-004 010 517-29-005 FIROUZEH HOVEIDARAD , FRANK J & JUDITH MARSHALL RAKISH BELUR OR CURRENT OWNER 14510 BIG BASIN WAY 265 OR CURRENT OWNER 14662 BIG BASIN WAY C SARATOGA CA 95070-6090 14664 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6047 SARATOGA CA 95070-6048 ~ 29-006 517-29-007 517-29-008 CRAIG HANSEN-STURM WILLIAM E HENSLIN HENRYS & EVELYN MILLER BIG BASIN(14664B) WAY 15 BIG BASIN(14666A) WAY 3 123 LA RINCONADA DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6042 SARATOGA CA 95070-6042 LOS GATOS CA 95030-2259 517-29-009 517-29-011 517-29-012 JAMES & ANNE BLACKIE KAREN A GENOVESE GAYLEN W & ELIZABETH LEISHMAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14510 BIG BASIN WAY 14666 BIG BASIN WAY C 14650 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6090 SARATOGA CA 95070-6062 SARATOGA CA 95070-6043 517-29-013 517-29-015 517-29-014 WON K & JEONG LEE VIRGINIA KATHERMAN MARILYN BOWERS OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 191 14652 BIG BASIN WAY B SARATOGA CA 95071-0191 14652 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6044 SARATOGA CA 95070-6044 517-29-016 517-29-017 517-29-018 PATRICIA A COLI RUSSELL PARKER EUGENE & JULIA SATSUTA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14652 BIG BASIN WAY C 14654 BIG BASIN WAY 14654 BIG BASIN WAY B SARATOGA CA 95070-6044 SARATOGA CA 95070-6009 SARATOGA CA 95070-6009 9-019 517-29-020 517-29-021 MUN SANDRA L & SANDRA HAYDON DONALD L WOLFE BIG BASIN(14654C) WAY 23 135 ALTURA VIS OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070-6042 LOS GATOS CA 95032-1156 14656 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6045 517-29-022 CHING-MIN CHEN OR CURRENT OWNER 14656 BIG BASIN WAY B SARATOGA CA 95070-6045 517-29-025 ROBERT N BLANCHARD OR CURRENT OWNER 14658 BIG BASIN WAY B , SARATOGA CA 95070-6063 517-29-028 DENISE S HARTMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14660 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6046 517-29-023 MARGARET C BURRELL BIG BASIN(14658A) WAY 9 SARATOGA CA 95070-6042 517-29-026 GEORGE E COSENTINO-ROUSH 6585 LITTLE FALLS DR SAN JOSE CA 95120-4050 517-29-029 FRANKIE W WONG OR CURRENT OWNER 14660 BIG BASIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-6046 517-29-024 J & ELIZABETH NICKERSON 14646 SPRINGER CT SARATOGA CA 95070 517-29-027 JULIANNE K ABNEY OR CURRENT OWNER 14660-BIG BASIN. WAY A SARATOGA CA 95070-6046 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: SUZANNE THOMAS 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA CA 95070 • • Attachment 3 I =_ ,t i,;; t r ~_ ~~_ i, k _ ~~~' ~° ._ -.8 y *. 1 t ~~ ~' ti • I• .: 1 r1~ ~,'.~ ,' ,: ~, . 4 :~ ..~--- ~' ~ i_ j i f ` _ _ ~ i S rr ~. f ~^j ~r i t ' ? f. { ti 3 L -. .C F -4 Y ~ .y ~: ..t ~ .:~ ~ , y~ ,r- }t . ' i `` ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .` k5 :, ~ ~ F ~ s yy t ;~ ? ~ ~ `-~1a - F s ,i~ ~ '~~ r:f ~~t ~- :.. ;:~ 3' ' i: ~ ~ ~ _ ~~.. i, a, ~~ '' _ -• ~a f , . ~ . ,~ ~, ` ~ ~ ~ ` ~`?"t, ` ` ~w~:.. ~+ f~` t ~ ~ ~.: + ""*~ r~;~° ~_ T ~_ ~~ ie 4' ~+ ~_ __ tTi ~ -f t F j 1 ~~, ij ~ A i [~ o a~ t~ f~ ~J C•~R ~J V ~1 Q ~`-- z v~ °M N w Q :~ Lc. ~ "' >- z U ~ O • • Attachment 5 • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~ • L9 V `d PROJECT ADDRESS:, l ~l S ~o~ 3 , C1 3 `PS `jJ _ _ Applicant Name: !- Application Number: ~ S ' 2 ~ C' D ~~[~~~~ AUG 3 1 2006 -CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Sta, f~ j"and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. C~iG1y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed ~~o be~ address b the appli nt prior tof work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need Y the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have revi scion weth the apl licant, have not beencope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after disco PP azy,. addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necess Neighbor Name: ~ ~-1 ~ ~" ~ ~ ' Neighbor Address: ~~~~ Neighbor Phone Number: • • SofS • • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~ • ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: l `~ S C~ ~? ~ .``~ ~ 5~~ 1~ Applicant Name: 1~ ~-`~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ 2v i3 L~ Application Number:, ~ ~~~a~~ AUG 3 1 2006 CITY OF SAftATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~ ~y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of /work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not. been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~ ' ~ Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: C~ ~02 ~ ~~t7_~ Signature: SofS cs ~ 22 d ~ ~~~o~~ ~ auc a 1 zoos City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~ 2`I/dam -~ s ~ ~J PROJECT ADDRESS: t~k S~ ~ ~C~ (''P~ Applicant Name: ~ ~--~ Z-~ ~-~- ~G~ -3 ~- Application Number: S- Z 2--G CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; i understand the scone of -work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. pMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name:~~" ~ ~ ~~~~~ C Neighbor Address: 11.E ~ ~i l~/l3 /~J~~/~ 1't'1 ~ / r, ,, „ A,~ ;~ /1 ~ ~15G7C Neighbor Phone Number: Printed: L~ ~ ~~.~~ SofS • • AUG 3 1 2006 City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form CITY of sAl~TOCa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date: ia,,c Z-~ G ~e PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ ~ ~~'~ ~'~~ ~~Ll~ (~ LK~Lr~ 1>~~- 2.G~ ~rZ- ApplicantName: Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer tn~ t Pliegahse ernssua~ th s~a~ on thu document 'soncerns or issues they may have directly to the apphca representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. -. y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed Ito be address by the aptplicant prior tof work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been _ addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: 7 ~ C~ C-, / t3 ~-' 2 , ~} (~,~/ Neighbor Address: ~~ L ~~~~ L P+ 0 ~ i- y2U t:S ~- G--" Neighbor Phone Number: '~ ~l 1 ~ ~s 2' ~ • Printed: s or ~ auc 3 i zoos City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: V'~-' 2 C>~ PROJECT ~,DDRESS: i 1~L.-w~ i~ ~~ i_._ !~0 y3 t~~ Applicant Name: CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Application Number: Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighe ensur~ he s o afore on thu document Soncerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Pleas representative of all residents residing oQ~ a la e~°~te during thelactualtpub~cnre-'te»' and aPPeal w, you reserve the right to amend your optnton periods. y signature below certifies the following: I hav Wh c~ n d to be address by the applicant prior tof work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues the City's public hearing on the proposed project. afore below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plpant havetnot beencone of OMy sign work; and I have issues. or concerns, which lease aiita h aditi t~1 sheetsp f necessary): addressed. My concerns are the following (p C C',0~~_ ~'~~ ~aDs Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: f 4s~ ~ ~ ~p 7-~ 2 - Del ~ Neighbor Phone Number: Printed: Signature: • • SofS • City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form ~' 7 Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1 `~ `~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~'~'-5~ 1~ ~~ ?~ Applicant Name: 1~L.~ L-~,?- i7 ~ L /Z~ i3L~ Application Number: C~ 2Z G ~~~~o~~~ auc a i zoos CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. I ~~y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project, ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand tk~e scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: "3t'~3 ~~~~ • Neighbor Address: 5of~ Neighbor Phone Number: _~~k_ ~~ City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: `c~ • 2~+. PROJECT ADDRESS: ~~-~ 2-~ 7 ~- ~-- e~C3 ~ Applicant Name: __I `k S c~-1 ~ ~- ~~ ~(~S ~~ rub Application Number: G ~ • L2~ ~~~BY~Gj uu q~G 3 1 20~~ CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY pgy~Op~T Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~vly signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work, and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. CMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~~ LV ~'~ £ D r} G r-S ~ Neighbor Address: ~~s~i6 ~U Neighbor Phone Number: ~(o~' ~~~ 1 / Printed: ~ ~ ~ ~ 5of~ • • o ~~~o~c~ City of Saratoga AUG 3 1 2006 Neighbor Notification Form CITY OF SARATOGA ~r . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date: t~ PROJECT ADDRESS: (~ ~ ~% 7 ~ ~G CG ~~ APPlicant Name: pt_-1~ 2 ~ ~`L-~- -2C} F3 L`~--- Application Number: U ~' ~ 2-n -- Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~Niy signature below cerrEifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. OMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~ ° N A.I L I.A r~04(~ ~Q U Neighbor Address: 1 N S"1 ~ 1~~- ~iasi~ y>l~cc~ ~ ~ rz~~ C - ~7~ Neighbor Phone Number: ~~~ ~ ~~ Signature: Printed: SofS City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form ' ~' L Date: ~. • % ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ `i ~' ~ ~-' "~ ~5'~ `'`~ °~ Applicant Name:?-~ L Y`3- 7 ~ ~-- rZ-~ `~3~..~. Application Number: ~~~9~~~ ~u AUG 3 1 2006 C[TY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~~y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of (work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project, ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the prohe apl licant have of beencone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which ~esese atta h additional sheets if necessary): addressed. My concerns are the following (p bor Name: ' r ~-~ ~ ~~~,~~(~V C/ ~' ~WJ Neigh Neighbor Address: I~5?a-~ ~~^ ~s~~' wy ~~,~ ~c ~. ~~~ l~3 1 Neighbor Phone Number: ~~ t~ " b ~ ~~ Printed: S' tore: ~ ~~ ~ %~~~ L~ ~~'i~~~~~ ~~~ • • Sofa Date: 2 O l~ b PROJECT ADDRESS: l ~ S tom ~ ; C r~ ~s ~ ~Lx ~.~" Applicant Name: ~~-l~t L1~ 7 ~ L-- ~C~ ~3 (.~~ . Application Number: C3 S - ~~ Signature: Printed: City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form ~(~~~~~~ uu AUG 3 1 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~VIy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of ~/w_o"rk; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which, need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the .applicant, have .not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): r Neighbor Name: F Neighbor Address: ~ ~~-~ j ~,~e' ~. Neighbor Phone Number: ~ ~-;~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~--. .._ s or s • Attachment 6 • i• I• r 1 U ~ -i 1 r-~- i ~- ~~ -.~,~ ~ ~t _-_ _ _,, °~°°- ., .~ ~ I 4' ~~ ~~ T 1~ j E' ;~ ;, .a~ ~~~~ ''''R I~ ` ' -'a~~' ~, ;.~~ ~ ~ Oj, . ~ ~,. ,~~ ,~~i ~ ~-- ~'4 { ~,~~ .; r ., ~ + ~. is ~ ~y~ .,;: ~} ~~ ^~ `, i ~~`~~~1 ~' ~, .~ ~~~~ r~~_~__,~__ /}.- N T . In~~~~ ~_ ~ ;~~- 2 .~ i• • i. n ~ ~ ID C~C~~B~~ AUG 3 1 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA %OMMUNtTY DEVELOPMENT /,t {C rn~ ~ `/F~ ~~~ D~ d'I /~ ~ .y l( 3 2. f ,O X ~i~ .L,~ j^>` f4 V ~"4 e~ t 'f~ !~ FCy : @q( r C '' °'~ P [9 N ~ 777 ~ ~ ~ llr • j l~ { ..4t ~.~' '/ , •.3 f 1c, ~ ~~"" J `.rlif #r `; k~+'F~ ~ ~.M~ `:r''~ !- 1 11 ~ 1rX '~ ~` ~} <`' ~ f` n? ,}'_ $ ~ (~ F i ~. r ~"' S 1 c [[. `'F~} ~ <.. ~~'~ 1 1 1- . _,_ .w-.:ji:' ~~~~~~~' =.i; lea.. ~'. .. ~. •?. ' !!~ ~ t-'"~ B.% 4ft~ p~i~ ,f`. 't~ ~° ~ F .~_ 3~ ~~~~' ~ t ~ a~~~ ~ ` ~ „~ .~~a~~r~~~ t~.a ;~ ~ 51 ~,z,~ ? t; ~~~,,. It eto•t~,-..'"°- [. a~., .' _ 4 F it ~o~~~ ~ 4+ r . ~ . 4 ` u - i r ~'.... `.. ~ ~ yy ~.. ~ ~s ~1' t y,~ i a r a ,: ~j~ f f ~ T ~p~ > M~ ;[ ' ~ as r i ~ Y g ~ j 3 f e.~. ~ cd:, .. }~ p~~ ~~ Via' ~ %~~ ![. ~ S~ , . k ~~ }, gl &'`~~.ef ~`i~ '«t` f ~ g°' ~ r','P~` $ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ,f 'ter ;[ F b ~ f` ( > }I LS l ~ ~ }~ l.. s A " v .,~x ~ ~.,,J ~ ~ .FC t ..f~ i . i 't _ F .... - _ _._.. - -- _ 7. ._ - _ r r .. ( _ _ ~ K ; 4 tf ~ ~i `~ ~ .,~ ~ ~ ,- _ ., , ~. ,~ ~ .. ~•~ r a • ~ s f~ 1 ~ i 5,~ a ,4 ,. ~ ? i ~ ~ r ti >, ... "~' e ~ r ~ - a,~r~R.:= ~ fir' d e ~ ~~` .: ~ ~~, .e ~ !''1 d :z~ s- ~' i' ~f. ~~ ~,: ~ a~~ ~ to [>-, ~t ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ b~~.°~~" ~`,~ ,spa' ~ ~ ,~~ ~ " ~- ~a}~"~ c' ..F L. C M' ~}r ~~ `r~" ¢ 5 d ~:~ e ~ ~",~ lpf E f hD,~g 9~ ~1 ~' i~ ~`y jg ~.+. ,... ~ t px . W:.. r .f f3} `a.s~ ~~,'' f ~ ~ ~':. ' ,,.~. { E 4 ix _.: 2 f~er&~r~ ~ 3 +, ~[`i ~,a' :~~ f~ ~ ~'€ k ~ k;,~' Fem.- ~`p ~~ .r^'' a b r ~~ i ^'^• .d~''Z :~ AllG 0 8 200fi CITY OF SARATOGA . ,~AMUNITY DEVELOP"A" ~~9' i ~~ _-~ ~~`' ~' ~~ ~'``--~t _~ 3~,5 ~i 1~ k t ~~ ~ b - --- - ~ --- ~- - ~ ~ N • i• • L_I :r _ IifU1J' ~6[~~~[~ ~~i uu AUG 0 8 20D6 ~U~ CITY OF SARATOGA '"~MUNITY DcVELQp"'^ • i• ~„ • ,~ ~Z'~ Pve F~rurra~r w~~~EJ ~c~~o~~~ AUG 0 8 2006 CITY OF SARATOGA ' ^"M1)NITY DEVF,I..nn"~ .~----~v ---~ T 3,~a,. -k P~~~r-~ To sr~-~~~ ~-U~ ~'~c, . (~IEG~ e~P~~ r s • • ~~- fig' ~( ~( _~ U~ !~ ---~ i -~ vlt~ 3 • • ~ ~ ~~%a~L ~~r-t ~~~l~1 co ~r~ wrt~ ;2f~' • ~~ `r n. NEtA~ 2 -/-~ • ~~ e~ C1 i ~f~ r • ~~ ~ ~PI CC1~~ ~lLt.. ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~:~~ ~~~~~~E~ ~~~~ ~ ~ PI C.G~ AlG4CN~ 1~~ ~~ ~Kn 1~0~ i~slD~ 1C.(~4~f1 ,- ~,~ ~~, ~ ~i • ~-- 19 `~ ~~i si0~ Ul~w ~Nt~ PIc t,~2S r% X ~~ E ~ ~` '~z-B .~~~ r~~s~T`f - Q~ - ~~ pp~D~ ~~YI ~ ~~~~~-- ~~~~ ~~ ~jQ,e~l i~c~~~ ~~~~ P~~'I~l ~ p~~' g~~~ -~ w~°. i ~, E~~~ p~ ~'~~~%~'r~ t s ?x~- PKfSS~"~ ,^ ~- ~-~: ,~ctFA~F~ t0.6 ` r1 LJ i• ~~ ~---11.3 ----~' x(96„ zr~ U(~v v~Al~~c~~trEfz StRuc7~~E~ 3`B r. ~t~-l~'7 ~1~6~En ~~.`~~,~ F~~~~ ~~~~~ r ,ajn ~~~~~ Viz`' ~~~...__. L~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~Zrt ~ ~ ~~~!-AlnT PC~lfs ~~2~~ Pv~- Fca~rcv~ro~ j~BuG*f t`~II(~fs t~ ~f(MUG~4~ 1M~~~ ~~f ~T~ R-UsT e0 ~4~ • ~~~~ . ~~~ 1 t~~~ ~~1 ~ ~ f~~ ~~ ~~~ J~~~ ~~ ~j~i2~l ~~~ ~~~~! ~ ~~ce~~~~ Q~~G~o s~~ Ul~~ ~~~~~c~~r~- ~,~ceTvvez~ Item 2 ~ REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Application No./Location: #07-049/ 19848 Prospect Road Applicant/Owner: City of Saratoga Type of Application Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment Staff Planner: John F. Livingstone, AICP Community Development Director Date: September 27, 2006 APN: 386-26-070 & 071 Department Head:~~~ Q 500 ft. Buffer zone around 19848 Prospect Road 19848 Prospect Road ._'........ I ~ -~......_..~.~y~~ ~ 11rA'•CT?~, ~'~DE SArIKA AV _~...._.._ ,..........,..._..._.i_1~ i~ ,: ~ ~ .; ~ ;. ~ ,~,;~;%~ 0 1so soo aso soo Aso n ,:-... ,: , N ~~ ~~E- 3 ~i~ 19848 Prospect Road • Application #07-049 -19848 Prospect Rd. (North Campus) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 8/03/06 Application complete: N/A Notice published: 9/13/06 Mailing completed: 9/07/06 Posting completed: 9/21/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project proposes an adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of a City-owned site called the North Campus from Residential Medium Density Single Family M-10 to Public Facilities. The project site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 2.60 acres gross and is bordered by Prospect Road towards the north, and by residential properties towards the east, west and south. A church sanctuary building, a school and other ancillary buildings are situated on the site and were constructed in the 1960s and `70s. In 2002, the site was purchased by the City of Saratoga. As City property, the Administration Building has been used for office uses and as a meeting area, and other buildings on the site have remained vacant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution which recommends City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and City Council approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment. No development or a change of use at the North Campus site is proposed at this time. • Application #07-049 -19848 Prospect Rd. (North Campus) • STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-10,000 Single Family Residential District GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Medium Density Single Family M-10 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Public Facilities MEASURE G Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: approximately 2.6 acres gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average slope of the parcel is approximately 2% ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of a General Plan Amendment is subject to environmental review under CEQA. An Environmental Initial Study was prepared. After study and evaluation, staff has determined pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970 that the General Plan Amendment will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. The environmental document was circulated to various departments and agencies for review, and was made available for public review from August 25 -September 25, 2006. The following departments and agencies have received the environmental document for the proposed project: the State Clearinghouse, City of Saratoga Public Works Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, California Department of Transportation, West Valley Sanitation District, SCC Department of Environmental Health, Pacific Gas and Electric, Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose Water Company, Cupertino Union School District, Native American Heritage Commission, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Ohlone Indian Tribe. No written comments have been received as of the writing of this report. • Application #07-049 -19848 Prospect Rd: (North Campus) PROJECT DISCUSSION In 2005, the City proposed to sell the North Campus along with an approved Tentative Subdivision Map for 9 residential lots. In October of 2005, the Planning Commission approved the Tentative Map, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a resolution recommending City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of this site from Public Facilities to Residential Medium Density Single Family M-10 for consistency with the proposed residential use of the site. In January of 2006, the City Council approved an agreement for the sale of the site to a residential developer. However, a group of concerned citizens began a petition drive for a referendum on the decision to sell the property to a residential developer. The City Council decided to preempt the petition drive for a referendum on the sale by placing the decision as Measure J on the June ballot of this year. A majority of voters decided not to pass. Measure J, which iri effect terminated the sale agreement and supported continued City ownership of the site. Therefore, since a 9-lot residential subdivision is no longer proposed for this site, a General Plan Amendment is required to revert to the prior General Plan designation of Public Facilities. This General Plan designation would be consistent with the current status of the site which will remain under City control as a result of the. voters' decision. I GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS • Generally, local governments may not amend the General Plan more than four times in one calendar year. There are a few exceptions allowed in instances of affordable housing, compliance with a court decision, etc. The proposal is the first General Plan Amendment request of the 2006 calendar year. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with the State of California's General Plan Guidelines and Government Code Section 65358(b). Applicable General Plan Sections The Public Facilities General Plan designation allows institutional uses under government control (other than school districts) that provide a public service. For example, sites with the' Civic Center, the Community Library, and fire stations are included in this designation. Allowable building intensity varies and is governed by the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has researched the following General Plan goals and policies statements for the Planning Commission to consider prior to taking action on the proposed project: General Plan Goals Policies and Implementation Measures LU.8.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single-family detached residences. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with this Goal in that there is no new impact on the surrounding single-family residences. This General Plan Amendment reverts to the prior ~ ' Application #07-049 -19848 Prospect Rd. (North Campus) • ' General Plan designation of the site for the purpose of maintaining consistency with the existing use as a City-owned property. No new development on the site is proposed at this time. Area Plans, Housing Element The twelve Area Plans (A-L) located in the Housing Element of the General Plan are meant to guide future development. The subject property is located in Area D. This area is identified as a predominantly single family residential area. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not have any impact on the number of existing single family residences in Area D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending City Council approval of the Negative Declaration and the General Plan Amendment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution recommending approval of the Negative Declaration and the General Plan Amendment 2. Public Notice and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration, Initial Study, and Negative Declaration 3. Public Hearing Notice, Affidavit of Mailing Notices and Mailing Labels • • Attachment 1 • • Resolution No. Application No. 07-049 City of Saratoga Planning Commission State of California North Campus -19848 Prospect Rd. Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received a request to consider a Negative Declaration and General Plan Amendment for aCity-owned property called the North Campus located at 19848 Prospect Road and consisting of two parcels with APN 386-26-070 & 071. The General Plan Amendment proposes to revert to the prior General Plan. designation of Public Facilities from the current designation of Residential Medium Density Single Family M-10; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration were available for public review from August 25, 2006 through September 25, 2006 and copies of said documents were routed to the State Clearinghouse. No comments were received; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study and Negative Declaration and has determined that this application for a General Plan Amendment could not have a significant effect of the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the City of Saratoga General Plan: LU.8.0 Affirm that the City shall continue to be predominantly a community of single- . family detached residences. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with this Goal in that there is no new impact on the surrounding single-family residences. This General Plan Amendment reverts to the prior General Plan designation of the site for the purpose of maintaining consistency with the existing use as a City-owned property. No new development on the site is proposed at this time. Area Plans, Housing Element The twelve Area Plans (A-L) located in the Housing Element of the General Plan are meant to guide future development. The subject property is located in Area D. This area is identified as a predominantly single family residential area. The proposed General Plan Amendment does not have any impact on the number of i existing single family residences in Area D.. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City,of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: A. With respect to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and ' based on the information in the staff report for this matter the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that: 1. Notice of the hearing on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration [ND] was given as required by law and the actions were conducted pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 2. All Interested Parties desiring to comment on the ND were given the opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the adequacy of the ND prior to this action by the Planning Commission; and I 3. No comments were made during the public comment period and all comments made at the public hearings on the ND were responded to adequately; and 4. The Planning Commission was presented with and has reviewed all of the information in the administrative record; and 5. The ND has been completed in compliance with the intent and requirements of CEQA and the .CEQA Guidelines, and the ND represents the Planning Commission's independent judgment. The Planning Commission has considered the information contained in the ND and the record in considering the General Plan Amendment; and- 6. Based on the entire record of this matter, there is no evidence that the General Plan Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment; and 7. The documents constituting the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located in the City of Saratoga Department of Community Development and are maintained by the Director of that Department; and 8. There is no evidence before the Community Development Department that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effects on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Department of Fish and Game Code; and 9. The Planning Commission accordingly recommends that the Saratoga City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. B. With respect to the proposed General Plan Amendment, after careful consideration of all testimony and related information the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Saratoga approve the proposed General Plan amendment PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, September 27, 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John Livingstone, AICP Secretary to the Planning Commission • ii Attachment 2 • 13777 FRliITVALE AVENUE ~ SARATOGA; CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COliNCIL MEML'EI2S • Incorporated October 22, 195ci PROJECT .TITLE: PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT APPLICANT: PUBLIC NOTICE AND NOTICE OF INTENT Aileen Kao Kathleen King TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Norman Kline Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith General Plan Amendment 19848 Prospect Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Santa Clara County City of Saratoga PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: Therese Schmidt, AICP ADDRESS: Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 TELEPHONE: 408-868-1230 PUBLIC HEARING: September 27, 2006 (Planning Commission) PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD:. August 25 -September 25, 2006 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of a General Plan. Amendment to revert to the previous General Plan designation of Public Facilities from the current General Plan designation of Residential. Development, or change of use,. is not proposed at this time. NOTICE IS -GIVEN THAT a proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared for the project. The Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration certify that the City of Saratoga has determined that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated to be associated with the project. Copies of the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration are available for review at the City of Saratoga Community Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. You may also call the phone number listed above if you have any questions, or to request a copy of the proposed Negative Declaration. The 30-day public review period ends at 5:00 p.m., September 25, 2006. All comments must be in writing and received by this time. Comments should be sent to: Community Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070; Attn. Therese Schmidt; or faxed to: (408) 867-8555. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN THAT a public hearing to corisider the Negative Declaration and the General Plan Amendment will be scheduled for the September 27, 2006, Planning Commission hearing. All interested parties are encouraged to attend and be heard. The City of Saratoga will send out an announcement to property owners within 500 feet of the subject site and will post it on its Web site. To confirm the meeting date and time please visit the City's Web site or call (408) 868-1230. printed on recycled page! • INITIAL STUDY NORTH CAMPUS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AT 19848 PROSPECT ROAD SARATOGA, CA • August 2006 City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 • 07-049: General Plan Amendment ' North Campus Initial Study August 2007 INITIAL STUDY FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR NORTH CAMPUS, AT 19848 PROSPECT ROAD IN SARATOGA Introduction: -Pursuant-to Section 15063 of the -Cali-fomia- Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), an Initial Study is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the lead agency as a basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a Negative Declaration (ND) is required for a project. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, this Initial Study contains a .project description, description of environmental setting, identification of environmental effects by checklist (or similar form) .explanation of environmental effects, discussion of mitigation for. significant environmental .effects if applicable, evaluation of the project's consistency with existing, applicable land use regulations, and the names of the person(s) who prepared the study. Public and Agency Review: This Initial Study will be circulated for public and agency review from August 25 to September 25, 2006. Copies of this document are available for review at the following locations: Saratoga Planning Offices Comments on this Initial Study must be in writing and received by 5 p.m. on September 25, 2006 and sent to: Therese M. Schmidt, AICP Associate Planner City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Project Approvals Required: List of Cit~pprovals Needed: General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Residential to Public Facilities. List of Other A_genc~pprovals Needed: None. • 2 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 Project Description Project Location and Existing Land Uses The project site consists of two parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 386-26-070 and 386-26-071) totaling approximately 2.60 acres.. The site is located in the northeastern part of the City at the northern City limit, adjacent to the City of San Jose. The site is located along Prospect Road and is bordered on the north by Prospect Road and on the west, south, and east by existing residential properties. The Blue Hills Elementary School, Azule Park, and Kevin Moran Park are located within one quarter mile and McAuliffe Elementary School is located within one half mile from the project site.. The project site was historically in agricultural production, primarily orchards. A church sanctuary building, a school, and other ancillary buildings were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. In 2002, the project -site was purchased by the City of Saratoga., Since that time, the Administration Building has been used for office uses and meeting space. Other buildings at the project site have, remained vacant due to concerns regarding sjeismic safety and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Environmental Setting The ro'ect site is developed and contains four buildings, a storage shed, and parking areas along p J Prospect Road and on the southern portion of the site. The buildings are comprised of the following: • Asingle-story, wood and stucco former school building, approximately 1,900 square feet, located on the northwestern portion of the site. • A single story wood frame and stucco administration building, approximately 2,730 square feet, located immediately south of the school building. • A wood-frame and stucco former church sanctuary building, approximately 2,430 square feet, located on the northeastern portion of the site. • A single-story wood former fellowship hall building, approximately 3,560 square feet, located south of the Sanctuary. • A small playground area is located south of the school building. • A shed located east of the sanctuary building. All of the buildings are currently vacant except for storage of furniture. • 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 The terrain on the site is level, approximately 280 feet above sea level with slopes of approximately 1.4%. The closest surface water bodies to the project site are Calabazas and Saratoga Creeks, located approximately three-quarters of a mile west and east of the project site, respectively. Vegetation at the project site consists of ornamental landscape grasses, trees and other ornamental landscaping. The site contains 58 trees of a size subject to the City of Saratoga's Tree Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance: The trees comprise 14 different species and are in varying states of health. General Plan and Zoning Designation The site is designated as Residential in the Saratoga General Plan and is zoned R-1-10,000 in the Saratoga Zoning Ordinance, which allows -for medium-density residential development. The site's General Plan Designation was amended in 2005 from Public Facilities to Residential to allow for a proposed residential project, which was ultimately denied through the referendum process. Proposed Project The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment to revert fo the previous General Plan designation of Public Facilities from the current General Plan designation of Residential. Development, or change of use, is not proposed at this time. Zoning Consistency The Public Facilities General Plan land use designation would allow institutional uses under government control (other than school districts) that provide a public service including, but not limited to, the Civic Center, the Community Library, and two fire stations. Allowable building intensity varies and is governed by the zoning ordinance. The parcel is zoned R-1-10,000 Medium-density Residential, which conditionally allows institutional uses through the Use Permit process; therefore, a Zoning Amendment is not required. Design Guidelines Design Review is not required at this time; however, if and when a project is proposed the project may require Design Review approval. Utilities The project site is served by existing power, water supply mains, and sewer system mains located within the Prospect, Road right-of--way or within existing utility easements along the east, west, • and south sides of the property. 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 INITIAL STUDY CITY OF SARATOGA 1. Project Title: Application Number 07-049 -General Plan Amendment at 19848 Prospect Road 2. Project Location: 19848 Prospect Road in Saratoga, California: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 386-26-070 and 386-26-071. 3. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Saratoga, Community Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. 4. Contact Person & Phone Number: Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Planner, 408-868-1230. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Saratoga, Community Development Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,' Saratoga, CA 95070. 6. General Plan Designation: Residential. 7. Zoning: R-1-10,000 Medium-density Residential. 8. Description of Project: General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Residential to Public Facilities. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Residential. • • s 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 10. City Approvals Required: General Plan Amendment. 11. Other Agency Approvals Required: None • • 6 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following ages. ^ Aesthetics ^ Agriculture Resources ^ Air uali ^ Biological Resources ^ Cultural Resources ^ Geolo /Soils ^ Hazards & Hazardous ^ Hydrology /Water Quality ^ Land Use /Planning Materia 's ^ Mineral Resources ^ Noise ^ Po ulation /Housing o Public Services ^ Recreation ^ Trans ortation /Traffic ^ Utilities /Service Systems ^ Mandato Findin s of Si ificance DET ERMINATION (To be com leted b the Lead Agenc On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on X the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be r~ ared. I find that although the proposed project CouLD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the a licant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re aced. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. Ari ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired, but it must anal ze onl the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to an earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are im osed u on the ro osed ro'ect, nothing further is re uired. / _ `~ O Jo ` Livin stone, Co unity Develo ment Director Date 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irri act Inco orated Im act Im act I. AESTIIETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but X not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: The Project site is surrounded by existing residential subdivisions on the west, south and east and bordered by Prospect Road, afour-lane major arterial road, on the north. Views in the general area are views of developed residential and commercial areas within the City of Saratoga. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not alter the existing views because development is not proposed at this time. a-d) No Impact: The project site is not part of any scenic vista or within the view shed of a state scenic highway. Alteration of the existing views is not proposed; therefore, there will not be a new source of light or glare nor will the existing visual character be substantially degraded. • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conversation as an optional model to use in assessin im acts on a 'culture and farmland. Would the 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or X Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non- agricultural use? (the Farmland Mapping and -- ---Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation maintains detailed maps of categories of farmland) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment X which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, I to non-agricultural use? Discussion: The Project site has a City of Saratoga General Plan designation of Residential and is zoned 8-1- 10,000, which allows for medium-density residential uses. The site does not include agricultural or farmlands. a-c) No Impact: The Project site is currently developed with a church building, parking lot and ancillary buildings, is not used as farmland, and is not under a Williamson Act contract. There are no important farmlands or agricultural resources on, or adjacent to, the Project site. The proposal does not include development or change of the existing use; therefore, no impacts to farmland would occur as a result of this Project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the following determinations: Would the project: a Conflict with or obstruct im lementation of a licable 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act air quality plans? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality --- - vio atron.=--- ---- --- -- ---- - - -- - c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of X any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial X number of people? Discussion: The Project site lies within the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines require evaluation of any proposed projects that would involve a substantial change of use or extensive development. a-e) No Impact: The proposal does not include development or change of the existing use; therefore, no impacts to air quality would occur as a result of this Project. • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as endangered, rare, or threatened, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Re lations 10 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act (sections 17.11 or 1,7.12)? b) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or X through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in -- local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian X habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? I d) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally X ' protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? e) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? f) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? g) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ' Discussion: a-g) No Impact: The Project site was developed with a church and ancillary buildings in the late 1950s and the 1960s. The surrounding area is urbanized and developed with medium-density residential development. No new development is proposed as part of this project. The proposed Project site is not a part of any Habitat Conservation Plan 11 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 or Natural Community Conservation Plan; therefore no related impacts are anticipated. • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant . No Im act Inco orated Irri act Im act V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance X of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register or listing of historic resources. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance X of a unique archaeological resource (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such, as being the oldest or best available example. of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: a-d) No impact. The buildings on the site were constructed in the early 1960s and 1970s and as such are not eligible for listing on the National Register, California Register, or any local register. In addition, no development is proposed as part of this project, which may disturb unique archaeological or paleontological resources. 12 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 n Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: - - - a) --Expose-people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault; as delineated X on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including X liquefaction? iv) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? v) Landslides? X vi) Flooding, including flooding as a result of the X failure of a levee or dam? vii) Wildland fires, including where wildlands are X adjacent to urbanized areas and where residences are intermixed with wildlands? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? X d) Be located on a geologic unit or strata or soil that is X unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or . collapse? e) Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks X to life or property? (Table.18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) defines expansive soil) f) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of se tic tanks or alternative waste water dis osal 13 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Signif cant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act systems, where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion: a-f) No Impact: No unique geologic. features occur on the site, the site is connected to the City's sewer system, the project site has been developed, and no development is proposed; therefore, no related impacts are expected to occur. • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant ,Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act VII. HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions X or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the ro~ect result in a safe hazard for eo le residin or 14 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Irn act working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with X an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or X death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: a-h) No Impact: The potential for hazardous materials impacts at the project site was evaluated in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared in 2005. The Assessment concluded that there maybe a potential for residues of chemicals in shallow soils as a result from earlier agricultural uses on the site; however, there was no evidence of hazardous materials use, storage, or release of hazardous materials during site reconnaissance. The project site is currently developed in an urban area and is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The proposal does not include any activities which would cause ground disturbance or demolition of existing structures, both of which could potentially expose hazardous materials if located on the site. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan. • 15 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 • • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X . requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the X site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-site or off- - site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the X site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-site or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed X the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain as mapped X on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation. map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? 16 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 Discussion: No surface waterways traverse the Project site. The site's runoff currently drains into existing drainage facilities. a=h) No Impact: Development, or change of use, is not proposed; therefore, degradation of water quality, alterations in water drainage, or development of housing within the 100-year floodplain is not applicable. The parcel is currently developed as an institutional use, which would be consistent with.the proposed Land Use Designation Amendment. • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation .Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Irri act IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: i a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to general plans, specific plans, local coastal programs, or zoning ordinances)? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan X or natural community conservation plan? Discussion: The Project site has a City of Saratoga General Plan designation of Residential and is zoned R-1- 10,000 Medium-density Residential. The Project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the site designation from Residential to Public Facilities. A site rezone is not required since the site is already zoned for medium-density residential use, which allows institutional type uses identified in the Land Use Designation with a Conditional Use Permit. The General Plan amendment would result in consistency across the City's plans and in a land use designation compatible with existing surrounding uses. a-c) No Impact: The proposed Project is surrounded by existing, established residential subdivisions. The Project site has an existing six-foot high wood fence around the property line that would be maintained or replaced in a substantially similar structure or structures to serve as a privacy fence between the existing residential sites and the existing use. The proposed Project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 17 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 L_~ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act X. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a lrnown mineral X -resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific, plan or other land use plan? Discussion: a-b) No Impact: The Project site is underlain by alluvial fan materials comprised of clays, silts and sands. See discussion of site soils in the preliminary geotechnical report attached as Appendix B. These types of materials are not identified as important mineral resources on a local, regional, or state level; therefore no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated. • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the ro'ect vicini above levels existing 18 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the. project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise_levels? _ _ _ __. _ _. _ _ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, X .would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: The City of Saratoga Noise Ordinance establishes policies to control unnecessary and excessive noise in the City. a-f) No Impact: No sources of ground borne vibration or ground borne noise (e.g., proximity to railway lines or construction using pile driving) is anticipated on or near the Project site since development, or change of use, is not proposed at this time. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan area nor is it in the vicinity of any airstrips; therefore no related impacts are anticipated. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,- necessitating X the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? • 19 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 Discussion: a-c) No Impact: The proposed Amendment would not induce substantial population growth in the area either directly or indirectly since the changed Land Use Designation would allow for institutional uses through a Use Permit process, which would not create additional housing units. The existing church and ancillary buildings are not proposed for demolition or conversion to housing units. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Irri act Inco orated Irri act Irri act XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse X physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X Police protection? X Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X a) No Impact: Construction or expansion of use is not proposed; therefore, the proposal will not result in substantial adverse impacts to public services. • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than . Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Im act Im act XIV. RECREATION Would the Pro'ect a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and X regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 20 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: a-b) No Impact: The existing institutional facility would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. No development is proposed; therefore, additional recreational facilities will not be constructed. Potentially Significant Potentially. Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im -act Inco orated Irri act Im act XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: ~, a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the appropriate local, regional, or state agency, or county congestion . management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including X either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? . X . f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X su ortin alternative trans ortation (e. ., bus 21 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 • turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion: a-g) No Impact: The proposed Project does not conflict with any adopted plans, policies or programs and no impacts are anticipated relating to transportation. The existing use is not proposed for expansion; therefore, traffic circulation and parking is not anticipated to change. - -- • • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco orated Irri act Im act XVLUTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new X stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in an adverse, impact to the capacity of the X wastewater treatment plant which serves or may serve the project (i.e., does the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments)? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 22 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 - o Im act: The ro osed Project would not alter the existin church and ancillary a f) N P P P J g buildings nor change the existing use; therefore, the proposal will not result in a substantial increase in solid waste, water usage or wastewater nor in the need to expand water supply, wastewater treatment facilities, or the landfill: Storm water runoff volumes and quality from the site will not change. Potentially Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation No Im act Inco orated Im act XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the X quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ~ community, reduce the number or restrict the range. of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a-c) No Impact. The proposed Project would not significantly affect fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it eliminate examples of California history or prehistory. Changing the General Plan Land Use Designation from Residential to Public Facilities would not create a potential for intensification of use since the site was previously designated, and developed, as Public Facilities prior to a General Plan Amendment approved in 2005; which changed the designation to a potentially more intensive land use designation of Residential. • 23 07-049: General Plan Amendment North Campus Initial Study August 2007 References City of Saratoga General Plan, 1983. City of Saratoga Municipal Code Initial Study prepared for the Tentative Map for Grace Subdivision, August 2005 Project Planner, Therese M. Schmidt • 24 ., ( `i I I` ,S ~ti\ ~ ` ~'. ~~ ~ ~ (u\\`l ~•`~ I \ I I/ I r- )1 I~ ~~ ,. ,, '` ~ ~~~ .\ ...... 13777 FRUITVALE [1V1=NUE • SARA"I"OG[1, CALIFORNI[1 95070 Inaxl~xu~l C~xotsr7? 1~? ~ COUNC[L. ~iF1~-1.BFR:S: Aileen Kao Kathleen King Norman Kline Nick Streit Ann Waltonsmith NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE APPLICANT: LEAD AGENCY: NAME OF PROJECT: City of Saratoga City of Saratoga General Plan Amendment PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project proposes an adoption of a Negative Declaration and approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the designation of a City-owned site called the North Campus from Residential Medium Density Single Family M-10 to Public Facilities. The project site consists of two parcels totaling approximately 2.60 acres gross and is bordered by Prospect Road towards the north, and by residential properties towards the east, west and south. A church sanctuary building, a school and other ancillary buildings are situated on the site and were constructed in the 1960s and `70s. In 2002, the site was purchased by the City of Saratoga. As City property, the Administration Building has been used for office uses and as a meeting area, and other buildings on the site have remained vacant. DETERMINATION: Based upon the Initial Study, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated to be associated with the subject project. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared. The Initial Study was prepared by the Community Development Department, City of Saratoga and was available for public review from August 25 -September 25, 2006. Copies of the Initial Study maybe obtained at City Hall located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. ATTEST: ohn Livingstone, AICP Community Development Director • • Attachment 3 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 a public hearing on the item .described below on:~ Wednesday, the 27th day of September 2006, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held at the Civic Theater at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. The public hearing item is: APPLICATION/ADDRESS: #07-049,19848 Prospect Road APPLICANT/OWNER: NORTH CAMPUS/CITY OF SARATOGA (Both Owners & Applicants) APNs: 386-26-070 & 386-26-071 Description: -The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment and Negative Declaration to revert to the previous General Plan designation of Public Facilities from the current General Plan designation of Residential. Development, or change of use, is not proposed at this time. 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 maybe 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, September 19, 2006. 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. Therese M. Schmidt, AICP Associate Planner 408-868-1230 . • AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ' ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission on the_~ day of ~ R 2006, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to-wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing • pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Ciry of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application; that on said day there was regular communicati n by United States Mail to the addresses.shown above. ,~ . Signed C7 373 12 001 Charles & Paige Simpson 1027 Jacqueline Way San Jose, CA 95129-2826 373 12 004 Chih-Ming Chang 1640 Clarkspur Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3804 373 12 020 Bhupinder & Chetna Ahuja . . _ _ 6514 Bibel Ave San Jose, CA 95129-3801 373 12 043 Sanjay & Nagavarapu Usha Pujare 6449 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3840 373 12 047 Ching-Lung LoJeff 6515 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3841 373 12 002 Kathryn Kay 5092 Durban Ct San Jose, CA 95138-2100 ' 373 12 015 Ryszard & Stephanie Janowski 6546 Bibel Ave San Jose, CA 95129-3801 373 12 036 Glean Lai _ -6492 IvyLn San Jose, CA 95129-3900 ' 373 ]2 044 Jianhua Huang ' 6471 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3840 373 12 048 Norma Buford 6537 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3841 • 373 12 003 Michael & Hsiao Lei Lee 1648 Clarkspur Ln r San Jose, CA 95129-3804 373 12 017 Ellen Oleary 6530 Bibel Ave San Jose, CA 95129-3801 ' 373 12.037 _ Joseph & Young Park 6470 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3900 . 373.12 045 Ralph & Elaine Chambers 6493 Prospect Rd ' San Jose, CA 95129-3840 I 373 12 049 Charles & Margaret Ting 6545 Prospect Rd ' San Jose, CA 95129-3841 373 12 050 373 12 051 373 12 052 Stephen S K & Malinda Chan Zong & Sun Qi Ling Min-Chun Tsai 6567 Prospect Rd 6574 Ivy Ln 6562 Ivy Ln San-Jose,-=CA-=951-29-3841-- --- -= -=- ;----San-Jose,-GA-95129-3837--___. -- --__-- -- -San-Jose; CA-95129-3837 --- 373 12 053 373 12 054 ~ . 373 12 055 Avraham & Dahlia Perahia Sam Liang Mansop Hahn 6548 Ivy Ln 6538 Ivy Ln 12904 SE 45th Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3837 San Jose, CA 95129-3837 Bellevue, WA 98006-2038 373 12 056 _ 373.12 057 373 12 058 . Jiangxu & Sun Xian Xiang Hui-Chen Kuo Hueichian & Chen Nansing Huang 6525 Ivy Ln 6537 Ivy Ln 6549 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129 San Jose, CA 95129-3838 San Jose, CA 95129-3838 373 12 059 Visvanathan Ganapathy 1563 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3838 373 12 060 Li-Hwa Lin 6575 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3838 373 13 036 _ Hung-Lin Hsu 1665 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3856 • •~ 173 13 037 373 13 038 373 13 039 3ary & Sandra Schoenfeld Cheg Hu Wrlham & Chnstine Munson -673 Ardenwood Dr 1519 Noriega St ~ 1693 Ardenwood Dr ~an Jose, CA 95129-3856 San Francisco, CA 94122-4433 San Jose, CA 95129-3856 373 13 040 • 373 13 041 L' da Hart Jim Wang , a Agua Ct 7510 De Foe Dr gan Hill, CA 95037-5634 Cupertino, CA 95014-4307 373 13 043 373 13 044 Kerning Wang Wilhelm & Marianne Grotheer 1652 Ardenwood Dr 1644 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3855 San Jose, CA 95129-3855 373 13 068 R 373 13 069 Nancy Anderson .William & Sonja Watson Jr 13561 Lomond Ct 1649 Daphne Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-5414 San Jose, CA 95129-3813 373 13 071 373.13 072 William Kahn Andrew Hsiung 6670 Ivy Ln 6650 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 074 ~ 373 13 075 John Tolvanen Kui Yau 6610 Ivy Ln 1669 Clarkspur Ln ~ose, CA 95129-3839 ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3805 373 13 042 James Dozier 180 2nd St Los Altos, CA 94022-2821 373 13 067 Sze Ming Lum 1629 Daphne Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3813 373 13 070 Li-Jen & Chun-Juan Tseng • 6690 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 073 Richard & Helen Bailey 6630 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 076 Dennis Rust 6631 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 077 373 13 078 373 13 079 William & Lynn Rothwein Venu & Smitha Varma Ranjit John _ _ spect Rd_ 6645 Pro 6661 Prospect Rd _ _ ------- 6675 Prospect Rd - - _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ San Jose, CA 95129-3842 _ _ _ San Jose, CA 95129=3842--- 93T29=3842 C~ San Jose, 373 13 080 Hongbo & Wang Xiaorui Tang 373 13 081 Miranda 373 l3 082 . Amitava Choudhuri 6691 Prospect Rd 206 Thomas Dr 6697 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 Los Gatos, CA 95032038 San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 14 001 373 14 002 373 14 053 . Margaret Scardigli Brian & Amanda Aberg Simon & Tsai Hwie Chen 1638 Daphne Dr 1628 Daphne Dr 1639 Clarkspur Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3812 San Jose, CA 95129-3812 San Jose, CA 95129-3805 373 14 054 386 26 001 386 26 002 Whan Soo & Eun Sim Kang Glenford Dennee Jr. Kelvin & Susan Kiew 1647 Clarkspw Ln 2265 El Camino Real #3 12031 Saraglen Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3805 Santa Clara, CA 95050-4064 Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 386 26 003 386 26 004 386 26 005 Paul & Sandra Eovino Louis Tseng John & Jia-tying Chen 12045 Saraglen Dr 12061 Saraglen Dr 12075 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 386 26 006. • 386 26 007 Blane & Barbara Eisenberg Harry & Phyllis Cornbleet 1209] Saraglen Dr ]2105 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 Saratoga, CA 95070 386 26 009 Ahmed & Asna Masood 12135 Sazaglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 010 Richard & Sonya D'Sa 1215] Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 032 Robert Guowei & Wang Xiuzhen Xu 12150 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 033 Nansen D'Sa 12]49 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 '386 26 008 Sugimoto tones 12121 Sazaglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 031 ' Sungsun & Diane Choi 12180 Sazaglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 034 Richard & Dorothy Dorsay 12120 Saraglen Dr . ' Saratoga, CA 95070 386 26 035 386 26 036 386 26 037 Stan & Barbara Stewart Steve B Pratt. Peter Leeb 12100 Saraglen Dr 19920 Viewridge Dr 19910 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 386 26 038 ~ 386 26 039 I~ 386 26 040 Jai-Nang & Ma 1-Kuang Wang Y R & Lillian Koda Girardot 12121 Viewoak Dr 12141 Viewoak Dr 12161 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 386 26 041 386 26 042 386 26 048 Eugene & June Levitre Stephen & Rose Horvath Javad Khakbaz 12201 Viewoak Dr 259 Belwe Dr 19840 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga Cti-95070-3234 --- -- -- Los Gatos CA--95032=5003---- -- -- - -- -- Saratoga; CA--95070-3214 386 26 049 386 26 050 386 26 051 Jonathan & Suzanne Owens Richazd & Elizabeth Machado Shao Kang Tan 19830 Oakhaven Dr 19831 Oakhaven Dr 19845 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 26 052 386 26 053 386 26 054 Anthony Hei Leung Huang Willis & Lilian McCarthy Marvin & Susan Cohn 12150 Viewoak Dr ~ 12120 Viewoak Dr ~ 19840 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3233 Saratoga, CA 95070-3233 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 26 055 386 26 056 386 26 057 [ra & Susan Kaye Hsien-Jywan & Hwu Der-Fen Ko Graham Mostyn 19830 Viewridge Dr 19831 Viewridge Dr ~ 19845 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 26 058 386 26 059 386 26 060 ,ars Majlof William & Norma Ford Maria Continillo (9861 Viewridge Dr 19905 Viewridge Dr 19911 Viewridge Dr iaratoga, CA 95070-3236 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 • • • ~ .386 26 063 386 26 061 • 386 26 062 Konstantinos & Serraiocco Gina Haritos Gary & Drummond Dee Carlson John & Kathleen Haleblian Viewridge Dr 12070 Saraglen Dr 12044 Saraglen Ct ~oga, CA 95070-3237 Saratoga, CA 95070-3226 Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 064 Sam & Muffie Ochi 386 26 065 Ram Bapu 386 26 066 Chandrasekha & Sujatha Bodapati 19920 Saraglen Ct ]9910 Saraglen Ct 19900 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 067 386 26 068 386 26 069 ~~ Dennis Lyden Bernard & Eliabeth Sievers Raymond Tankersley i 19911 Saraglen Ct 19921 Saraglen Ct 120]0 Saraglen Dr ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 Saratoga, CA 95070-3219 386 26 070 386 37 001 386 37002 CITY OF SARATOGA Yao Chang James & Marsha Patterson 13777 Fruitvale Ave 19771 Colby Ct 19783 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-5151 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 003 386 37 004 386 37 005 Janice Hayward Khoo Lung Wen & Siu Lan Wang 19795 Colby Ct 19807 Colby Ct 19819 Colby Ct oga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 006 386 37 007 386 37 008 David & Bernadette Wyandt Roger & Mary Piazza Alton & Carmen Anderson Colb Ct 19827 ~ 19828 Colby Ct 19816 Colby Ct _ -- Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 -- Saratoga;-C~ 95070-3202- ----Saratoga ~A --95070-3-2 ------- 386 37 009 Lily & Pascal Chen 386 37 010 C L & Helen Lott 386 37 011 Lingaflong & Ding Ying Shao 3 Ling-yi St 4f Lane 8 19825 Viewridge Dr 19786 Colby Ct Taipei, Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 012 I 386 37 013 386 37 014 Louis & Bernice Degive Griffith & Lois Brown Klein Kao 19774 Colby Ct ~ 19773 Viewridge Dr 19785 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 37 015 ~ 386 37 016 386 37 017 Thomas & Katherine Maier Robert & Bonnie Lind Chung-Ho & Chen-Huii Fan 19797 Viewridge Dr 19809 Viewridge Dr 19815 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 ~~ ~:i~37 018 386 37 019 386 37 020 Thomas & Dianna Saari Helen Lott Brian & Hang Soei-Shin Shing 19823 Viewridge Dr 19824 Viewridge Dr 19816 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA' 95070-3236 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 ~ 386 37 021 386 37 022 Warren Uchimoto Chung C T & Mel-Ping Luan 19808 Viewridge Dr ~ 19796 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 37 024 386 37 025 Kuang-Yu Wang Wen Chung Liou 19772 Viewridge Dr 19775 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 027 386 37 028 Dean & Lucille Antonelli Guy & Nancy Robby 19799 Oakhaven Dr 19805 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 030 386 37 031 Pamela Parker Teny Teruo & Yoko Linda Matsumoto 19825 Oakhaven Dr 19826 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 I 386 37 033 386 37 034 Ju & Janet Shen Susan Lofelmaker ] 4638 Aloha Ave 19796 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-6004 Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 386 48 021 S-C-~~--~1; ~nn~lr~ S A'rv3~,/7V ~ . Sa.~- C~~,~. Ua.'~~~ ~~j ~ ,•,. tJ ~ ~ is ~tiu~ ~~ t f ~ ,J ~~ 386 37 023 Norma Montgomery-Ray] 19784 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 37 026 Alfred & Marlene Kass 19787 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 029 Durga & Raj Agarwal 19817 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213, 386 37 032 Gary Kramp Psc 45 #764 ,Apo, AE 09468-0764 386 37 035 George & Frances Scuffos 19784 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 • • ~J Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEiVIPLATE 5160® \ative American Heritage Commission apitol Mall, Room #364 rmento, CA 95814 ~TTN: Rob Wood as Rodriguez ?.O. Box 1411 Salinas, CA 93902 Amah/MutsunTribalBand Irene Zwierlein, Chair 7~8 9 Canada Rd Woodside, CA 94062 • /V Gam'"'' ~~-•-~ ~~ vvww.avery.com D AVERY® 5160® • ~~ 1-800-GO-AVERY• Amalr Mutsun Tribal Band Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Valentin Lopez, Chairperson Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson 3095 Eastern Avenue P.O. Box 28 Sacramento, CA 95821. Hollister, CA 95024 Trina Marine Ruano Family Ramona Garibay, Representative 36423 Peugeot Place Newark, CA 94560 The Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew A. Galvan P.O. Box 3152 Mission. San Jose, CA 94539 Muwekma Indian Tribe Rosemary Cambra, Chair P.O.-Box 360791 Milpitas, CA 95036 • Clare McBride 495 E. Brokaw Rd., #F San Jose, CA 95113 Dave & Beinie Wyandt 19827 Colby Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Terry Martin 45 E. Main St., #B Los Gatos, CA 95030 Bil] & Norma Ford 19905 Viewridge Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 Matt Lavender 1650 Lafayette St. Santa Clara, CA 95050 • • Louis Plegive Fran Colletti 19774 Colby Ct. 12185 Terrence Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Gene Golobic Norman & Marlene Siegler 12336 Terrence Ave. 20743 Seaton Ave. _ _Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Bill Sheridan Pam Khoo --1-9766 Elisa Ave. - -19807 Colby Ct. Saratoga, CA 95070 Saratoga, CA 95070 Joann & Roger Piazza Jack Tolvanen Colby Ct. 6610 Ivy Ln. Saratoga, CA 95070 San Jose, CA 95129 Kaustuv Basu Barry Wilbanks 245 Almendra Avenue 800 El Camino Real, 3rd Floor Los Gatos, CA 95030 Menlo Park, CA 94025 • ~~ , Santa Clara County Fire Dept. ]~0 Winchester Blvd. atos, CA 95030 West Valley Sanitation District 100 East Sunnyvale Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 Santa Clara Valley Water District X750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, CA 95118 • l(1s Cc~~~~~5 -- %~'~~c~lSi'~~'~( CAS. • Santa Clara Valley Transportation • Authority California Dept. of Transportation 3331 North First Street P.O. Box 23660 San Jose, CA 95134-1906. Oakland, CA 94623-0660 ATTN: Julie Render SCC Dept. of Environmental Health Pacific Gas and Electric P.O. Box 26070 San Jose Land Rights Office San Jose, CA 95159-6070 111 Almaden Blvd., Room 814 ATTN: Kurt Fisher, REHS San Jose, CA 95115 San Jose Water Company -Cupertino Union School District 1221 South Bascom Avenue 10301 Vista Drive San Jose, CA 95128 Cupertino, CA 95014 • Marty Oakley 20840 Beauchamps Lane Saratoga, CA 95070 Corina Del Pozzo 1650 Lafayette Street Santa Clara, CA 95050. Scott Sheldon 1300 Oliver Road, Suite 300 Fairfield, CA 94534 Terence Szewczyk 1776 Technology Drive San Jose, CA 95110 Andrew Barnes 14377 Oldwood Road Saratoga, CA 95070 William Bean 21388 Sarahills Road Saratoga, CA 95070 Scott McDonald 475 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Santa Clara, CA 95030 Lea Arai Hernandez 12029 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Saratoga, CA 95070 Reberta Savage 515 N.Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Salim Sagarchi 495 E. Browkaw Road, #F San Jose, CA 95112 Meir Levi PO Box 3748 Saratoga, CA 95070 Leona Fong 19466 Burgundy Way Saratoga, CA 95070 Backer Navid 20480-Blauer Drive, Suite A Saratoga, CA 95070 Charles Butterfield 2470 Winchester Blvd, Suite A Campbell, CA 95008 • I Tim Nieuwsma Randy Price 900 E. Hamilton, Suite 100 1777 Saratoga Avenue, Suite 112 Campbell, CA 95008 San Jose, CA 95129 • E73 13 040 occupant At denwood Dr e, CA 95 ] 29-3855 •73 l3 043 )ccupant At 652 Ardenwood Dr .an Jose, CA 95]29-3855 73 13 068 )ccupant At 639 Daphne Dr •an Jose, CA 95129-3813 73 13 071 ]ccupant At 670 Ivy Ln an Jose, CA 95129-3839 73 13 074 occupant At 510 Ivy Ln ~e, CA 95129-3839 73 13 077 ccupant At i45 Prospect Rd in Jose; CA 95729=3842--- ~3 13 080 ccupant At i91 Prospect Rd in Jose, CA 95129-3842 '3 14 001 ;cupant At 38 Daphne Dr n Jose, CA 95129-3812 3 14 054 .cupant At 47 Clarkspur Ln o Jose, CA 95129-3805 ilSd03 cupant At 145 Saraglen Dr atoga, CA 95070-3218 • 373 13 041 ' :373 ]3 042 Occupant At ;Occupant At 1672 Ardenwood Dr ] 664 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3855 San Jose, CA 95129-3855 373 13 044 ' ' 373 13 067 Occupant At ! ~ Occupant At 1644 Ardenwood Dr ' ; 1629 Daphne Dr San Jose, CA 95]29-3855 San Jose, CA 95129-3813 373 ]3 069 373 13 070 Occupant At- Occupant At - - 1649 Daphne Dr 6690 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3813 ' : San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 072 ~ ~ 373 13 073 Occupant At Occupant At 6650 Ivy Ln 6630 Ivy Ln !San Jose, CA 95129-3839 ' ' San Jose, CA 95129-3839 373 13 075. i. ~; 373 13 076 Occupant At ~ ;Occupant At 1669 Clarkspur Ln ' 6631 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3805 ~ 'San Jose, CA 95129-3842 373 13 078 ; j 373 13 079 I Occupant At ; ;Occupant At 6661 Prospect Rd ~ 6675 Prospect Rd -- ~ ;-San Jose; CA 95129=3842 -- -- -- - ~i ~ • ;San Jose CA 95129-3842 ~~ 373 13 081 ~ ~ ~ 373 13 082 Occupant At 'Occupant At 6695 Prospect Rd ~ ~ 6697 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3842 ~ ;San Jose, CA 95129-3842 .. 373 14 002 ~ 373 14 053 Occupant At ; ':, Occupant At 1628 Daphne Dr ! l 639 Clarkspur Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3812 i ;' San Jose, CA 95129-3805 ~~ i ~, :386 26 001 i 386 26 002 :Occupant At ~ ;Occupant At 12011 Saraglen Dr 12031 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 ;Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 386 26 004 ~ 386 26 005 :Occupant At Occupant At i 12061 Saraglen Dr 12075 Saraglen Dr 'Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 ;Saratoga, CA 95070-3218 i73 12 001 )ccupant At 1585 Prospect Rd >an Jose; CA 95129-384] i73 12 004 )ccupant At .640 Clarkspur Ln ian Jose, CA 95129-3804 i73 12 020 )ccupant At i5 ] 4 Bibel Ave ian Jose, CA 95129-3801 .73 l2 043 )ccupant At 1449 Prospect Rd ~an Jose, CA 95129-3840 X73 12 047 )ccupant At .515 Prospect Rd .an Jose, CA 95129-3841 73 12 050 )ccupant At 567_ Prospect Rd .an Jose, CA 95129-3841 73 12 053 )ccupant At 548 Ivy Ln an Jose, CA 95129-3837 73 12 056 (ccupant At 525 Ivy Ln (No Mail ) an Jose, CA 95129-3838 73 12 059 occupant At 563 Ivy Ln an Jose, CA 95129-3838 ~3 13 037 ccupant At i73 Ardenwood Dr m Jose, CA .95129-3856 • 373 l2 002 ;' Occupant At 6590 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3837 373 l2 015 Occupant At 6546 Bibel Ave San Jose, CA 95129-3801 373 12 036 Occupant At '-6492 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3900 373 12 044 Occupant At 6471 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3840 .; ' ' 373 l2 048 i Occupant At 6537 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3841 373 12 051 Occupant At 1 6574 Ivy Ln _ - -_-. -- ' ~ San Jose, CA 95129-3837 ~' 373 12 054 Occupant At 6538 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3837 373 l2 057 :Occupant At 6537 Ivy Ln San Jose; CA 95129-3838 373 l2 060 ;Occupant At 6575 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3838 373 13 038 'Occupant At 1679 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3856 ~' '' 373 12 003 '. Occupant At' 1648 Clarkspiu Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3804 373 l2 017 Occupant At 6530 Bibel Ave ' San Jose, CA 95129-3801 ,;. 373 12 037 Occupant At -;---6470 -Ivy-Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3900 373 l2 045 Occupant At 6493 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA 95129-3840 ~, ' ' ! 373 12 049 i Occupant At ':. 6545 Prospect Rd San Jose, CA ;; 95129-3841 373 12 052 Occupant At i 6562 Ivy Ln _ .-._. -San Jose,-CA 95129-3837 ~ 373 12 055 Occupant At 6524 Ivy Ln San Jose, CA 95129-3837 373 12 058 Occupant At 6549 Ivy Ln ;San Jose, CA i, 95129-3838 373 13036 Occupant At 1665 Ardenwood Dr San Jose, CA 95129-3856 373 13 039 Occupant At 1693 Ardenwood Dr ' !San Jose, CA 95129-3856 • • • 86 26 006 )ccupant.At araglen Dr a, CA 95070-3218 86 26 009 )ccupant At 2135 Saraglen Dr aratoga, CA 95070-3220 86 26 032 )ccupant At 2150 Saraglen Dr aratoga, CA 95070-3221 86.26 035 )ccupant At 2100 Saraglen Dr aratoga, CA 95070-3221 86 26 038 )ccupant At 2121 Viewoak Dr ~a, CA 95070-3232 86 26 041 )ccupant At 2_201 Viewoak Dr _ aratoga, CA 95070-3234 86 26 049 )ccupant At 9830 Oakhaven Dr aratoga, CA 95070-3214 86 26 052 )ccupant At 2150 Viewoak Dr aratoga, CA 95070-3233 86 26 055 occupant At 9830 Viewridge Dr aratoga, CA 95070-3205 B676 058 ccupant At X861 Viewridge Dr aratoga, CA 95070-3236 i 386.26 007 Occupant At l 2 ] OS Saraglen Dr (No Mai] ) Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 38626010 '~ Occupant At 12151 Saraglen Dr `: '• Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 033 _ Occupant At '' 12140 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 036 'i Occupant At 19920 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 ': • ~' 386 26 008 Occupant At 12121 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3220 386 26 031 ,~ Occupant At 12180 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 034 Occupant At - 12120 Saraglen Dr (No Mail ) Saratoga, CA 95070-3221 386 26 037 Occupant At -19910 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3238 '~ ': 386 26 039 ~ 386 26 040 Occupant At ~ ! ' Occupant At l2 ] 41 Viewoak Dr ' ' 12161 Viewoak Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 !Saratoga, CA 95070-3232 386 26 042 ~ 386 26 048 Occupant At ' ' j Occupant At 12221 Viewoak Dr ~ 19840 Oalchaven Dr .; Saratoga, CA 95070-3234 I' J ~ SaTatoga~ CA 93070=3214 i 386 26 050 ', ! 386 26 051 Occupant At Occupant At 19831 Oakhaven Dr !~ 19845 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 ' ' Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 i 386 26 053 '' 386 26 054 ': Occupant At ~ .Occupant At 12120 Viewoak Dr ~ 19840 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3233 i Saratoga, CA 95070-3205. i ` ~ 386 26 056 ' 386 26 057 ' ~ ' Occupant At ; ~ Occupant At . 19831 Viewridge Dr ' ~ 19845 Viewridge Dr Saratoga CA 95070-3236 ~ Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 26 059 Occupant At 19905 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 ' 386 26 060 Occupant At 19911 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 ~86 26 061 )ccupant At 9921 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3237 386 26 062 Occupant At 12070 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3226 86 26 064 )ccupant At 9920 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 86 26 067 )ccupant At 9911 Saraglen Ct ,aratoga, CA 95070-3217 86 26 070 )ccupant At 9848 Prospect Rd ~aratoga, CA 95070-3229 86 37 003 )ccupant At 9795 Colby Ct aratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 26 065 Occupant At ] 99 ] 0 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-32 ] 7 386 26 068 Occupant At 19921 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 37 001 Occupant At i 19771 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 ' 386 37 004 Occupant At 19807 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 86 37 006 ' ' 386 37 007 -ccupant At : ' Occupant At 982._7__Golb~_Ct________.___.__,_____ 19828 Colby Ct _ _ aratoga, CA 95070-3202 Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 86 37 009 occupant At 9804 Colby Ct aratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 010 Occupant At 19798 Colby Ct ':Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 86 37 012 occupant At 9774 Colby Ct aratoga, CA 95070-3202 36 37 O15 ccupant At )797 Viewridge Dr jratoga, CA 95070-3236 ~6 37 018 ccupant At X823 Viewridge Dr ~ratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 37 013 i Occupant At 19773 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 386 37 016 Occupant At ] 9809 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 '. :386 37 019 :Occupant At '~ ] 9824 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 • 386 26 063 Occupant At 12044 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 386 26 066 Occupant At 19900 Saraglen Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3217 i 386 26 069 Occupant At 12010 Saraglen Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3219 :386 37 002 Occupant At l 9783 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 ~~ ! 386 37 005 ' Occupant At i 19819 Colby Ct Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 008 i Occupant At 19816 Colby Ct - ---- - :Saratoga, CA -93070-3202 - ; i :; 38637011 ::Occupant At 19786 Colby Ct !Saratoga, CA 95070-3202 386 37 014 Occupant At 19785 Viewridge Dr ;Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 ',"38637017 'Occupant At 19815 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3236 . 386 37 020 Occupant At 19816 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 • • • S86 37 021 occupant At l Viewridge Dr 3~a, CA 95070-3205 S86 37 024 occupant At 19772 Viewridge Dr >aratoga, CA 95070-3205 X86 37 027 occupant At .9799 Oakhaven Dr ;aratoga, CA 95070-3213 .86 37 030 )ccupant At .9825 Oakhaven Dr (No Mail ) Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 ~86 37 033 )ccupant At 9808 Oakhaven Dr a, CA 95070-3214 86 48 021 )ccupant At no. $ite.Address* 386 37 022 386 37 023. Occupant At 'Occupant At ] 9796 Viewridge Dr 119784 Viewridge Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 'Saratoga, CA 95070-3205 386 37 025 ~ 386 37 026 Occupant At ;Occupant At ] 9775 Oakhaven Dr l 9787 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 'Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 028 386 37 029 Occupant At Occupant At 19805 Oakhaven Dr 19817 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 'Saratoga, CA 95070-3213 386 37 031 386 37 032 Occupant At ~ Occupant At 19826 Oakhaven Dr 19814 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 ' ;Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 . 386 37 034 ' :386 37 035 Occupant At i Occupant At 19796 Oakhaven Dr 19784 Oakhaven Dr Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 .. ~: ~~ ' Saratoga, CA 95070-3214 i i I • • • `~ • Item 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION • Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Type of Application: Date: APN: RECOMMENDED ACTION: City of Saratoga John F. Livingstone AICP, Community Development Dir. Time Limit for Conditions of Approval September 27, 2006 City Wide Head: ~~ Accept report and public testimony and recommend one of the following options back to the City Council: 1. Recommend to the City Council a proposed ordinance that prohibits uses that are inconsistent with prior design review approvals; or 2. Recommend to the City Council a proposed ordinance that authorizes the Planning Commission to impose permanent design review conditions on a case-by-case basis. BACKGROUND: In 2004 a project was being processed through the Administrative Design Review process when neighbors brought up concerns about certain aspects of the project. The applicant responding to neighborhood complaints removed the structure in question from the proposed plans. Upon completion of the proj ect and final sign off from the Building and Planning Divisions the applicant came into the front counter for an over the counter permit to build the same structure that the applicant had voluntarily removed from the plans. The neighbors spoke at a City Council meeting during oral communications expressing concerns about the situation. This eventually resulted in the adoption of Urgency Ordinance 233. On September 6, 2006 the City Council reviewed a staff report with three options. The City Council directed staff to bring option #1 and #2 above to the Planning Commission for review. STAFF REPORT: Ordinance 233 requires compliance with prior design review conditions for all properties in the City with a structure that was the subject of design review and that received final approval after January 1, 2004. Projects that deviate from approved design review conditions are allowed by Ordinance 233, but only upon approval by the entity that issued the design review approval. Thus, projects on property that have an administrative design review approval are reviewed by the Community Development Director and projects that are on property that has been the subject of Planning Commission design review approval require approval by the Planning Commission. Ordinance 233 is an urgency ordinance that expires on November 20, 2006 and cannot be extended as an urgency ordinance beyond that time. Accordingly, the City must adopt a traditional amendment to the City Code if it wishes the protections of Ordinance 233 or similar provisions to remain in effect. Staff has identified two possible approaches to amending the City Code. The first option would involve adopting code provisions comparable to the requirements now in effect under Ordinance 233. This would have the effect of making permanent all design review conditions for all projects approved since January 1, 2004. Changes to a structure or related landscaping that are inconsistent with the earlier design review conditions could be made, but only after approval by the entity that issued the original design review approval. The second approach would involve amending the design review requirements of the City Code to authorize the entity issuing a design review approval (The Planning Commission or Community Development Director) to specify those conditions that must remain in effect following final sign-off of the building permit. This would allow some flexibility with respect to future changes in a home but would allow staff or the Planning Commission to specify particular aspects of the design (e.g:, privacy screening) that are required to remain in effect in order to address neighbor or other particular concerns raised during the design review process. The City Council has requested the Commission's recommendation on which approach should be implemented. Regardless of which approach is selected, the City Council directed staff to include the draft ordinance a requirement that the applicant for design review approval record the City's design review restrictions with the County Recorder's office (this is similar to the approach used by the City of San Jose and this aspect of the attached ordinance is modeled on the San Jose Code). Staff has prepared an ordinance that would implement first approach. Because this approach covers all conditions, the ordinance can be easily revised if the Commission elects to recommend the second approach. Based on staff's experience with Ordinance 233 to date, there are several costs associated with the new requirement. The first is the cost of checking over the counter permits requests to determine if the property is subj ect to the ordinance. Thus far, checking for ordinance compliance has remained at roughly 15 minutes of staff time per application. This cost will remain regardless of the approach selected. The second cost associated with the ordinance is the cost of administering the supplemental design review process for proposed changes. Because the first approach would apply to more conditions of approval, it would require more supplemental design review. However, if staff and the Planning Commission use their discretion in a manner that makes most conditions permanent, the difference would not be significant. The Community Development Department 2 o erates on a cost recove basis. Therefore these increased costs will be borne by project p rY applicants. This will affect the applicant's cost of project review. It will not affect overall costs of City. operations. The third cost is associated with code enforcement. These costs are difficult to predict. Because many of the changes to property that would be prohibited by the ordinance do not require a permit, it is possible that some residents could complete the work without knowledge of the ordinance's restrictions. Because the first approach would apply to more conditions of approval, it would make the possibility of such unintentional non-compliance more likely. As noted above, however, the difference in the number of "permanent" conditions would depend on staff and Planning Commission practice. The greater the number of permanent conditions, the greater the likelihood of increased requests for code enforcement over time. Thus far there have been relatively few code enforcement requests under the ordinance. This may increase with public awareness and as the age of the approved projects increases and the need for updates and repairs to the previously approved projects is needed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMENTATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, this action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (the amendment is exempt because it assures the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA). ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND .PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice for this meeting was properly posted and advertised in a local newspaper. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution of Approval recommending the Ordinance to the City Council 2. Ordinance233B • 3 • Attachment 1 • RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ORDINANCE AMENDING CxAPTER 15 OF THE SARATOGA C ITY CODE REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has determined that the Saratoga City Code should be amended to require compliance with design review conditions following final building inspection and that notice of this requirement should be recorded in the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given. a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and the Planning Commission has considered the proposed amendments and additions, and all testimony and evidence received at the Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission found that the proposed amendments and additions will be consistent with the policies of other provisions of the Saratoga City Code and the General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the- California Environmental Quality Act, this action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 (the amendments are exempt because they assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA). Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby recommend to the City Council that the City Code be amended as shown in the draft ordinance shown in Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, on September 27, 2006 by the following roll call vote: • AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission Exhibits Exhibit A -Recommended Ordinance C, C, • EXHIBIT A • • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE SARATOGA C ITY CODE REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. On September 27, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing at which all interested persons had an opportunity to be heard to consider amending Chapters 15 of the City Code to require compliance with conditions of approval imposed through the design review process following completion of the work that was the subject of the design review approval application. The Commission recommended ; and B. On October 4, 2006, the City Council conducted. a noticed public hearing at which all interested persons had an opportunity to be heard to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Section 2. Adoption. A. Section 15-45.120 is added to the City Code as follows: § 15-45.120 Compliance with and Recordation of Conditions of Approval. All conditions attached to an approval pursuant to this Article shall run with the land and apply to the landowner's successors in interest. No approval pursuant to this Article shall take effect until a certificate of approval documenting all applicable conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office in form and content acceptable to the Community Development Director. If an approval is modified or revoked pursuant to this Article or section 15- 80.120, acertificate of modification or revocation as appropriate shall be recorded. B. Section 15-46.070 is added to the City Code as follows: § 15-46.070 Compliance with and Recordation of Conditions of Approval. . Ordinance No. 3 All conditions attached to an approval pursuant to this Article shall run with the land and apply to the landowner's successors in interest. No approval pursuant to this Article shall take effect until a certificate of approval documenting all applicable conditions has .been recorded by the applicant -with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office in form and content acceptable to the Community Development Director. If an approval is modified or revoked pursuant to this Article or section 15- 80.120, a certificate of modification or revocation as appropriate shall be recorded. C. Section 15-80.120 is added to the City Code as follows: For any parcel containing a structure that has been the subject of design review approval pursuant to Articles 15-45 or 15-46 of the Saratoga City Code and that has received final approval from the Building Official executed on or after January 1, 2004, .all new or modified structures, impervious surfaces; or landscaping (including changes to finish contours of the site as shown on the approved plans) built, installed, or otherwise implemented after 9:00 a.m. November 22, 2004 must have been authorized by the prior design review approval unless that approval has been modified as follows: (a) Where the modification does not result in any exterior change to a structure or material change to an approved site plan, and does not otherwise violate or change any development condition relating to the project, the modification may be approved by the Building Official. (b) Where the modification involves any change to a condition imposed, or plans approved, pursuant to a prior design review approval, the modification shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission if the prior design review was processed pursuant to Article 15-46 or 15-45.060 and subject to approval by the Community Development Director if the prior design review approval was processed pursuant to Article 15-45.065. (c) Any modification which is not described in either subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this Section shall be referred to the Community Development Director, for disposition as follows: (1) The change to a condition imposed, or plans approved, pursuant to a prior design review approval, shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director, if the prior approval was processed pursuant to Article 15-45.065. (2) The change to a condition imposed, or plans approved, pursuant to . a prior design review approval, shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission, if the prior approval was processed pursuant to Ordinance No. 4 Article 15-45.060 or 15.46 if such change results in any material change to the project or any adverse impact upon the surrounding area; otherwise, the change may be approved by the Community Development Director. A material change shall include, but is not limited to, any ascertainable change in the size, height or elevations of a structure or its placement upon the site; any change in the approved elevation of a building pad; any ascertainable change in the location or design of access roads, driveways or parking areas; or any change in a specific .requirement of an approved grading plan, drainage plan, _ _ __ _ _ erosion control plan or landscape plan. (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section shall not apply to new or modified structures, impervious surfaces, or landscaping (including changes to finish contours of the site as shown on the approved plans) that the Community Development Director determines in writing to be a minor change from the prior design review approval. The Community Development Director may make a determination that a change is minor after becoming. aware of the change or the proposed change. If the Community Development Director does not determine a change to be minor, such change shall qualify as, a violation of the City Code unless there has been compliance with this Section. Changes which the Community Development Director may determine to be minor may include, but are not limited to: (1) Addition or removal of accessory structures that are not visible from the street (such as swimming pools, decks, and gazebos) and that do not remove landscaping features intended to serve as screening; (2) Landscaping changes that are not visible from the street (such as replacing lawn with trees or shrubs) and that do not remove landscaping features intended to serve as screening; (3) Changes in the paint used on the exterior of the structure that will not during the life of the structure substantially change the appearance of the structure from that shown in the design review approval; and (4) Construction of fences or walls permitted by the Saratoga City Code. Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant- to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), this action is exempt under 14 California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines") section 15308 (the amendments are exempt because they assure maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment) and CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (the amendments are exempt because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the Ordinance No. 5 environment). Section 4. 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, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase are 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 5. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 4th day of October, 2006, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the day of 2006: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California ATTEST: Ordinance No. CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY • C, • Ordinance No. ~ • ,~ Attachment 2 i~ ORDINANCE NO. 233-B AN INTERIM ORDINANCE EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT OR WORK INCONSISTENT WITH A PRIOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL AND DECLARING THE SAME TO BE AN URGENCY MEASURE TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council fords and declares as follows: a. The City of Saratoga requires design review approval of certain new and significantly remodeled structures to ensure that the design does not constitute an invasion of privacy, unreasonably interfere with views, light or air, or create adverse impacts upon the.aesthetic character of neighboring residential structures. b. Beginning in 2004 the City of Saratoga adopted a policy requiring extensive neighborhood consultation as part of the design review process. As part of this consultation, project designs are often changed with elements being added, removed, or modified in response to neighborhood concerns and to ensure that new development occurs in a manner, which is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the policies of the General Plan. c. The Saratoga City Code requires compliance with all design rev~ew approved plans and conditions of approval during construction of the structure that triggered the requirement for design review approval. The Code does not require compliance with those conditions, however, after construction of that structure has been completed and final approval executed by the Building Official. While the Zoning Ordinance requires design review approval of major future changes to a site, the Zoning Ordinance does not regulate future minor changes (such as addition of a small structure or changes in paint color; roofing materials, or landscaping) that could be inconsistent with conditions imposed or plans approved as part of the design review process. d. Because conditions.and plan approvals are imposed to protect privacy, avoid unreasonable interference with views, light or air, and to avoid adverse impacts upon the aesthetic character of neighboring residential structures, future additions of, or changes to, a structure or the site that are inconsistent with design review conditions or approved plans could have an adverse effect on community privacy, views, light, air, and the aesthetic character of neighboring residential structures. e. The City Council has directed staff to prepare amendments to the City Code address these issues. f. Establishment of new or modified structures, impervious surfaces, or landscaping (including changes to finish contours of the site as shown on the approved plans) that are inconsistent with a prior design review approval during the time the City staff is studying the best approach to amending the City Code could result in conflicts with any regulations that might ultimately be adopted. g. For the reasons stated herein, during the term of this Interim Ordinance, the establishment of new or modified structures, impervious surfaces, or landscaping (including changes to finish contours of the site as - shown on the approved plans) that are inconsistent with a prior design review approval poses a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare. h. This Ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, subdivision (b). In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in section 15061, subdivision (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment. The purpose of this Ordinance is to prohibit on an interim basis, establishment of new or modified structures, impervious surfaces, or landscaping (including changes to Page 5 of 8 'natural contours of the site) that are inconsistent with prior design review approvals which maybe otherwise permissible under existing policies. The Ordinance will not create a change in the environment because it maintains the status quo. Section 2. Adoption of Regulation. The following interim regulation is hereby adopted. This regulation shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of the Saratoga City Code or the other ordinances, resolutions, policies, and regulations of the City of Saratoga: For any parcel containing a structure that has been the subject of design review approval pursuant to Articles 15-45 or 1-5=46 of the Saratoga City Code and that has received fmal approval from the Building Official executed on or after January 1, 2004, all new or modified structures, impervious surfaces, or landscaping (including changes to fmish contours of the site as shown on the approved plans) built, installed, or otherwise implemented after 9:00 a.m. November 22, 2004 must have been authorized by the prior design review approval unless that approval has been modified as follows: (a) Where the modif cation does not result in any exterior change to a structure or material change to an approved site plan, and does not otherwise violate or change any development condition relating to the project, the modification maybe approved by the Building Official. (b) Where the modification involves any change to a condition imposed, or plans approved, pursuant to a prior design review approval, the modification shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission if the prior design review was processed pursuant to Article 15-46 or 15- 45.060 and subject to approval by the Community Development Director if the prior design review approval was processed pursuant to Article IS-45.065. (c) Any modification which is not described in either subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this Section shall be referred to the Community Development Director, for disposition as follows: (1) The change to a condition imposed, or plans approved, pursuant to a prior design review approval, shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director, if the prior approval was processed pursuant to Article 15-45.065. (2) The change to a condition imposed, or plans approved, pursuant to a prior design. review approval, shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission, if the prior approval was processed pursuant to Article 15-46 or 15.46.060 if such change results in any material change to the project or any adverse impact upon the surrounding area; otherwise, the change may be approved by the Community Development Director. A material change shall include, but is not limited to, any ascertainable change in the size, height or elevations of a structure or its placement upon the site; any change• in the approved elevation of a building pad; any ascertainable change in the location or design of access roads, driveways or parking areas; or any change in a specific requirement of an approved grading plan, drainage plan, erosion control plan or landscape plan. (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section shall not apply to new or modified structures, impervious surfaces, or landscaping (including changes to fmish contours of the site as shown on the approved plans) that the Community Development Director determines in writing to be. a minor change from the prior design review approval. Changes which the Community Development Director may determine to be minor may include, but are not limited to: 1) Addition or removal of accessory structures that are not visible from the street (such as swimming pools, decks, and gazebos) and that do not remove landscaping features intended to serve as screening; Page6of8 (2) Landscaping changes that are not visible from the street (such as replacing lawn with trees or shrubs) and that do not remove landscaping features intended to serve as screening; (3) Changes in the paint used on the exterior of the structure that will not during the life of the structure substantially change the appearance of the structure from that shown in the design review approval; and (4) Construction of fences or.walls permitted by the Saratoga City Code. The Community Development Duector may make a determination that a change is minor after becoming aware of the change or the proposed change. If the Community Development Director does not determine a change to be minor, such change shall qualify as a violation of the City Code unless there has been compliance with this Section. Section 3. Interim Urgency Ordinance. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 1, above, this is an Interim Urgency Ordinance adopted pursuant to Government Code section 65858, and pursuant to the authority granted to the City of Saratoga in Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution. This Ordinance shall therefore take effect immediately upon adoption. This moratorium was initially adopted by the City Council on November 22, 2004, then extended to November 20, 2005 and is further extend by this urgency ordinance until November 20, 2006 unless repealed prior to that time by the City Council. Section 4. 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. This interim Ordinance was passed and adopted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga on October 5, 2005 and adopted by at least afour-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council as follows: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABESNT: ABSTAIN: r~ Page 7 of 8 • • • SIGNED: Kathleen M. King MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor, City Attorney ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California Page 8 of 8 • • • REPORT TO THE ~ PLANNING COMMISSION Item 4 Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Type of Application: Date: APN: ide t Head: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Make a recommendation to the City Council on improvements to the Administrative Design Review process that can be implemented at a staff level and provide direction to staff regarding further Commission review of possible ordinance amendments. ~, REPORT SUMMARY: On June 7, 2006, the City Council directed staff to prepare a staff report reviewing the Administrative Design Review process in response to several speakers' comments during Oral Communications on Non-Agendized items. On July 19, 2006 staff prepared a staff report outlining the Design Review process currently being used in the City. At this meeting the Council formed an Ad Hoc Committee to review the Administrative Design Review process. On September 6, 2006 the City Council reviewed a staff report containing various suggestions on ways to improve the Administrative Design Review process as recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee. At this meeting the Council directed staff to obtain Planning Commission comments on items that can be implemented without Code amendments and to report back to the City Council within 60 days. The Council also asked that the Planning Commission review the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations that would require Code amendments at a future meeting and make recommendations to the City Council regarding which, if any, of the proposed recommendations should be implemented and with what priority. DISCUSSION: The Ad Hoc Committee (Mayor Norm Kline and Council Member Ann Waltonsmith) reviewed the Administrative Design Review process and came up with several ideas to improve the process. The committee met with the Chair of the Planning Commission, City Manager, and Community Development Director. Staff has determined that some of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee can be implemented immediately at a staff level. The City Council has requested the Commission's comments on these items so that implementation of the items selected for City of Saratoga John F. Livingstone AICP, Community Development Director Review of the Administrative Design Review process September 27, 2006 implementation can begin as soon as possible. Other recommendations of the Ad Hoc committee would require code amendments of varying degrees of complexity. The City Council has requested that the Commission consider these recommendations as the Commission's schedule permits and make a recommendation to the City Council as to which of the potential code amendments should be ` pursued and the order in which staff should address those amendments. The concepts raised by members of the Ad Hoc Committee are presented in the two groups below. The following_policy recommendations can be immediately implemented by staff at the direction of the City Council: Require applicants to submit a proposed set of plans signed by each neighbor saying that the neighbor has reviewed and acknowledged the plans. Section 15-45.070(a)(11) of the Municipal Code gives the Community Development Director the authority to require additional information and exhibits other than the items listed in the Code. (Staff would implement this by requiring statements from all residents within the 250 foot radius noticing area.) 2. Improve the existing Neighborhood Notification Form by highlighting that the plans shown are only preliminary and that the plans are subject to change prior to final approval (See attachment #3 for the improved Neighborhood Notification Form). 3. Require staff to check off on a standard process form that they have visited the site of the proposed project and conducted a list of required activities. For these items, the City Council has requested the Commission to provide an immediate recommendation as to whether they should be implemented by staff either as presented, with modifications, or not at all. The following~ecommendations would require code amendments: 1. Require all Administrative and Planning Commission Design Review projects to have story poles erected a minimum of two weeks prior to a Planning Commission hearing or the mailing of the Notice of Intent to Approve an Administrative Design Review project. 2. Increase the minimum required noticing on Administrative Design Review projects to match the Planning Commission Design Review projects with a 500 foot radius instead of the existing 250 foot radius. 3. Require a neighborhood meeting/Administrative Design Review Hearing conducted by the Community Development Director or designee. 4. Require all applicants to place a 4' x 8' notice with a project description at the proposed project site a minimum of two weeks prior to a Planning Commission hearing or the mailing of the Notice of Intent to Approve an Administrative Design Review project. 5. Improve the existing Design Review findings to require more specific findings including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility and architectural design. One of the issues reviewed by the Ad Hoc Committee was whether applicants should be required to state if they are developers or future neighbors. The concern has been expressed that, as a practical matter and from a sense of neighborly courtesy, neighbors may be less likely to comment on a project if they believe that it will be occupied by the individual proposing the development. If the 2 _ project is then sold, neighbors could be left with objectionable project features that they assumed could be resolved following the design review approval process through informal consultations with the neighbor. Because the design.review standards are applied based on design considerations that S apply regardless of the owner/occupant of the structure, however, the City is not in a position to require applicants to state their plans with respect to future residency. If the Commission believes that this is an issue that the City should attempt to address it could recommend that the Neighborhood Notification Form be revised to note the possibility that the project may not be occupied by the applicant. For these items, the City Council has requested the Commission's recommendations as to (1) which, if any should be implemented, (2) any issues that should, be considered in drafting the proposed ordinance(s) for those that will be implemented, and (3) the order in which the ordinance(s) should be prepared by staff. The Commission may make these recommendations at this time or at a future meeting. Any ordinance that is drafted to implement these recommendations would come back to the Commission for review of its specific terms. FISCAL IMPACTS: The Community Development Department is aself-funded Department. Any work that cannot be charged to an applicant's deposit reduces the department's budget and the number of hours available to work on projects with deposit accounts. I Minor changes to the Neighborhood Notification Form and staff procedures can be accomplished with minimum impact. One or two Ordinance amendments could be accomplished by staff but may delay other proposed code amendments. A complete look at the Design Review Process involving review of the findings and or the Design Review Guidelines would be a significant task and require the Council to make recommendations on the Planning Division work program. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Make no changes to the current procedure. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The agenda for this meeting has been properly posted. All speakers from the City Council meeting have been informed by phone of this meeting. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Current Neighborhood Notification Form 2. Improved Neighborhood Notification Form 3. Breakdown of the current Administrative Design Review process 4. Current Design Review Findings • 3 Attachment 1 ~. , City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: Applicant Name: Application Number:, Stafj"and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this documenf is representative of all residents residing on your property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. OMy signatwe below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone Number: Signature: Printed: SofS 0 ii • Attachment 2 • • PROJECT ADDRESS: Dear Neighbor, City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form DRAFT I am proposing a project at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments. All of the adjacent neighbors and the ,neighbors across the street from the property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard City Notice which will be sent out prior to a decision being made on the project. I ask that you familiarize yourself with the preliminary plans for the project. These plans are PRELIMINARY ONLY and may be changed as the project moves forward. You may contact the City of Saratoga 's Planning Division at any time to review any changes that may occur. The City of Saratoga asks that this form be signed by each neighbor to indicate that they have had an opportunity to review the proposal. Pleasg be advised that these plans are preliminary and may change. If you have further interest in the project, you may contact the City of Saratoga at 408-868-1222 and speak with the assigned project planner. My signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. Neighbor Name: Date: Signature: Neighbor Address: Neighbor Phone #: If I have any initial concerns with the project I may list them below. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Applicant Name:, Application Number: Date: City of Saratoga Planning Department • C, Current Administrative Design Review Process 1. Applicant contacts neighbors to show them the preliminary plans and requests that they sign a Neighborhood Notification Form. 2. Applicant submits an application package to the City of Saratoga. The majority of the requirements in the project submittal list should be included in the _ _ ___ _ application package..- _.. 3. Staff routes the plans to other Departments in the City and'the Fire District, and assigns the application to a project planner. The project planner then checks the plans for code compliance and conducts a minimum of one site visit. During the site visit, the project planner reviews the proposed design of the project and its relationship to the surrounding structures and topography. Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the project planner is required to provide comments to the applicant within 30 days from the application submittal date. I 4. Within the 30-day time period, the project is either deemed complete or incomplete. For most initial applications, the projects are deemed incomplete and the applicant is asked to make code corrections and design changes to the project. This often results in a delay of one to two months while the applicant makes the changes to the project. 5. Once all of the corrections have been made to a proposed project and the project planner feels that the project is consistent with all design review findings, the project planner sends a `Notice of Intent to Approve" to adjacent property owners within a 250-foot radius of the site. The notice states that the project review period is 15 days and that the project planner maybe contacted for details. The notice also states that at the end of the 15-day review period, the project will be approved if there are no concerns raised, and that this approval is subject to a 15- day appeal period. This allows for a total of 30 days before a project is finally approved. 6. The Notice of Approval that is sent to the applicant includes conditions of approval and a discussion of all the required design review findings. Once the 15- day appeal period ends, the applicant may submit the approved plans and the construction drawings to the Building Department. These plans include a copy of the Notice of Approval. 7. During the 15-day review period, there maybe concerns that are brought up by the neighbors. The approval is put on hold while the issues are reviewed by the project planner. The project planner has 15 days from the close of the review period to make a decision on the project. The 15-day appeal period does not start until after the project planner has made a decision on the project. 8. When there is an unresolved issue between neighbors concerning the project, the neighbors are notified of the project planner's decision and are made aware of the option to appeal the decision within the 15-day appeal period. • C, Attachment 4 15-35.100 panty shall be issued until an attested copy of the recorded indenture has been filed with the City. Upon submission of satisfactory evidence that other off-street parkim~ facilities or ot7:street loading facilities have been provided in com- pliancewith the requirements ofthis Article or that the use has ceased or the structure has been removed or altered so as no longer to require the off-street parkin~~ facility or the off-street loading facility, the Planning Commission shall by resolution remove the restriction. 15-35.110 Use for advertising prohibited. (a) Nooft=street parking or loadin~~ facility related to any commercial use in any zoning district shall be used for the stopping, standing or parking of any vehicle for the purpose of advertising such vehicle or any other property or services i'or sale, or displaying any such vehicle for sale. (b) No off-street parking space, driveway or front yard in any residential district shall be used for the stop- ping, standing or parking of any vehicle for the purpose of advertising such vehicle or any other property or services for sale, or displaying any such vehicle for sale; except, that the occupant of said property may park one vehicle owned by such occupart, displayed for sale and bearing a sign not exceeding two square feet in area restricted to the sale otthe vehicle upon which it is posted. Article 15-40 HOME OCCUPATIONS Sections: 15-40.010 General regulations. 15-40.010 General regulations. . All home occupations shall comply with the following regulations: (a) There shall be no stock-in-trade other than prod- ucts manufactured on the premises. (b) A home occupation shall be conducted within a dwelling by an occupant thereof, and shall be clearly inci- dental to the use of the structure as a dwelling. (c) A home occupation shall not be conducted in an accessory structure and there shall be no storage of equip- ment or supplies in an accessory structure or outside the dwelling. (d) There shall be no external alteration of the dwell- ing in which a home occupation is conducted. (e) The existence of a home occupation shall not be apparent beyond the boundaries of the site. (f) Medical offices for doctors, dentists, osteopaths, chiropractors an~ other practitioners of the healing arts are not permitted as home occupations in any A, R-1, HR', R-OS or R-M district. . (g) No person other than a resident of the dwelling . shall be employed in the conduct of a home occupation. (h) A home occupation shall not create any noise, odor, dust, fumes, vibration, smoke or radio or television interference beyond the boundaries of the site. (i) Not more than one truck, of not more than one- half ton capactry, and no-semi-trailers; incidental to a home occupation shall be kept on a site. (j) A home occupation shall not create pedestrian, automobile or truck traffic significantly in excess of the normal amount in the district. (k) There shall be no display of merchandise,.prod- , ucts or other material or equipment for advertising pur- poses. . (I) Professional or administrative offices wherein, clients or prospective clients are regularly met upon the premises shall not be permitted as home occupations in~ any A, R-l, HR, R-OS or R-M district. This prohibition shall not apply to the stile of dwelling units out of a tempo- rary office established in a model home when properly authorized by a use permit: (Amended by Ord. 71.98 §§ 8, 9, 1991; Ord. 71.113 §§ 7, 8, 1992) Article 15-45 DESIGN REVIEW: SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING Sections: 15-45.010 Purposes otArticle. 15-45.020 Compliance with development standards. 15-45.030 Allowable floor area. 15-45.040 Setbacks. 15-45.045 Creek protection setbacks. 15-45.050 Underfloor clearance. 15-45.055 Residential Design Handbook. 15-45.000 Requirement Tor design review; public hearing. 15-45.065 Administrative design review. 15-45.070 ~ Application requirements. 15-45.080. Design review findings.. 15-45.085 Otf--site improvements. 15-45.090 Expiration of design review approval; extension; tolling of time period. • • (Saratoga Supp. No. 4, e-oa~ 346 15-45.D30 • • .7 ~S_g5,100 Replacemem of destroyed structures. ]5-45.110 Appeals to City Council. 1~_g5,010 Purposes of Article. ]t is the policy of the Ci~~ to review the proposed con- struction or significant expansion ofsingle-family dwell- ingsand certain accessory structures under circumstances v,~here such structures have the reasonable potential to con- stitute an invasion of privacy, unreasonable interference with views, light or air, or create adverse impacts upon the aesthetic character of neighboring residential structures. The purpose of this Anic)e is to establish standards and procedures to be followed with respect to the design re- view of single-family dwellings and certain accessory structures to ensure that new development occurs in a manner. which is consistent with the objectives of this Chapter and the policies of the General Plan. (Amended by Ord. 22l ~ 2 (pan). 2003) ]5_45.020 Compliance N~ith development standards. Nosingle-family main structure or accessory structure shall be constructed or significantly expanded within any A. R-l, HR. R-OS or R-M district unless the proposed structure or expansion complies with the floor area stan- dards contained in Section 15-45.030 of this Article and the setback requiremems contained in Section 15-45.040 of this Article. ]n the event of a conflict between the floor area and setback requirements in Article 15-45 and the standards set forth in the R-OS zone district. the more re- strictive standard shall govern. For the purposes of this Article, the terms "significantly expanded or "significant expansion" shall mean an expansion exceeding one hun- dred square feet. The Planning Commission shall have authority to grant a variance from such regulations pursu- ant to Article I5-70 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. 71.98.§ ]0, 1991; Ord. 71.113 § 9, ]992; Amended by Ord. 221 § 2 (Pan), 2003) 15-45.030 Allowable floor area. (a) Definition. As used in this Article, the term "al- loN~able floor area" means the maximum gross floor area of the main structure (including amp garage constituting a portion thereof, plus any accessory structures. For pur- poses of calculating allowable floor area. an~~ space with an interior height of fifteen feet or greater shall be dou- bled. The allowable floor area is based upon the net site area and slope of the lot and the height of the main struc- ture to be constructed or existing thereon as computed in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Net 347 site aree shall be calculated in accordance with Section 15-Oti.620 of this Code. (b) A9aaimum standards. The standards set forth in this Section art? intended to be maximum figures and the Planning Commission may: in considering any application, require that the floor area be reduced below the applicable standard if such reduction is necessary in order to make the findings prescribed in Section 15-45.080 ofthis Arti- cle. (c) Slope adjustment. )f the average slope of the lot is more than ten percent, the net site area of the lot shall be reduced by a percentage amount based upon the average slope and calculated as follows: A~~erage Slope Percentage of Net Site of the Lot Area to be Deducted 10.01-20% l0% plus 2% for each l percent of slope over 10%• 2001-30% ~0% plus 3% for each 1 percent of slope over 20%• flve130% ~% • V~'here the average slope is a fractional number. it shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (d) Floor area standards. After reducing the net site area by the amount required for the slope adjustment under subsection (c) of this Section, if any, the floor area stan- dard for the lot shall be determined in accordance N~ith the table set forth below: Size of Lot Floor Area (Net Site Area) Standard Less than 5.000 sq. fi. To be determined by Planning Commission 5.000- ] 0.000 sq. fi. 2.400 sq. fi. plus 1b0 sq. ft. for each 1,000 sq. fi. of net site area over 5;000 sq. ft.* 10.001- 15,000 sq. fi. 3 ~00 sq. ft. plus ] 70 sq. fi. for~ach 1.000 sq. fi. olnet site area over 10.000 sq. ft.* 15,001--40,000 sq. fi. 4,050 sq. fi. plus 78 sq. ft. for each l ,000 sq. fi. of net site area over 15.000 sq. ft.* ~ Sarato@a Supp. No. 10, 1 ~-OS j 15-45.030 Size of Lot Floor Area (Net Site Area) Standard 40._00.1-80.000 sq. fi. , 6.000 sq. fi. plus 20 sq. fi. for each 1,000 -- sq. fi. of net site area - over 40.000 sq. fi.' 80.00]-200.000 sq. fi. 6,800 sq. fl. plus ] 0 sq. fi. for each 1.000 __-__ _ _ .... _ fi f • (c) Accessor}~ structures. Accessory structure may be pennined v~~ithin a creek protection setbacks subject to compliance with the special rules as set forth in Section ] 5-50.030. of this Chapter. (d) Location of top of creek bank. The site plans for the proposed new construction shall show the location of the top of the protected creek- bank. "Creek bank" means the sides of a watercourse, the top of which shall be the topographic line roughly parallel to stream centerline sq. . o net site area where the side slopes imerseci.the plane ofgi'ound trav- -.- _. _ ___. ~-- over--80.000 sq. fi.'_ - - -- =--erred-bv the watercourse.-Wheie=creek banks-do not dist- 200.000 + 8.000 sq. fl. is the inguishably end. the City or Santa Clara Valley Water maximum allowable District shall determine the top of such- banks: square footage. (Amended by Ord. 22] § 2 (pan), 2003) 'V~'here division of the net site area by 1000 results in a frac- tional number the product shall be rounded up to the next whole number. (e) Maximum floor area allowed for R-l, HR and A Zone districts. In the Zone Districts listed below the maximum allowable floor area shall be the lesser of the Floor Area Standards or the Maximum Floor Area speci- fied as in the following table: Zone District Maximum Floor Area R-1-10.000 4.400 R-1-12.500 4.830 R- l- ] 5.000 5,220 R• 1-20,000 6.000 R-1-40,000 i,200 HR and A 8.000 (Amended by Ord. 22 ] ~ 2 (pan), 2003) ]5-45.045 Creek protection setbacks. (a) Purpose, application. Where a protected creek passes through or along a building site or is otherwise lo- cated on the site. and in order to provide for the future protection of creeks, including creek banks and riparian habitat. building setbacks for any new construction shall be measured from the top of the creek bank(s) on the site rather than from the property lines of the site. The required setback shall be the minimum setback prescribed for the applicable zoning district. (b) Existing structures. Any existing structure, v~~hich encroaches into the creek protection setbacks. shall be considered nonconforming, and shall be regulated by Article 15-65, Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Any new addition to an existing structure shall comply with the creek protection setback requirements. 15-45.050 Underfloor clearance. Each new single-family main structwe, accessorystruc- tures. or additions thereto. shall be designed to follow the slope of the spte so as to reduce the clearance between ground floor levels and natural or finish grade, whichever measwement is greater, to not more than five feet. This does not apply to amp deck or balcony above ground floor level. (Amended by Ord. i ] -106 ~ 8, 1992; Ord. 7l -178 F 3, 1998; Amended by Ord. 221 ~ 2 (pan), 2003) . 15-45.055 Residential Design Handbook. All projects for the construction or expansion of a sin- ele-family main structure or an accessory structwe shall be consistent with the policies and implementation techniques described in the. City of Saratoga Residential Design Handbook. The Residential Design Handbook embodies and illustrates the intent of the design review findings pre- scribed in Section 15-45.080 of this Article. A copy of the Residential Design Handbook shall be kept on file and available for public review at the offices of the Cotttmu- nii\>Development Director. The Residential Design Hand- book was adopted by the City Council on November 2, 1988. (Amended by Ord. 22l ~ 2 (part), 2003) • C7 (SaraioFa Supp. No. 10, li-OS) '4S 13-43.065 • 15-45.060 Requirement for design review; public hearing. (a) In each ofthe followingcases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction, reconstruction or sig- nificant expansion of asingle-family main structure or accessory structwe in any A, R-l, HR, or R-OS district until such structure has received design review approval by the Planning Commission pursuant to this Article: (1) Any neH~ multi-story main structure or multi-story accessory structure. (2) Any conversion of a single-story strunure to a multi-story structure, except where such conversion does not result in any exterior modifications to the existing structure be;~ond the installation of s1,~-lights in the roof. (3) Any new single-story structure or addition to a single story structure over eighteen feet in height. (4) Wrhenever design review is specificall~~ required under the terms or conditions of any tentative or final sub- division map, use permit, variance or conditional rezoning. (5) Any main structure to be constructed upon a lot having a net site area of less than five thousand square feet. (6) V~rhenever, as a result of the proposed construc- tion, reconstruction or expansion, the.gross floor area ofall structures on the site will exceed six thousand square feet. (7) Whenever, in the opinion of the Communing De- velopment Director, the construction, reconstruction or significant expansion of a main or accessory structure may be incompatible with the neighborhood, or ma;~ create a perception of excessive mass or bulk or may unreasonably interfere with views or privacy, or may cause excessive damage to the natural environment, or may result in exces- sive intensification of the use or development of the site. (8) Whenever as a result of reconstruction, replace- ment or expansion of a single stony structure over eighteen feet in height or multi-story main or accessory structure more than fifty percent of existing exterior walls are re- moved. The reconstruction of more than fifh~ percent of the existing exterior walls of a single story structure over eighteen feet in height or a multi•sto>1~ main structwe or an accessory structure shall be processed as new construction and considered a new structwe. (b) A public hearing on the application for design review approval under this Article shall be required. No- tice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thim~ days prior to the date of the hear- ing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest a~~ailable assessment roll of the County as oH~ning propem~ tt~ithin five hunared feet of the boundaries of the site which is the subject of the application. Notice of the public. hearing shall also be pub- lished once in a newspaper having general circulation in the Cit)~ not later than ten da;~s prior to the date of the hearing. (Amended by Ord. 7l .98 ~ 11, ] 991; Ord. 7l.] 13 F l0, ] 992; Ord. 7l • ] 79 § ], ] 998; Amended by Ord. 22l § 2 (part), 2003) 15-45.06 Administrative design review. (a) ]n each of the following cases, no building permit shall be issued for the construction, reconstruction, re- placement or significant expansion of asingle-family structure or structure in-any A, R-1, HR, or R-OS district until such structure has received administrative design review approval by the Communip~ Development Director, pursuant to this Article: (1) New> single-story residences and accessory swc- tures greater than two hundred fifty square feet in.~oss floor area. (2) Major additions in siu, defined as: (A) The expansion or reconstruction o!, fifty percent or more of an existing main or accessory structure. (B) A one hundred square feet or .greater addition to or reconstruction of one hundred square feet or moze ofthe second stoq~ of a main or accessory structure. (C) The removal and replacement of fifty percent or more of the exterior walls of a main or accessory structure. The reconstruction of more than fifty percent of the exist- ing exterior walls of a structuTe'or an accessory structure shat) be processed as new construction and considered a new structure. (3) Addition of a basement to an existing structure and enlargemem ofbasemetxs. ' (b) The application for administrative design, review approval shall comply With Section 15-45.070. The Com- munity Development Director shall not grant .design re- viewapproval unless the Endings set forth in Section ]5- 45.080 have been made. (c) ]f.the Community Development Director intends to approve the application, a "Notice of ]ntent 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 parries will have fifteen calen- dar days from the date of the "Notice of ]ntent to Ap- prove'' in which to review the application and provide written comments to the Communing Development Direc- tor. The Communiq~ Development Director shall approve or deny the application within fifteen days of the close of the review period and shall mail notice of the decision to the applicant and to any party that has requested a copy of such notice. The Communing Development D'irector's de- cision is appealable to the Planning Commission within ;49 (Sara~o~f Sapp. No. 6, 3.04) 15-45.065 fifteen calendar days ofthe D'irector's decision to approve the application. The Planning Commission at a public bearing will review any appeal. Notwithstanding. Section l 5-45. ] l 0 or Section l 5-90.020, the decision of the Plan- ning Commission on the appeal shat] be final and not sub- ject to appeal to the City Council. (d) if the application is not approved by the Commu- nih~ Development Director, then the applicant may file an appeal within fifteen calendar days ofthe Community De- velopment Director's decision or deadline to render a deci- sion and have the application heard by the Planning Com- mission at a de novo public hearing. (Amended by Ord. 221 ~ Z (part), 2003) ~;-45.070 Application requirements. (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Community Development Director on such form, as he shall prescribe. The application shall include the following exhibits: (1) Site plan showing (i) propem~ lines, (ii) easements and their dimensions, (iii) underground utilities and their dimensions, (iv) structure setbacks, (v) building envelope, (vi) topography; (vii) species, trunk diameter at breast height (DBH as defined in Section 15-50.020(8)); canopy driplines; and locations of all heritage trees (as. defined in Section 15-50.020(1), trees measurin8 at ]east ten inches DBH, and all native trees measuring at (east six inches DBH on the propem~ and H~ithin one hundred fifty feet of the property, (viii) areas of dense vegetation and (v;) ripar- ian corridors. (2) A statement of enerp~ conserving features pro- posed for the project. Such features may include, but are not limited to, use of solar panels for domestic hot Water or space heating, passive solar building design, insulation beyond that required under State law, insulated W~indow-s, or solar shading devices. Upon request, the applicant shall submit a solar shade study if determined necessary by the Communing Development Director. (3) Elevations of the proposed structures showing exterior materials, roof materials and window treatment. (4) Cross sections for all projects located on a hillside lot, together with an aerial photograph of the site if re- quested. by the Community Development Director. (S) Engineered grading and drainage plans, including cross sections if the structure if the structure is to be con- structed on a hillside lot. (6) Floor plans that indicate total gross floor area, determined in accordance with Section ] 5-06.280 of this Chapter. (7) Roof plans. (8) Landscape and irrigation plans for the site, show- ing the location of existing trees proposed to be retained on the site, the location of any proposed replacement trees, the location and design of landscaped areas, types and quantities of landscape materials and irrigation systems, appropriate use of native plants and water conserving ma- terials and irrigation systems and.all other landscape fea- tures. (9) 'free, Preservation Plan, as required in Section 15- 50.140. ~ (]0) Preliminar;~ title report showing all parries having any interest in the property and any easements, encum- brances and restrictions; which benefit or burden the prop- erty. (1 l) Such additional exhibits or information as may be required by the Community Development Director. All exhibits shall be drawn to.scale, dated and signed by the person preparing the exhibit. Copies of all plans to be submined sNa11 consist of two sets drawn on sheets eight- een inches by twenty-eight inches in size and fifteen re- duced sets on sheets eleven inches by seventeen inches in size. (12) A geotechnical clearance as defined in Section 15- 06.325 of this Code, if required by the Ciry Engineer. (a) The application shall be accompanied by the payment of a processing fee, in such amount as established from time. to time by resolution of the City Council. (Amended by -Ord. 22 ] § 2 (pan), 2003; Ord: 226 ~ 2 (pan), 2003) 15-45.080 Design review findings. The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless it is able to make the follov.~ing findings: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered With reference to: (i) the nature and aocation of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods: and (ii) community view sheds v~~i11 avoid unreasonable interference ~+~ith viev-~s and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural land- scape H-i11 be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimi2ing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appear- ance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Preserve native and heritage trees. A11 heritage trees (as defined in Section 15-50.020 (] )) will be pre- served.All native trees designated for protection pursuant to Section ] 5.50.050 will be preserved, or, given the con- • f5ara~ogt Supp. No. G,?d)4) 3SO 15-45.100 straints of the property, the number approved for removal veil] be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal of an~~ smaller oak trees deemed Lo be in good health by the Zity Arborist will be minimized using the criteria set forth in _,__ -Section ]5-50:080-- -- -- - - -- ---...- (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to struc- tures on adjacent lots, and to the surrounding region, Hill -- -=__====~riinimiie-the-perc~ptton of-excessive=bu-lk-and will be in- - tegrated into the natural environment. (e) Compatible bulk and height The proposed main or accessor;~ structure wit) be compatible in terms of bulk and height ti~ith (i) existing residential structures on adja- cent lots and those within the immediate neiehborhood and v~~ithin the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural envi- ronment; and shall not (i) unreasonabl;~ impair the light and air of adjacent properties nor (ii) unreasonably impair the ability of adjacent properties to utilize solar energ,-. (~ Current grading and erosion control methods. The .proposed site development or grading plan incorpo- rates current grading and erosion control standards used by the Ciry. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the . applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook and as required by Section ] 5-45.055. (Amended by Ord. 71.99 § 27, l 991: Amended by Ord. 221 ~ 2 (pan), 2003: Ord. 226 ~ 2 (pan). 2003) ]5-45.085 Off-site improvements. The findings specified in Section 15-45.080 may be made subject to conditions reasonably related to the pro- ject and Lo the findings required for approval. Conditions ma;' include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Construction or repair of curb, guners and side- walks. (b) N'ater or sewer main extensions. (c) Storm drain installation. (d) Dedication of property or easements for utilities, street lighting, public right-of--way, trails, etc. (e) lnstallation of street trees. (f) Completion of street widening paving to property line. (g) Repair or reconstruction of street paving prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (h) Undererounding of existing overhead utilit~~ lines from closest exiting distribution pole Lo the new structure. (i) Jmprovements to water delivery systems as re- quired by the Fire District or V1'ater Company to ensure both adequate domestic and fire flow. (j) lnstallation of fire hydrants as required by the Fire District. (Amended by Ord. 221 ~ 2 (pan), 2003) 15-45.090 Expiration of design review __ __ ___ _ _- approval; extension; tolling of time period: (a) Each design review approvals granted pursuant to this Article shall expire thirty-six months from the date on which-the-:approval_became- effeeti_ve,_unless prior to such expiration-date a building permit is issued and construction commenced. If such building permit expires,. and the Building Official does not renew the building pet3rtit within one hundred eighty days after expiration, the De- sign Review approval shall expire. (b) A design review approval may be extended for a period of twelve months by the Community Developn~tent Director. An)~ application ;or extension shall be filed prior to the expiration date, and shall be accompanied by the payme~tt of a fee in such amount as established from time to time by resolmion of the Ciry Council. Extension of design review approval is not a maner of right and the approving authorii`~ ma~j deny the application or-grant the application subject to conditions. Neither the period of time specified in subsection (a) of this Section nor any extension period shall include the period of time during which a lawsuit involving the approval or conditional ap- proval of the desien review is or v~~as pending in a coup of competent jurisdiction. (c) A design review approval in conjunction with an approved tentative subdivision map or approved use per- mit, or both, may be extended for a period or periods of time not to exceed the time authorized under Section l4- 20.080(b) or Section 1~-SS.U90(b) of this Code, respec-. Lively. The application for ea7ension shall be filed in the manner prescribed in, and shall be;eview~ed in accordance N~ith the standards set forth in, Section ]4-20A80(b) or Section l 5-55.090(b) of this Code, respectively. (Amended by Ord. 71-1 ] 9 § l (pan),1993, Amended by Ord. 22l ~ 2 (pan), 2003) 1~-45.100 Replacement of destroyed structures. In the event an existing single-family dwelling having a i'ross floor area in excess ofthe standards set forth in Sec- tion ]5-45.030 of this Article or setbacks which are less than required under Section l 5-45.040 of this Article, is damaged or destro~~ed as a result of fire, act of God or other calami>,- (except for landslide, earthquake, earth movement, soil instabilit;~ or flood), the structure ma~~ be replaced with a nevi structure having a maximum .gross 1Joor area no greater than the original stntcture and set= backs no less than the original structure. If design review S J (Sara~oga Supp. Ne. ;. 6-04) • • • _ .' 15-45.100 a royal is re uired for the ro osed re lacement struc- PP q P P P ture, the provisions of this Section shall be applied in lieu of the standards set forth in Sections 15-45.030 and 15- 45.040 of this Article. In all other respects. the replace- ment structure shall comply with the regulations of this Chapter. including the regulations pertaining, to structure height and impervious cover. 15-45.110 . __..__Appeals to Cih' Council. Except as otherwise specified-in ifiis Article; a decision or determination made by the Planning Commission under this Article may be appealed to the City Council in accor- dance with the procedure set forth in Article 15-90 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. 22l ~ 2 (pan). 2003) Article 15-46 DESIGN REVIEW: MULTI-FAMILY DV1'ELLINGS AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES Sections: 15-46.010 15-46.020 Purposes of Article. Requirement for design review; public hearing. 15-46.030 Application requirements. 15-46.035 Creek protection setback. 15-46.040 Design criteria. 15-46.050 Expiration of design review approval; extension; tolling of time period. 15-46.060 Appeals to Cih' Council. 13-46.010 Purposes of Article. The purpose of this Article is to preserve the natural beaui\! of the Cif`' and to enhance the aesthetic qualities of its multi-famiJ;' and commercial districts b~~ requiring de- sign review of nev~~ structures and certain expansions of existing structures. 15-46.020 Requirement for design review; public hearing. (a) In each of the follov~'ing cases. no building permit shall be issued until the proposed improvements have re- ceived design revieN~ approval by the Planning Commis- sion pursuant to this Article: (1) Amy new main structure.in an R-M, P-A or C district. (2) Any expansion over five hundred square feet to an existing main structure in an R-M, P-A or C district. (3) Any substantial exterior alteration: as determined by the Planning Director. to an existing structure in an R-M. P-A or C district. (4) Any addition over twenty-two feet in height to an existing main or accessory structure in anR-M, P-A or C district. (5) Any parking lot in an R-M, P-A or C district cov- ering an area of one thousand square feet or greater. (6) Any structure, except asingle-family dwelling or -"accessory structure: having a gloss floor area of one thou- sand square feet or greater, located in an A, R-1, HR or R-OS district. (b) A public hearing on the application for design review approval under this Article shall be required. No- tice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hear= ing by mailing. postage prepaid. a notice of the time and.. place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning propem~ within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the site upon which the structure, ex- pansion, alteration. addition or parking lot is to be con- structed. Notice of the public hearing shall also be pub- lished once in a newspaper having general circulation in the Cii`~ not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. (Amended b_v Ord. 71.98 ~ 12, ] 991: Ord. 7l .1 ] 3 §]1,1992) ' 15-46.030 Application requirements. (a) Application for design review approval shall be filed with the Planning Director on such form as shall be prescribed. The application shall include the following exhibits: (]) A site plan showing propem' lines, easements, dimensions. topography, and the proposed layout of all structures and improvements including, where appropriate. driveways, pedestrian walks, parking and loading areas. landscaped areas. fences and walls, and the species, trunk diameter breast height (DBH as defined in Section l5- 50.020(g)), canopy driplines, and locations of all heritage trees (as defined iri Section l 5-50.020(1)), trees measuring at least ten inches DBH, and al] native trees measuring at least six inches DBH on the property and within one hurt-. dyed fifty feet of the property. The site plan shall indicate the locations of entrances and exits and the direction of traffic flow imo and out of parking and loading areas. the location and dimension of each parking and loading space, and areas for turning and maneuvering vehicles. (2) Architectural dra~~ings or sketches showing. all elevations of the proposed structures as they will appear upon completion. All exterior surfacing materials and their (saraioFa Supp. No. '.6-04j 352 • • •