Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-10-2006 Planning Commission Packet
l , 0 `~'`~ q~,~~~Q1 CITY OF SARATOGA - REQ TO D , SS THE P N NG C0IVIMISSION NAME ADDRESS ._ . SUBJECT ~ ~~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE ELEPIH0~3E 1~'n.-------" TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT `-7 _ / /~ ~~ (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADD1zESS 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 ofthe 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 ADDI~55 SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO.~ TIME OF DAY CARD iS DATE OUT TELEPHONE NO. (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 1Vo 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 ~Q„ ~`~G ~~,~,, ADDRESS lrl~h LIGt ~i, SUBJECT ~-' ~ ~~ AGENDA ITEIVI NO. I DATE l6 y TELEPi-IONE NO. TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT (Please read instructions on reverse side) ANY PERSON DESIRIIV`G 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 Tilled out. You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct ofpublic business is appreciated. CITY OF SARATOGA REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION NAME~~~ ~alL fJ~~J Ai)DRESS ~ f a 9/ SUBJECT S~A~ ~~ AGENDA ITEM NO. DATI/ TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT TELEPHONE NO. 7 y~._~e ~ ~ jPlease 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 prore'ss 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 /ti'~ JBl~ ,~3"r' ADDRESS SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM NO TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT TELEPHONE NO.~~' p~ (Please read instruc#ions 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 ~ ~ ~-~-~ ~`~.~ ~ Gt~~o ADDRESS 1~ ~!/ ~1~ f~ ~~) ~ ,y2 ~. ~ - AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE ~ li oL TELEPHONE NO. ~~.~' ~ ~` TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT ~ r ~~ ~~-, (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 wel~comc 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, October 10, 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 #06-430 BRYANT 14195 Saratoga Avenue 2. APPLICATION #07-086 PRASAD 12860 SARATOGA-SiJNNYVALE ROAD 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 project or 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: Tuesday, October 10, 2006, 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 4, 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, October 11, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA J f ~l • PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Therese M. Schmidt, AIC Associate Planner MEETING DATE: October 10, 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, changes are proposed to the existing Land Use Element and Map to reduce and simplify land use administration. 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 This item was properly posted. 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 members of the public attending the meeting. No comments made during the Study Session by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carved through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. /'larenirtg Ccnnntiss~icrrr Stu.~ty Sessi~rn ?t•te~nzvraniluna 2 ~~: ` _~'~' General flan t ~~x~a, e -- I lb~ 10;'Q6 ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Land Use Element 2) Draft Open Space/Conservation Element 3) Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations Table w/Exhibits 4) Public Comments .~~T~-""`-K / Attachment 1 -_,~.. _... ._..,_ c ~ of SAR9 ~O iu _ a i i ~; C91'IFOR~S~ DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT • AUGUST 25, 2006 PREPARED BY: LINGO-MCCORMICK CONSULTING TERRY HAAG, URBAN PLANNER r ~ ~~ t~ / ~q SA~~~ ~'q O J.. y t ~~~C9LIFOA~1 Draft Land Use Element Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 2 LAND USE PLAN 11 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-I 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 Saratoga General Plan i August 25, 2006 of 6ARR~ :G~ .:- . "-.-' O C9tIFOR~'~,, Draft Land Use Element INTRODUCTION Purpose Saratoca's low density residential land use pat- tern is well-established and unlikely to chance. This Element describes the history of land use planning_in Saratoga discusses the maior issues that face the Citv and presents the coal and strate 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 housinc, business, open ,aces civic and other uses. It also in- cludes standards for population density and land use intensity for the various types of ]and 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 Saratoca. Relationship to Other Elements AccordinG to State Planning Law, each Element is distinct and all the Elements tocether com- rise the General Plan. All Elements of the Gen- eral Plan are interrelated to a degree. and certain goals and policies 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 stronG basis for implementation of plans and procrams, 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 planninc takes into consideration housing needs identified in the Housing Element. natural and manmade hazards and development constraints identified in the Safety Element. and the open space and conservation goals and strategies that are out- lined in the Omen Space/Conservation Element. Alternatively the other Elements ensure that infrastructure utilities and public facilities are available to accommodate planned land uses, and that the unique dualities of Saratoga are safeguarded and enhanced. Finally, a circulation plan is established in the Circulation Element to accommodate increased traffic from planned uses in accordance with the Land Use Element. • • • Saratoga General Plan 1 August z5, Luuti Y ~ri~ o{ SA7t,g ti~ ~~Q ;V Y Ines P'~' `•09ZIFOR~1j BACKGROUND Regional Setting Draft Land Use Element The Citv 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 peninsula. The north south and easterly portion 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 westerlX portion occupies low-lyine foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains and is ad- jacentto unincorporated properties within Santa Clara Countv. Major regional access to the community is pro- vided by State Route 85 (SR-85). a six-lane freewa~linkin~ 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 Coun .Local roadways linking Saratoga 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 Saratoea. Saratoga's Planning Area Saratoga's Planning Area consists of all proper- ties located within the incorporated boundary of the CitX, 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 a~- proximately 4 square miles of unincorporated lands that are anticipated ultimately to be an- nexed bX the Citv. ~'~~ ~~ w{' ~ C•M ~r -k;. T, f. `: ,~ , . ~ ' .' r~,~,~~ y~ ~ ~ ~~. ,r ~u-~ Figure LU 2 depicts Saratoga's Planning Area. Saratoga General Plan 2 August 25, 2006 ~ of SAR9 T rJ` y O9 j ~eaa t' ~ ~~.C9tIFORT~1~, Draft Land Use Element R 0 _n 0 p Q ea ~ ~ '~ ~ Hoalds• ~~ ~~~ ~~ burg R~ 1L'~ .~` 1 ~,,, ~j Santa ~~ Rosa Sacramento ~;~ ~ ~ J (1 /Sf~' Nouato ~' Z~ ~ ~.~ ,` _J San ~ Berkeley ~ 5 !~'J`~- gam, klantl I ~ G~ ~Frenasx ~ ~t Q Stockton p ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ j , h, ~ ~ \ Motlesto Palo ~. l Alto Sunny- i vale San Santa Jose `> Clara SARATOGA ~ I Los ~~ Scott's Gatos g~ Valley q 4 Merced Q \ Santa Cruz n S Gilroy +~ - ~ y~ Los Banos Watson- S a villa Hollister Salinas /~v/ Monterey Exhibit LU-1 REGIONAL LOCATION 0 1G 2C .~ 40 50 mue: Saratoga General Plan 3 August 25, 2006 ±r ;--- < i • Y i oq SAg9 'Uty Ao9 lase 0/~. °91=.~oR~t~ Draft Land Use Element _ t ~~••~-- ••~ Prospect Road ,.' a ...~ '- l q Cox Avenue l p o 4,den v o .Mt. ko ~ ~ da S, ~/ o ~~~. d ~ ~eP ~e a o 4~ 4°~ `" ~~~c,E ~ i Apendale Avenue t- ! s~_ d • v43y v~~ . ~ 1~ Bigaaslt~ ~a,•CQ s k" afo ~~~d0' g 4 a ro ' ~ • ;~' , 4•+ . ~~ x•.~ .~ m SOURCE: City otSaratoga. July 2006.. Exhibit LU-2 SARATOGA PLANNING AREA City Limit o••-••-•• Sphere of Influence Boundary ----------------• Urban Services Boundary 0 li4 112 1 rtile Saratoga General Plan 4 August 25, 2006 t of SAR9r •R ~~, ,''J ; 9 ~eao ~C?gl'.IFORT1~r', Historical Overview of Saratoea The Citv 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 Hiehwav 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 bass in the redwood forested Santa Cruz Moun- tains Artifacts have been found along Saratoea Creek where the Ohlone Indians camped while on their w~ thro~h the pass to the ocean be- on . 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. lavine out the town of McCartvsville and a post office was established under that name in 1855. The town's brief industrial production, ashort- lived furniture factory gist mill tannery. paper and pasteboard mills, was commemorated in the ost 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 Springs New York led to the renamine of the town to Saratoea in 1865. Pacific Coneress 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 imaee lingered through succeedine tears even as agriculture 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 broueht to a close with the valley's rapid urbanization fol- lowi~ World War II. Draft Land Use Element Saratoga's first "master plan" was adopted in 1969 and a new General Plan was adopted in 1974 The Cif Council updated and adopted a new General Plan in 1983. Local Planning Initiatives Several ,provisions have become part of Sara- toga's~lanning_practice through the initiative rop cess• Initiative Dowers are guaranteed in the Califor- nia constitution and permit citizens to place any legislative matter on the ballot by atg hexing sig- 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 may only be made by a vote of the people. On Apri123 1996 the CitYCouncil 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 neiehbor- hoods. This initiative provides assurance by eivine ,greater stability to the City's General Plan. to protect the residential and recreational open space areas in the City The initiative requires. with certain exceptions a vote of the people to permit General Plan amendments that: (1) re- desi,gnates residential lands to commercial,. in- dustrial or other land use designations, l2) an increase of densities or intensities of residential land use or (3) redesignates recreational open space lands to other land use designation. This initiative does not affect the City's existing re¢ulations 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 6-° ___. r t ~,~ ~~ ~ ~ .. ~~". °9t~FOR~1j 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- toea 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 Objectives of the 1974 General Plan. The Primar~eoal of the initiative was "to con- serve the City's natural rural character" b~or- trolline 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 staff In accordance with the requirements of Measure Ain June 1980 the City Council designated an 11-member Citizens Advisory Committee. The committee began bi-monthlymeetings on June 26 1980 inspecting the Studv Area. reviewing related Cif and County documents and meeting with various experts from responsible agencies and land use consultants. which led to the adop- tion of the Hillside Specific Plan. ~ecific 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 policies 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 Citv 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 azea 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 Saratoga Village as Planning Area J. one of twelve plannin ag reas• and included a policy to develop a specific plan for the Sarato ag Village. incorporating the pre- vious Saratoga 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 Sarato ag 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. Preservingand enhancing the small-scale, pedestrian character of the Village to make the area more inviting to potential shoppers and dinners: 2. Preservingand enhancing the architectural and landscape chazacter of the azea; 3. Improvingpazking and circulation: 4. Encouraging a traditional town center mix of specialty shops. restaurants, conven- ience shops. services and residences: and S. Conserving historic structures. The Sarato ag VillageSpecific Plan establishes land use zoning circulation, parking and design policies and implementation programs that are aimed at implementing these Goals in the preser- Saratoga General Plan August 25, 2006 o{ SAA '.~ 9a0 !UA v= 9 ,esa ,, ; `.09tIFO5t~1j• -,r~_ _. v r Draft Land Use Element vation and improvement of the small-scale. pe- destrian character of the Village. The rezonin~s, dess~n guidelines and parking circulation vro- grams are intended only for the commercial ar- eas aloes 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 ~ecific 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- family on individual lots. Medium density resi- dential uses comTrised primari v of smaller apartment and condominium units. are found near the intersections of Saratoga Avenue and State Route 85 Prospect Road and Saratoga- Sunnvvale Road and adjacent to the downtown "Saratoga Village". Major commercial and shopping_areas include the downtown "Saratoga Village" located alone Bie Basin Way at the intersection of Saratoea- Sun_..yvale Road Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and Sarato~~a Avenue. The downtown azea includes a range of restaurants. specialty retail. professional offices and personal services. Smaller commer- cial areas are located alon S,g arato ag Sunn~e_ 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 Sarato a Civic Center, located on the west side of Fruitvale Avenue and the Saratoga Community Library. located on Sarato a'g Ave- nue near its intersection with Fruitvale Avenue. Saratoga is served by four elementary school districts three huh 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 over- lay other cities. The schools and community college located within the City limits are listed below: Saratoga Union School District • Argonaut School • Foothill School • Saratoga School • Redwood Middle School Cupertino Union School District (serves northern Sarato a • Blue Hills School • Christa McAuli a School Los Gatos-Sazatoga High School District • Saratoga High School West Va]leXColleae There are also three private elementary (K-8) schools and several nursery schools. and day- care centers serving_the Saratoga community. Saratoga is served by a significant amount of ]and 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 city-owned parks and open spaces. as well as. public lands that are owned and operated by Santa Clara Countx Parks and the Mid-Peninsula Open 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 s ...; i ~ of saA9a ki~ ~~ ,t. P c~LIFOR~l~ Draft Land Use Element acres are under Williamson Act contracts. Lands within the hillside areas are e'~ nerally subject to significant constraints such as steep and unstable soils. Saratoga is located in the North Central Flood Zone of the Santa Clara Countv Water District. The creeks in the City that are under District jurisdiction are Calabazas. Rodeo. Saratog. 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 Pian 8 August 25, 2006 et sAR9 4 ?p .~ i ~`. ~ '~tene~ ea,-r4' ~ . •9lIFOR~1j Draft Land Use Element r.~:._..._...~ -~. .-° I I ~ Hillside Specific Plan Area kden~-"- 1 Vd a- (1 of 6 parts) ,~ 2 ~1 '•~ ~ i i ..v+...e.. ,.~......... ~..~..~ .....~......~... i, 0 t t a' ¢~ x 0 0 m SOURCE: City of Saratoga, Juh= 2006. Prospect Exhibit LU-3 SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS City Limit .~::d•~=•-p--= Sphere of Influence ----------------• Urban Services ~~ Specific Plan Boundary t) r,4 ~n ~ trdle I l ~ J Cox n r o ~pQo A ~ ~2 m Saratoga Village Specific Plan ¢ !• Arty ~' s,~a'o ~a .~sc of ~ _ ~~O"a • • r~ Saratoga General Plan 9 August 25, 2006 6 j ..-. ~ o~ SAR9 '~ ~O !u,>, v IB66~ gLIFOA~l~, Draft Land Use Element ~~a ,.,. P _ _ _ _ ~' '~R~~'°~ i T 5 °a/ ~ - b tYdeq~ `` M.• c~ 1 t n g ~ s~ 4oaa s Y. Q•.~QS~'~ i~ ~ ~~ ~~ '~n`Na9 ~ BigBa'`^'''. i a° m 0 k h ~„~~ , o, °x `•,.~ ,..B~....~.........~.....,~,...........~.. o Road m G a w SOURCE: FEMA, Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of Saratoga, 3 July 1997. F~chibit LU-4 FLOODING POTENTIAL City Limit --•••~•••• Sphere of Influence r-...-~-- 100-year Flood Plain (approx. ) o va vz t mle Saratoga General Plan 10 August 25, 2006 Cox '~,~-`' - al 3A~9~ ~ ,~.~ °~ f ` "°` ~ ° ~~ ~' 9LI Draft Land Use Element FOR LAND USE PLAN Land Use Categories ' AVisio~orSaratoQa „~° ; ~ t,~^tr o" .1.,,,... ;.,t~, ~ ~„t, ~? '.1 t; nl l n„`1 t -~ -rl,_ r:_~t n _ntort~r;°~ ~u^ __ „1° A valid and useful General Plan needs to pro- 4' '1 .1 ih.,.," h~,.t;.,,,lt„~nl n.,.l nrtri~„]t„_"1 ~ -----b~, -------------- ----- -a----------- vide a common goal to which the community -- -----~~~=~ ' ---- ""===r------- ---- -="a-- strives. This vision then becomes the touchstone ~ ~'" ''"'°"'""$• ~`-~-~_~ "e=ebc=~ ~'-'-c"'~ which future land use and other decisions are ~~""'"" ''"'°"'""~ "'""'° f°"'"" `~"'°"'"" made. ~rt~~nlt~°'.~^"a-~^ric::?::~'.:.~;-~~' ..__.,.,.,^=.,' Consistent with the Land Use Element goals and t' ' " '= =~ -•==''==°t--c=`' t-'-"t- =~`-=" ='°°° °="'' "- ~, - strate,gies the City's vision of Saratoga is ex- ~sl~'s-c-a~i~ted. 'r''° ° "''' ^ pressed in the followinP statements: " 1*~ f"'"'"" •'°"°'t'°° =-• :----~~~ a;°tr,.t~ 'f th° ~;r°.1 ;~ .1°~;.,.,nr°.1 DTl ~°o;rl°„t;nl nNi ~,"on Where the common good prevails: "~~~____~• _ :ex=~===~T= • Where the natural beauty_o the Ci and its `~ t ""a a°"°'^''"'°"t .,,.,,,1`1 1,° nn,,,==°a-'° hillsides is preserved: tl, ;f .. °.~+ f,.•tl,°~°`I tl,° .,nlo ~,f t],a ' ~ """ -• -»-•--~-~~ ---~ b.,..-.. -- •--- • Where historic assets are preserved and pro- u ^ ~~°"'°^t Th° ~ o"1.nnt°,....~;°o n„d~hn -.j' ., Y- • Where local commerce provides a vibrant presence in the village and the other commer- The Land Use Plan identifies the land use com- cial areas: position throus;hout the Saratoga Planning Area • Where the orientation is toward the family to achieve the desired community character as • Where homes and neighborhoods are safe and expressed in this vision. eace l • Where government is inclusive and values All properties within the Saratoga Planning Area community involvement: have been grouped into land use categories. as • Where desirable recreational and leisure on- shown on the Land Use Map, which is included norruniries are provided: as an inte._gral dart of the Land Use Element as • Where aualiry education is provided and val- Exhibit LU-5. ued,: • Where value is placed on an attractive, well Listed on the following_pages are the land use maintained and well planned community: categories that appear on the Land Use Mao. • Where government provides high quality. ba_ along with the type and intensity of use allowed sic services in a cosy e{fective manner: in each category. Land use densities are per net • Where a small town. picturesque. residential area and net area is eg_nerally defined as the re- atmo~here is retained: mainin$ portion of the gross site area after de- • Where the arts and cultural activities which ducting~ortions within the right-of-way of ex- serve the community and region is promoted: isting_ or future public Streets, private streets. • Where neizhbors work for the common good: easements. quarries or areas which are classified • Where leadership reflects community goals: >~ the City Geologist at "Md" or "Mrf". Imper- vious coverage limitations are intended to mini- • Where because of the foregoing. the citizens mite runoff resulting from development of the amilies of Saratoga can genuinely enjoy and , a Hart of this special community. being parcel Impervious coverage is defined as any _ structure constructed surface that disrupts the aesthetics of the landscape. Saratoga General Plan 11 August 25, 2006 =~ j '~~ oq SAp9Tq~ ru. y gees ~~/ C9t.IFOR~ti~/ ~ ~ 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 permitted 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 azea. 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 (MIO, M12, MIS). acre-or 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 pert 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. Convnercial/O face Commercial land is broken into €e~ two general subcategories. T''° f:..°' '~°~ '~.,a:+;,...'' GVSZ31 v »~vv. v .»........... .. ~~ .. AIitT~' vViZlTrl°v>-GiuiZ["'.c7°o ~T'TFc-cJi u u .: j.:.. +. Th° r,,,,r ~„>,....+°,,,,.-:°~ ~..a +>,o 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 SA~Q { T U4 ~Oq i ~~~~c9LIFORTj1% Draft Land Use Element • i~t~i~ Commercial Retail (CR): ^.~T ~~ ^ c ., rlo .. ,,,,_,,, There are five main commercial areas in the City with this des- nation The main commercial areas in- clude Downtown Big Basin Way (including Neale's Hollow .Argonaut Shopping Cen- ter the Gateway. Ouito Shopping Center and the Center at Prospect and Lawrence (includinng, nearby Big Tree Centerl. These commercial areas serve the community and/or their immediate neighborhood. They are not reeional in orientation and tend to be located in relatively small complexes. Maximum intensity of building coverage is 60% of net site area. with uo to 100% of the net site area allowed in the downtown Vil- 1~. Where a new commercial development is to be located adiacent to or across from an es- tablished sin ,le-family or multi-family resi- dential use appropriate landscape buffers shall be required that are at least equal to the setbacks of the adjacent residential district. No single tenant of said development shall exceed 15 000 square feet of floor area. Professional Administrative (PA): ~.~~ r a~ ^- ~~ ~~ Q „e„.,ler^^~ .The profes- sional administrative office designation gener- ally serves as a transition zone between wm- mercial areas and residential areas in the Citv. The maximum ~'^^~ n ..o., n .,r;., r>: n v ~ .,,,,a intensity of building coverage for this desig- nation is 0.30 A:~9-0f net site area. ~ ~t ~~ }~ ~sE~ ~- ; ,a r o rho o ~ , ..r .- „f;..,,r.,r;.,., .,f rh;~ ' ~ v' ..... .b.. ....... .. lh fvv: 1»r.a r uid° ~ o--c siru ~7cc.7o- ....., 6 c €~e~tag~ D ll~ @~~@ ~'T16 ~3@n~~~~33E~~~~ ~y ~ l~,rh•'----~- -v..,;r l „r 'Z'7 ZZ 4 ., .,le/.,.,moo 7~R .. „re„~; r,. „f 1.,,;1li;.,.. ° ° ~ a c ° i- n vv~ ., ..... .b . ~ oc: °~_° s v : ^ ^ - l o~ v r'v , 7' x xxx~x . .., . . 7 , Y . .Y. 'r ., .,1 ^ `'~i~la L6 yid o :o= ~n-~ r P f rho ~,...;.,,, n,-~l ~ a v ;~~n~o_ In 2004. the Cit~mplemented a residential mixed-use ordinance. which establishes Stan- Bards for mixed use development. Mixed uses are allowed by use permit in commercial and office zones within the City of 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 existine and future commercial development by estab- lishin~ standards to ensure compatibility of ad- joining_commercial and residential uses. The maximum net base density allowed is 20 dwell- ing units der acre excludin dg ensity bonuses for very low-income. ]ow-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 for atwo- bedroom unit. An increase of 10% of the total floor area is permitted for the site. for projects that provide below-market-rate housing Total • • Saratoga General Plan 13 August 25, 2006 i^ r ` of S9A9 ti4 ~Oc J 7 i ,: .aes `. ~ ~~.09LIFOAi~y/ site coverage may also be increased by 10% for ~roiect containing below market-rate housine. Communit~Facilities Sites Cv:zax,urrrc~~ciiiiTlaid'a.,...~ }':~~:°....:::~ '~'.:-- ......_..--a~---- ------ ---- -------- -------- mc9 ~n}nei S1~~E&~@bAf3@S Tl,°~° , ° ,7~ $C-F~~36~-~@lA'd~ All institutional; public and quasi-public uses fall into this cateeorv. Educational uses such as: ....__ -r-- - - 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 az- 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: .,.,,,°~ ~~. _-__---J __ ~_ - _____- -J -_-- - v v v.a ~...av.. w. rv r.. D ~~' ~'°-'~~~*•~'D~'': Public facilities. such as. the Civic Center, the Community Li- brary, a-~ two fire stations and public schools and institutions fi.e. West Valley Colle a are also included in this category. They are institutional uses under govern- ment control ~^''•°~ •'•^~ °^'•^^' ''~°«~~^'°` that provide a public service. R~~la~~^ ~~•°^- J -- off'- ---- J .. .. ,,....,~ «l, ,, .,1, «l,° , ., .::::* ~ .,_c..... Alle~w~le ----~~o-- ---- - - 6~~rn.,t,~;,. ~~.~~:.:°~ inner-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,,.._private schools. the cemetery, the electrical substation, and the Odd Fellows Home. These aze institutional uses that pro- vide apublic service but are not controlled by a publicly elected governing board. ~- 1.,.,.^hl° 1.,,;1.7;.,.. ;.,«°.,~:«,. , .,.7 ~~ All uses or their expansions, includins? buildin intensity, are evaluated through the use permit process and must comkly with criteria indicating their compatibility with adjacent uses. For quasi- public 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. Open ~acelResource Protection Open space land use is broken down into four subcategories. 'T''•° ~~°« f^••~ ^ ° «^L°~ ~ ^-~ «^l,°„ ~..,,.,, «l,° c^.,«^ rl^,.^ rte,,,,~«„ n°..°,.^t D]°., n~°~ C.,^..° 1~1°..,°..« .,f «h;~ !`_°„°~^1 Dl.,,,.-The density and intensity of the uses permitted in these subcategories aze as follows: Saratoga General Plan 14 August 25, 2006 d~ is .. ^~.~~ BAj~gl. ;~ `.°~ '~' ;"i-w "^..7 ~~ , i `° 1860 ~~'j Draft Land Use Element 9tIFOIi?~' ~~~ rT ~*~»"*»-°" ~ " rt ~~ r' "a parks and low intensity recreational facili- ~ .~ • +,, ,,. _,.,,, ties, land in its natural state, wildlife refuges and, very low intensity residential develop- s Managed Resource Production (OS-MR). ment. Other support uses related to the uses This designation consists primarily of the already listed may also be permitted. Al- orchard lands, water' reservoirs and ]ands lowed residential is between 1 dwelling unit that are under Williamson Act Contracts per 20 acres to 1 dwelling unit per 160 acres within-the City: -Single-family dwellings as- based on a slope density formula subject to sociated with agricultural uses aze permitted stringent criteria. These criteria v~ill-~seme at a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per pa#-e€-tl~e apply to the Sphere of Influence 4 acres: Only structures directly related to portion of the General Plan. the maintenance of these open space uses are permitted on the sites within this desig- • Private Ownership (OS-P). The Saratoga nation. Country Club Golf Course is currently the only site that falls under this designation. s-Outdoor Recreation (OS-OR). This subcate- This site includes a significant amount of gory consists of City or County parks or private open space totaling 1000 acres. lands designated for those uses. Only rec- ' • reational facilities (i.e. playground equip- ' T"° nr,~ ,a° a "'D"' D '' " `' ment, recreational courts, etc.), structures '~ ""°`' +" *''° 'r"""°` """""' ~ ' necessary to support the parks or structures ~em4~r;~ + `' a `'"""a' '`'° ""`'''°"'~' of particular historic value are permitted in ~ ~ • ' ~ ~ ' ~ " ' these areas. These sites are considered to be ~s« ' ` '' `' """''"" ' ""'° "" ' 'a r of particular value for recreational purposes. '' ''~ `°"''"""' '""° Some parks preserve significant vegetation features, such as Hakone Gardens and Villa Overall Height Limit Montalvo County Park. No structures in Saratoga shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Saratoga Village boundary (as de- ~~"c ~' fined by the Saratoga Village Area Plan, `~~ (1988). In the Village, structure height will be limited based on compatibility with ex- ~~ ~ *~ T~°c° " "~ isting structures and the natural environ- ment, On sites used for~uasi public uses, a three-storms structure will be allowed pro- vided the slime underneath the three-story area is 10% or more and a stepped pad is ~-Hillside Open Space (OS-H). This designa- used. Resolution 2285 adopted 11/7/85) 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, Saratoga General Plan 15 August 25, 2006 *. i of SAAq~ '+U`'~ G9 4 ~c9LIFOR~1j'. - Draft Land Use Element Exhibit LU-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 the Saratoga Community Development Department) Saratoga General Plan 16 August 25, 2006 of sAR9 q AO .L I ,eea i ~~.09 ,~ Table LU-1 Land Use Cateclories Draft Land Use Element 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%ofsite area, or Single-family dwellings Conservation people/acre 15,000 whichever is less Residential Very.Low _. _ 1.09 du_/ac or 3.38 35% of site azea Single-family dwellings Densi[ people/acre Residential Low Density 2.18 du/net acre or 45% 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 ofsingle-family and multi-family densities and housing Residential or 13.5 - 38.6 peo- types. ]e/acre COMMERCIAL LAND USES Commercial Retail ** 60% of site azea, 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 azea 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 -imited 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- tures of particulaz historic value aze permitted in these areas. These sites are 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 Coun Club Golf Course) Open Space - Man- N/A Consists primarily of orchard lands, water reservoirs and lands that aged Resources are under Williamson Act Contract Only single-family dwellings or structures 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 aslope 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 permitted 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, a thre8-story structure is allowed provided the slope undem the three-story area is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used, •• Mixed residentiaUcotrtmercial uses are permitted 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 cone-bedroomunit-1,250 sq. ft for a two-bedroom unit), with an increase of 10% of the total floor area permitted for the site, for projects that rovidebeiow-market-rate housin .Total site cov a ma also be increased b 10% for a ro'ect containin below market-rate housin • • • Saratoga General Plan ~ 17 August 7, 2006 of S9g9 J ~ ~O7 ," 1 ' ~ ~ie88 A/ `.09trFOA~~~ LAND USE ISSUES :7 The following land use conditions also apply to special situations within Saratoga. Height Limitations In 2002, at the request of the Saratoga Woods Neighborhood. the City Council established asin- gle-stogy limitation for residences in the Saratoea Woods Neighborhood. This neighborhood is eg ner- 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 Neieh- borhood two-stories are permitted but no single- fami~ dwelling shall exceed twenty-six feet in eight without a use permit. The Saratoga Woods Neighborhood is shown in Figure LU 6. . econdar~Dwellings Within the residential designation. secondazv resi- dential dwelling units are allowed as a permitted use. The structure itself may require Design Review approval 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 proPert~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 Saratoea, the Cif has adopted an Historic Preservation Ordi- nance to protect its irreplaceable heritage resources. Saratoga General- Plan Draft Land Use Element In 1982 the Heritage Preservation Commission was established by the Citv Council to assist with and encoura a the preservation of Sara- toga's heritaheritage resources, inventor,Lhistoric 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 desi_e- nated two heritage lanes as~local landmazks. 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 alon sg ide Austin Wav. 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 hi way paving to be found. A permit and discretionazv review are required pursuant to the Zoning Or- dinance for encroachments or excavations in the City right-of-way. In addition, the City Council designated Saratoga Avenue between Fruitvale Avenue and 14301 Saratoga Avenue as a Heri- tage I:ane. Saratoga Avenue from Fruitvale to the Villa~g continues to be. as it was in the past, one of the most important entrances to the City 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- taPe Lane require discretionary review pursuant to the Zonin,~~Ordinance. A list of local historic landmarks and heritage lanes is available in the City's Community De- velopment Department. 18 August 7, 2006 4 °t 8A$'gT ,~ O ;ti ' Q ~ ~: `°ieao /r C9tIFOR~l~' Draft Land Use Element r,_....._...._...,~ S ...~ I _._ ~ .. I -"~" •. ~~ g,de~? ~e a i ~oaa f cc ~~~~ 4 t t~ ~1a9 E Bib' Ba~L"'P 0 r U g x 0 m 0 C c cn m 0 U Q a ~r ~' ago s~ ~dQ. ~'=~ r ~• ~~hs~...~•..a...~.....~........ •..... ~~.. r...~ ~+^•. r.~ Road ve P ~~ Saratoga m a SOURCE: City of Saratoga, July 2006. Exhibit LU-6 SARATOGA WOODS OVERLAY AREA City Limit --••-•••-•• Sphere of Irrfluence Boundary ~~ Sutxiivision Boundary 0 li9 12 1 mile V~ • • • Saratoga General Plan 19 August 7, 2006 S~ of SAA9~ O U~:-. 'S9 ;`siege. ,:.~ %, CgtIPORTy1 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 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road. • The Saratoga Foothill Club, located at 20399 Park Place. • The Saratoga Toll Road, generally located at the be ig nning of Third Street and Big 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 (,a)S1) 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 la) (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 Sarato ag_ Plan- ning Area that would be affected by the Land- Use Element. Draft Land Use Element Solid and Liguid 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 nearly built out, except for hillside areas, there has been little new housing construction over the past 25 years. other than demolition and replacement of existin hg ousin sg lock. According to the State of California Department of Finance. Saratoga'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 by the Association of Bay- Area Governments (ABAG) 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 onlyprojections and actual population may change somewhat due to local economic and other conditions or constraints. En~eplovment Trends Saratoga's predominant low-density residential pattern provides limited employment opportuni- ties. There are no industrial or manufacturing 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- lece, schools and the City Government Center. This trend is not expected to chance. Saratoga General Plan 20 August 7, 2006 o~ SA$R . ~~4 Tp -, °9LZ~aR~~~ `~ 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 City to approve amendments to the Land Use Element ~ to four times per calendar year. The Land Use-Element is implemented throueh a vari- ety 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 Zonine Ordinance classifies properties within the community into a series of zoning districts. each containing a list of permitted and condi- tionall}~ermitted land use. development reeu- lations and provides for review of individual development applications to ensure consistency with the and Zoning Ordinance. Snecif~c Plans California Government Code allows cities and counties to admit Specific Plans for portions of a communi~ that provide amid-level land use regulation for lands governed by the Specific Plan Current_y the Citv 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. Des~n Guidelines Saratoga has adopted Design Guidelines for The Saratoea Village Specific Plan area and for commercial Rroperties in the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Gateway District located along Saratoga-SunnXvale 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 Trovide direction for the design of mixed-use ~roiects that introduce a compo- nent of residential uses within the Gateway District. as provided for in the General Plan Housi~ Element. Area Plans Twelve Area Plans have been adopted ad- dressin~ development. infrastructure and other issues within distinct sub-areas of Saratoea. 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 portion of Santa Clara County into the City of Saratoga. To be considered for annexation, properties must be located within the boundazies of the adopted Saratoga Sphere of Influence. Upon annexation the City 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 a~ r~~ Dyed b~ the Santa Clara County Local Ag_encXFormation Commission (LAFCO). Capital Improvement Program . The Citv of Saratoea has adopted a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 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 Cif must find that the CIP is con- sistent with the General Plan the prior to adoption of the CIP. • Saratoga General Plan 21 August 7, 2006 ' of 3A~9 ^~ ~O :L ' .o ~oa~ ~ gLrFOR~IA GOALS AND STRATEGIES Draft Land Use Element a&}}~ ~S@-v~'~~vulr ~ D~,1; „a T... to „rot'~,~, Y T , , cxvrr-rrrcaS'siicS-c'a c :.... •,•-rM„r n.-r ~F the T ~.,.a TT lrle...e.,t ;., rhnr rho„ .,Ff ~ ~ ..;4:..~ r., hol„ c.,~ ~.~..._-.- --- ----- ----~ ----- -r~------ -- ----r n.l .,1;.. nLe saxo°c cxzxi@iao ° Y J m wui lr evprl'rci°c of i"~t°ci:c~a A.lh r rho n,~1.,.,to~Cor~t~an_C„l,or~_~,f~..r,,,o.+~o T rl h 11 .,r ho ,.011 r~, Cn~nr~, ,,,lncr_thn.. ncsizv-vrnixx-rfvc vv aixix°c bn J r' r.. rh astir,,, n;ra, lim;ra_n .1 ;r ; mrcrnirr6tR~'s'sS-cv cn°c :.........b .y .................... "b nl~ ~hnll ho of„11 ~r„~l'od xzzxxrcicu~cxv^irpi vp o ° j' T('; t. ~hnll ,rnlxi t 't .~1 inxantwd_i b Y „nr;hlo ,;rh the (`~„ „t.,'~ _I_~-. ~1 ~ .,, r ~ x-r cxz~.' 1~ t' ass ,Y,,,z;rn .,.._IT AF,IVI\ Del: .1 to Fes: ' '.::: ...i . cicTaxxcrcrrcu~zppivpiiccc »,.......» ».. ». TiiyzPlzczizc-iriucivix i:~:.°.»., ». °. 1 t 'f f „•tho~ ror~n..t;.,., :,F ,,.bast. v6}1•A~&~'~@S 3S ~'@gH33'@~ Tho~o ~r,,.l;o~ ~h owrorrxcrrcac-+iici= Lx i~cn ' "rh „l~,l;n l~.e „ hn_ Y „b (` 1 7.'T~T .-rh.:.o~rar+, T];ll~;~o C.,o..;F;.. Dln., . ...,. ___.. _____ ,r zzaixcrc cv cn~~TVZin`,`i@~t°... LT;11~;.1 °. Q ..:f;~.Dl».. ~... » ...t... .. s . o.l he a ., h `h'.: of r• ~rnicirzS-incviPoiucc. ........... j .., ... .°....... h rh e h'~r., ~.hn ..ro .,f tho V;IIn .., ........ ». »..... .. .. »b.. n;r.. ..t;..;t., a~ cxhxcti t F ~ ~ , .,~~+~l D. T~Sii[ii c°ixc„ nbn the .lo :b„nr: r. ..F ho r _ ~a the ..re..r;.. a t .1 hn,,..o.,,o.,r h., rho ~.,. ;~;.,..~ ..F ~ .......... ..J ... 1 .. .. ........... ... e h., ~:.lo„r~ Lo „`1 tho nt ~„ieur- , TAT.,.. ~ o;.7e.,r:n1 .~lo.,el...,...o.,r ~h nll he ..`.,,4;..e.a r., ~:re~' ., .,rl.. .-lo~;...,nro.i .. .. rho 4:.r ,, ~;.lo.,r;nl D..;..r;.,., .. ..;.lor.r;nl D. Tho (';r,..-h..ll ~ e rho 7.,,,;., ,, ll~.a;,,n„~a~o ., 11..... hea ..A h~o..Lf., or e~r., L,l; ..h..,e.. t.. The !'~;r., ~hnll a rho `low .. t., e rh.,r .. ~tr,,..t;.,,. n„~1., ,,, n~l.l;r;.... tho~et„ n ,.nr;hlo ,,,;rh tha o; re n„`1_nd' - - - - ---r --- - Delnre .lo ol., „r „~l :r te ln,,.l ern n..rl .,,,1, c~a~~E i~ ^roiS@ ° 1;.. ~nfot,. T,n.,_ , @3EGvSSi v -r , .,~.lo TF;t ;~ .lote~.,,;r,e.l rhn• a ;mot; ..., ~t~oot~ .,oefl t., ho ,e.l r., n ...lnto n a.+r ,..h , D. D~;.+.- t., ;.,;r:.,l ., .nl the .ae ..;~;.,,, ,...rlr;,r., Saratoga General Plan 22 August 7, 2006 of SAgq~ .,q"ti .; r - ~ O /ti - ' ~ ;o_~ r ` 9L~FO~~y%" -Draft Land Use Element '~ J. r.~l,Jn ith~r~i ~ ,lr' f., ;1, :a°«+; .,1 « : .+r~ „f 1,+ ;rte «~t .,t ,.+~ a° b ' r' r rl, r .1° ~;1,°- r},n_nr,.++„ln+;,.° r~.,ff;.. @i~2@'Sc D. ~uil~, 1 + a ,. ~+ ~a• ter.,«~l~r.l~ +„ ~a~ J T1, '+ .,f ° ;or;.,rt orra°+~ X1,.,11 1,° Y J a r b« ~r rl H rhr~v..l+ .~ 1,° ccrva J o Tl h f +T, ,.,1. ~+Y°°r~ .. °~r;«rt orso.~~l 'riTC c age Tysngivznvrrc'aiivi~ i i° o~ b a .1 f;~...,1 .. ..+;~. r` PeliE3`-1-1- Ti. !'''+ 1, it ;do the ,.+.. „f J ..............---- --- ---- --v ~2 Tl. !~'r 1, 11 &~9pt &~ 6f~ii3&i3e@ 'gin rcrc[si vrrcc~fracc=v ~'~'1- rccisiaiac f r r r The followin,g~oals and implementin strategies have been adopted to ensure that the vision of Saratoga can be achieved. The term "goal" des- ~¢nates a desired end state which the Land Use Element attempts to achieve. The term "strat- e~,y" describes specific methods or actions that the Citv 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 consistence 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 they 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. u • Saratoga General Plan 23 August 7, 2006 ;~~ at seA9~oc OJ 9 -' mae ~ i~ °gl~FOR~S~ Draft Land Use Element Cona~nercial. Office, 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) 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__analvses _for_ma~ 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. (Exis;ing Policy LU 7.2) Strategy LU 2.2: Non-residential anc-l-in~ 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 Citv shall work with commercial property owners and merchants to encourage appropriate modernization and up- rg ading of retail establishments consistent with the historic character of the community to pro- vide .Rleasant shopping experiences. Strategy LU Z.S: The City shall monitor Zon- ing_Ordinance standards to ensure that non- residential_..parking standards are adequate to minimize -pill-over of parking into adjacent neighborhoods. Goal LU 3: Promote the long-term fiscal soundness of the City of Saratoga through careful analysis of 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 tape of land needed for City and quasi- public uses and facilities through the annual City budgetary process and Canital_Im- rovement 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 i~ial 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 „y °~ saAgA ~ ~ I ~~`C9LIF0$~S This may be accomplished throu hg completion of traffic impact analyses 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 mit~ated 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 process ensure that adioinin nei hg bor- 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 appronriate land use and related nroerams. Stratp¢~ LU 6 1• Incorporate specific stan- dards and requirements into the Zoning Ordi- nance tomreserve and protect sensitive water- shed areas on hillsides within the community. Strateev LU 6 2: Development proposals shall zcorporate stormwater quality features. in- cludine but not limited to. grassy bio-swales. to protect surface and subsurface water quality. 5trategv LU 6 3: Continue to implement the City's -onstruction Materials Recycling Pro- gram to reduce the quantity of construction de- bris in local landfills. Strate~y LU 6 4: The General Plan shall con- tinue to enforce and implement existing poli- Draft Land Use Element ties 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 on suitable land with protection for nearbyresidences 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, si nifi- cant natural hillside features. including but not limited to steep topography. 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-familx 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 • • ~~ ~J Saratoga General Plan 25 August 7, 2006 et SAA9 ;4'q. 'TO ~aso~ ~~ l C9'ZIFORr~l/ 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) Strat~v LU 9.3: Limit the amount of rag ding 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- pacts. Goal LU 11: Foster closer interjurisdictional cooo- eration and coordination concerning ]and use and development issues. Strategy LU 11.1: Adhere to Joint Hillside Land Use Obiectives that will assure basic con- sistency of hillside land use policies among the West Valle jurisdictions. The West Valley Cities and the County should work together to achieve the shared oag 1 of preserving the natu- ral beauty of the West Valley Hillsides. Strat~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. Strateg,~LU 12.1: Enhance the visual charac- ter of the CitX by encouragin compatibility of architectural styles that reflect established ar- chitectural traditions. Strateg,~LU 12.2: Develop zoning and other incentives for property owners to preserve his- Draft Land Use Element toric resources and seek. out historic desi~- nations for their respective properties. Strategy 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 rePUlations in the Ordinance, if the subject of the application is a structure which has been designated as an historic landmazk. Strategy LU 12.4: The City shall continue to participate in the Mills Act program which allows property owners of historic residences a reduction of their property tax. Strategy LU 12.5: Encourage public knowl- edge.' understandin ag nd appreciation of the City's past and foster civic and nei hg bor- hood pride and sense of identity based upon the recognition and use of the City's heritage resources. Strategy LU 12.6: The Heritage Preserva- tion Commission shall re ug lady update the City's Historic Resources Inventory. Strategy 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 anv historic resources listed on any local or state inven- tory Strategy LU 12.8: For any project devel- opment affecting structures that aze 50 years of age or older. conduct a historic review. Strategy LU 12.9: Conduct reconnaissance- level analyses of new development projects to ensure that no significant archeolo ig'calj 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 Plan 26 August 7, 2006 ut 3A~9~ 4 'uS° ~ " O7 ~ _c° i yeas ~ i ~~~ ~cN j,IFOR~l 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) Strategy 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 Fromote high quality design. to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. to en- sure compatibility with surrounding_properties and use. and to minimize environmental im- pacts Special attention shall be given to en- suring compatibility between residential and non-residential uses (e.g.. land use bufferingl. Annexations Goal LU 14: Seek to achieve appropriate and con- ti~uous City boundaries to provide for the efficient deliver~of public services and to create a rg eater sense of community. Strategy LU 14.1: Land shall not be annexed to Saratoga unless it is contiguous to the exist- ine 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) Draft Land Use Element Air Quality 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 com~v with Bay Area Air Qual- m Management District measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions due to rg aging and construction activities. Strategy LU 15.2: Encourage use of trio 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 las 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 og als. policies. and plan obiectives identified in the adopted 2006 Land Use Element and Land Use Map of the General Plan. • • Saratoga General Plan 27 August 7, 2006 oq S9R9 ~~ ~°c+ ;b ~- ~ ~o.o ~, :' ~~.09t jFOR~1j IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Draft Land Use Element 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- ap rding the City's growth and development is translated from general terms to specific actions. Each implementation action is a measure or procedure that max require additional City 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 preparation 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 Citv. Residential Land Use Goal LU 1: Maintain the predominantly semi-rural residential character of Saratoua. Responsible Agency• Conununity Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: On og ing 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. D,f}"ice, Industrial and Public Land Use Goal LU 2• Encourage the economic viability_of Sarato~a's existing commercial and office areas and their accessibili~ by residents. taking into account the impact on surrounding residential areas. (Exist- ing LU 4.0) Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: On oing 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- viouslx_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 „1 ~~ sARAA .~ o iu .~ i i peso q, ~ ~~~~c9'tIFOTA11ti~ Draft Land Use Element Goal LU 3• Promote the long-term fiscal soundness of the Cit~of Saratoga through careful analysis of land use decisions and fiscal practices. Responsible Agency Community Development Department Funding 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 Agency Community Development Department/Public Works Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 4.1 Neighborhood Protection Goal LU 5• Relate develo~iment 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 project such improvements shall be in place or bonded for~rior to issuance of building_permits. Responsible Agenc~• Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 5.1.5.2.5.3.5.4 Strat~v LU 5 2• Development proposals shall be evaluated against Citv 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 signifi- cance. Action Item• Develop thresholds of environmental significance. Responsible Agency Communi~ Develo_..pment Department/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 Agency Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 6.1, 6.2.6.3.6.4 • • Saratoga General Plan LUI-2 August 7, 2006 o~ SA$9 y T ,,~5.. O9 .B66 - /, 1 ~c"tjFOR~~%~ Draft Land Use Element Williamson Act Contracts and Agricultural Protection Goal LU 7: Protect existing aericultural resources and encoura a expansion of this use. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: On oing -_ Related Strategies: LU 7.1.7.2.7.3 ` Hillside Devel~ment Goal LU 8: The natural beauty of the West Valley hillsides area shall be maintained and protected for its contribution to the overall quality of life of current and future generations: Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 8.1.8.2 Goal LU 9: Generally encourage medium density, multi-family residential and non-residential to flat- land areas most appropriate for urban development. Responsible Agency:. Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: On oing Related Strategies: LU 9.1.9.2.9.3 Goal LU 10: Minimize the visual impacts of hillside development, especiall oy n ridge tops. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: On oing Related Strategies: LU 10.1 Goal LU 11: Foster closer inter-jurisdictional cooperation and coordination concerning land use and development issues. ResTonsible Agency: Community Development DepartmentlCity Council Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: On oing Related Strategies: LU 11.1. 11.2 Historic Character/Cultural Resources Goal LU 12: Recognize the heritage of the Citeseeking to protect historic and cultural resources. where feasible. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department/Heritage Preservation Commis- lion Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: On oing Related Strategies: LU 12.1. 12.3. 12.4. 12.5. 12.5. 12.6. 12.7. 12.8. Saratoga General Plan LUI-3 August 7, 2006 ut SA$R 4 T !O~t ~ O9 i F' ~ r / sea ' P ~ C9lIFORTj1~ Draft Land Use Element Strategy LU 12 9• Conduct reconnaissance-level analyses of new development proiects to ensure that no significant archeolo ig'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- ~uirements to protect these resources Action item• Amend standard conditions of approval. Responsible A.gency• Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: 2006/2007 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 surroundines. Re~onsible Agency• Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strate~ies• LU 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 2.1.2.2.12.3.2.4.2.5 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• Communit~Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Onaoine Related Strategies: LU 14.1. 14.2 Air uali Goal LU 15• Improve local and regional air quality b~ensuring that all development proiects incoroo- rate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants. Responsible Agency Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 15.1 Zoning Ordinance Review And Amendment Goal LU 161• Review and amend as needed the Zoning_Ordinance and Zonin¢ Map to provide consis- tency with the General Plan updates new state legislation and court decisions. Responsible Agency: Community Development Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: 2006/2008 and Ongoine Related Policies: LU 1.2. 1.4. 2.3.5.2 • • Saratoga General. Plan LUI-4 August 7, 2006 ~~ Attachment 2 i~ • ~ oS sage ~o .~ /J1; . <9 i i . keno P, C9L~FOR~1j DRAFT OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT • AUGUST 25, 2006 PREPARED BY: LINGO-MCCORMICK CONSULTING JERRY HAAG, URBAN PLANNER S~ uS SARR~O ;ti O ;p! ,9 aseo _ ~i °•9L=..FOR~I% Draft Land Use Element Strategy LU 12.9: Conduct reconnaissance-level analyses of new development projects to ensure that no significant archeological. pre-historic. paleontological or Native American resources would be disturbed. If such resources are found. appropriate steps shall be made. consistent with CEOA re- guirements 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 City shall use the design review process to assure that new construction and major 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 Agency: Community Development Department Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing Related Strategies: LU 14.1. 14.2 Air uali Goal LU 15: Improve local and regional air quality by 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: On oing Related Strategies: LU 15.1 Zoning Ordinance Review And Amendment Goal LU 16.1:. Review and amend. as needed. the Zonine Ordinance and Zoning Man to provide consis- tency with the General Plan updates. new state legislation and court decisions. Responsible Agencv: Community Development Funding Source: Development Fees Time Frame: 2006/2008 and On og ine Related Policies: LU 1.2. 1.4.2.3.5.2 Saratoga General. Plan LUI-4 August 7, 2006 ~. Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Table of Contents INTRODUCTION EXISTING OPEN SPACE RESOURCES RESOURCE AREAS OPEN SPACE/RESOURCE PLAN IMPLEMENTING THE OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION ELEMENT GOALS AND STRATEGIES LIST OF EXHIBITS OSC-1 Parks and Open Space Resources OSC-2 Existing and Proposed Trails OSC-3 Flooding Potential. OSC-4 Hazardous Fire Areas OSC-5 Watershed and Open Space Resources 2 5 16 25 27- 28 13 16 19 20 22 i~ 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 reauired to identify 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 legislative body including the combining of elements. For purposes of streamliningi and combining the discussion of related issues, the City is combin- ing th^Open mace 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 Oven 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 envirorunent has a lengthy history. The City was founded and based on the lumbering and wood~roduct industry, later evolving as an ~oriculture 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 identityand uniqueness by control- ling the density and intensity of development, and by preserving the greenery of private and public s ardens and yards, parks and hillside However the continuing and rapid urban growth in the Bay Area affects Saratoga as well The Ci~'s 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 City to reaffirm and, clearly state its goals and policies regarding its open space and natural resources. and decide on_ the role of these resources in determining the character and quay of life for the community in the future. The City 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 CitX,, through a communi survey conducted in November/December 2005. As a follow uy to this survey the City Council decided to update and combine the Open Space and Conservation Elements, as needed, to reflect community goals to make them internally consistent with other elements of the General Plan and to meet requirements of current state law. m~-9;~ e« « r b• 1 « a,;e ^ro « 'TL,e le.. ~l o' ~o ~~ f,...a .,y,.,... ~ ..... .........~ Dl 'il .,l,:e a ., o1,e e ~ ~rY r~ open spaces. Saratoga General Plan 2 August 25, 2006 • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element .:.i..~.,, t n^tn ~-_e..e,.,.t nt..., Tt..e >rte..,e,,. , t .,. t ,.,~ ., te.,,,+t, ,. t,:~+,,,... TL, ... ..»,. » ..,..b... ~ ....,. . ~ . _ ..., ... .. .,...,..... ..... . »..........b f _~ «. 7 ~ Z...ne.a It. >. 7 «>t 4t.e T i= « i c L VG"6T[T -R7 a a lc-iic ..... ........... .. .. .. ... ~ € t}a~ e i ~ t~ei e y; -~es a c e>} ~ ,,,,77,,,,,,~~~~..,,~~ ~~ ~ (` s ~' "' '°~ ~ ~e t+ G7TCTICTF. VII 1 iG 2 YY2 t ~ ~ ~ ~ t3 t € ~ - tie e~-- s~es, Ee~seri~ er~ e ~ese~e ~ ~ . , ~eSAH~Ee~ t ~1~~~~~ ,~~,.tp~/. ' Ty ap ~ Ie " --' .~TGi72CtV1[T.S. 'd'[Ll"RTV~ ~~i VY 2 lY~~ c a e ~ ^° oo.T~-end e ,~ >} ep ° ~ . ~c~n~ .. .....................Y...,., . e e., .,:~ ~t t '•"~^ `t'° , - = e n: . ~~ ~,,...,,.:t » a .rxrx~ v 5~~ . ~j ~ 3 r ° - : ..~~ ~ .Y:... ,........b . ..ate........ b ., ^` n1.. i a ` = ° ~t$ ~ ~ D..e a D..,.L.. ...t; .,.. i Ctt- r~i 2ttiar r~ r cF ~ t f e ..,.e l. F t~ T.. ., a ^ ' «a ~ta.. !l e., ~ _ _ e L'le«,.,«+ ~~~ r:_ - a : i ~ o n t+nn O T~ R . .. .. ~....,..ed o u.,4t ~ [ b O i~ ~ ., a ..e., ...,,,,,, . ~ a ., a a, e ~~ :.,. ... ~r--- -r---- r - A - .> e ,,, ra,~~ - - - ,.t:,,:,,.. ~a .,. -- .. .~ ~..~ .. -r , - ~ r------- --- -- - Yri tCi~YYG-F.6i~YCt2'9'~ 6F ~L.e .7.-.,# .~t>,..... e..~ Eesxmas Sion--cma- r:~.. r,,,,«,.:t •„ .,n,,.,. Saratoga General Plan 3 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element r' nr n __ nJr O 7 °G"1CxIIG1'TlT ~ ~4 n F r' 1'~ ,-.~.;n ., nn1, 1.. , ccrcc z -x:c ' n ~ i 4 1,' 1, 4' 77 .~,.7 «.~ J r 11 f .. f • 1 nl..a: ,. 7. .,4 i.4 li e ~ux~ .,.,» .~~ ~, -------- -b~ - -- -- -- ------- s > Y n > -- 1 1 'F r 1, 1.'4 N .. F Cn r l, n.: a ,;1,71:1' ~ t i t d i€i s es~~ ether se err ~t e--s ' ' ~e ~9 ~e ~S - mca 4 c" ,• EAI~FS 7 ,7 eS; «a ~~ .4: 3x ~ ee &~ 1:4,.- .. ...... ....... , .. ~u x r auv..~ .. . 7' '4 a 4 ,~ __ ~ .._~-- ....n4 7 -- ----------o n«a .,7.,« ---- --- a a n na,. ~°n n ,.14„x.,1 1n «an «a , F s b .,.wn - fi r l 47.e an,..,, .,~ -_" ------- r------ - -- --- ---- c ui ° vsrcaxzxo ~rid ~: epe si~s-: b J .....,.....__ t - l .., ---- -- ult - -------- »'al ~=al ---o tt n - ~ t e~ 3~s txC, e er- e , ~~~~~ ~_ «a n na„ ~ v ~ l~ ~E 1,nnt pcn-S~ ucc 9~ - tlY ~ .L.'n 7+ n7 °«4 F 14 n4 nL,7° '7 11 °.7 n Ri n r yyt'~xt-7 ~ IS[ IID'7 .~70'i .a iG j .. - f « an n n .°af~« 4 4• a °« 7,n.. nn..,.,n«4 n ,Fn;..,,,,n1;4., lin e, 1~ 1=s~ s, v~ll e3~s; --ar i a eas- a rxac4i 7 arsxrT °,n °b.. » .; .., `:, .,. n ,.,,. ~ - "' nnrl n -'"'"- 1. F 47. nn4.+.+..r: °n L\ .++ .-. 4....F 41"v .. .,« non ~F 1..:77n:a°n «a « ..Y.... +... «4n:«n « 41,, ., 41•. a ., 4n ..F n 4t,° !'''4.. Ana ~vc[xix~zzx--axxa~cs[cxxx axc J xrx~~~x~~x 17 i,>, >, a C ~ d r ~ «a ~-~==-~ .b ............. Y .. yr. t~r e nn limits Git tl ~ i h= ....,.. _.. ,. 47.o n , ~ ~e ~Tw t ~ ~ Y r ~ o Saratoga Planning Area: The City of Saratoga is located in the westerly uortion of Santa Clara Count just southwest of the major metropolitan community of San Jose and proximately 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 azea boundazies is contained in the Land Use Element (See Exhibits LU-1 and LU-2 of the Land Use Element . • 4 August 25, 2006 Saratoga General Plan Draft Open Space/Conservation Element EXISTING OPEN SPAC&RESOURCES 4. ~` 4 4 4t, /~'4.. a ..1.,n4:«.. « .ain v «o -'te }sle~~-w~I~ ~e-~ e Ee~ s n ~ ' 1 ,1 1. 4 r r ~ «o. 4 1:«,:40.1 4.. 4b.u ~ 11., ~ ~zer~~~~~ab~I~I «a 4'F 4 .1:~~ ..«.1 .. «4..1 0.1.. a~^-'~^ °r~ Y~' n a 4• r A..,,n.. ,.o A.-enn . .;4L. .« ~ l..a.~n«4 i. .n1;4:en 41.n4 . ~ ~ ~ '. .+ ' ILTSSIGaI.S 2 T 7TJ~R2 " J r'-"""~C~ f ~~ 7 3r. C->~t~~~e~-~~s-o= e~E~a~as ~ A~i 1, a «.7 n4«,,.,«... F .. «, • ~~ r.4.• .~~ « • r.~l ..nti..~+ .+nti..«nl eva~ ..1,,.1;«..., ~~ ' _. "________' ___ ~___ r_- ___ __-----~ _-_---- i ~ ~3 ~' -~'t~ i43 3-aS-- i vi~6 4 ~> ~~~ c1 e«« ~ :.. 1..., > , 11 4:e1 , .1~ «.1 L..«1~.. ,.!' ... e e «.1 ~~ ..4«en« . s ...~ «.1 } Saratoga General Plan 5 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element i ~'tewFse~a~le-~ twee €ei=e~ seat°~--~;~e~ t « ~t:n«n n...t w. not f eses ~ 'rti.° „wnn~,°.. e-e~e~r s~ ~esea •tt n «,. znn ~ nr .. n r ' ' ~~ a• « enntn n ..~.. e~n n° A.. „ ~.,,,,., c «,. ~' r r cn n :any«: a a ~ ' r ° ^ a t o e r a ,.o n.. 1~4~ n = « 4' na ,.,.~ a ~Apc ccrrar~ « .t imc~ , ~ ...~ n ntn n 7 l ~ -a~~ ~~~ee~~a~e--~a~e e e~esc-a t° • '~t~a re~Gal _'-,,^~7'7'~ ~ t--~ €e ~~ att~~ n°l.n ne~ta --E~~~g .,a 4' t-~~ervn "r''.:?~ .... b~., et~~es, 1,:-tee; x..1«n In«.tnl:.inn 1`U1YQ3F~ , , " , l C fl .t„ m~vap tn:„n zaazx \ , ...t l,., n«..~nn fnr. nn ... ..,...»...., cnrirm t•. t ....... >, R - - zo~ z •« .,...., a vacz~ .. ...- T T.,. a .,, ... «t -•- r--r- ~aizee~ ....,, b......•.... .~..,. n .. {~ tn„ctnc,n,~°et -- -- --------r-- Viei~~s----ins -rt. n•«..~n n n«:.,,. „ n n tn.,an n„ a;,,n..nn ~ a r nr n r~ sea .7 1 nl ..4' n °.,«-\x1L.;ln ..n« ..~ «t,n n ° .. «t,n `t~:lt c; .an ; nt, nrnn - .. Wit,» .... ... ..... .....".'-- -•' ------- e i~ r r r S--it=cre--@Egtkrfe~-t~9~g~--~tb913 e 7 \x 7'il' A « « «n TL.enn ln,,.in n.7.7 «~.« TTiPTi~l•T• e'IITSGTGeT1IIZ[Gi = , ,:«nt t:rt~ t~n«., n° f~ mar , LT[ ~°~ ~ r1 (~: «. «a :«n , J na t «.. «..t n« rn g Au ust 25, 2006 Saratoga General Plan 9 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element nn°n Mnn4 T„ 41...n°_ n hl.° .. .,4..n..4_,:z:11 .........~.. ~_ ___"-- ---- ---- --------- ---- ---r--- ~~~~ ~ .;41, h1.° n«n...a.,,-,ln .,F«t.n ~ ...i:n«.::nti„~ . .,..:.. aanc~~ .........~ .._-'---'--- ..' ~^ -----'-b -------' --- •r>,n hz.hnl nnt,,,,.t n:«n In„a n .. inn ucrcTV~c'rzvv--&ET@S~iF--4crT32S °c-iacas--arc civir-cr.~c T .7.7:h:n« 4.. h1. ° „n,-;..,,1«„rnl 1n.,.a .,.:«h; ..41,0 xifc[Qar[ivrr-[v ar ('`'4. 1;...:«n h1.0Y0 ~...b......... ».... ....... . .. ....... ..... ° ..nl 1....,.7,.°.7 ° ..F ~ v ~....,... .. ............. ........., ... by 4 '41,' «l+ n (~; 4..1 ~. .> n;~,-ate-aid--~e~~~-e~e~ s~~ee- 1, ..n Valn T.T...+4°1:z0 01nnn0~~ r..,,,1~1' ~ .............. t,........ ~Se: ~ae~~s~--a~~rv~~e ePe~ meas. '~'~e n..° .. ..: h.. „F «1,0n0 ~;«~a.-~. 1,,,.~o~a«a _.~_°,7 .; 4uli;~ J -- ____`' - - - - _._ - - - _.. _ _ _ __.._.__ ~~~~,, ,~~`~7~ v.....v,.av .v v t. v. vl.. tYVSf'VI "Y ~e= (~ t, 1 Q:40n Q: .,.:10=- t.,. 41,0 ., : 0 _ nn4 . t, . , ..., »., ....... «' F n ° .., «L,0 ., .,1,1 .,,..1,....,ln 1,' 1, «l.°.. n ° .. ... ..... .b.. l0nnh0.1 T,. 0.1.1: ..............., ... 4:0.. nn1.001 {- t cii a° _ F_~..1,.:._.1~ ox p oztw coii~io .7 1~ . «1. xuj~:v i ~ .. ~ aPL uuvu vJ ...- - -.---__--_-__J __--- G__J-____ ~-- ~ «000 „hl.. 0.1 i,.. 1010 ....J ~v..vu vJ .u..v v.v f ~ iaric~riSrrzS~3"1~e~3. TA.,n1, „F «1.:n ° ..h . ,nlt., „ n;1,1°.«., «1.01,0„0,,,,1 ~' 0h1,0.~ ..n1..0 n o<.~~ .o c o- n ; 40 ° i t ~ t ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ,, ~l ~ , ~ , , '- -- el~ -l$ - 6 e-- 2ye A~ 3l~v 3aT~ 3Ctt ttl ti . , 1:«.:«n TR..n« ,.F 41.0 .,,,10,.01....0.1 1,:11n;.10n 1;0 e n4 . .:41.:« 1 n:1.1.+ 4n l~n.~n4~z. n:.10.,4n 'T' 1,0 41..~za ....~~.,.,....~ ... .. »......,b^ .~.....-..... ..~ .... ~~ Saratoga General Plan August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Td -4 1 A 1...«n4...v, nl,,,an.. 1'7C .. n F ,al .7 4t. r. i.:ll ..~ .. ..4«n.l.ll; ~ 4t,., ___ __--' ~~~ ~- ~ ~e - ----------a -- ~e-era-' e-E~~ e 1~33 ~ y ..~ ....~ 4T, /-' - 4.. '7'l,u,.,r,11 «n4o.7 :.. 4r..n4 ~ vv»...J. ..._ _~__ __ _~___ ___ ~____ _Y ] .~ 4 4t. r y, ~ 40 1... ~ S »~v.. av »._ ..-__.~ ___ a ______ __- ~ __ E ~ ~ie--~-~~ E -9p E1} ~$ rEEFE~ti6i , . Y - ~ - ~ ~ ` i .. $~E•-i$ ~~3E S 6E 2fl t6 TV-z nivrr ca 4 .a 1... 41,n l~.,,,., ~ 4„ .:4L. 7:o~i°«^1 Q4n...+«n !"'«., el. D..«L : ,.14:.,10_,„«»..nn ., ...»..Y. Y.,..Y..,._ park---rxx-~3~e3'~3$9~~ T4 a ~:1.1e 4., ova-/~-ac~«res C~ -T-. - !~ 4.. Dn«l. n«4 „F n In n -4 1 nnn .,,a e..4e..,an ~.,. Q 1, D 1, 4v~~~.z1,n:I D.,,,lo,...«,7 T4 :V F .,F ,.„„14;..1e .. e n roa•~zvn ~"r- D 1 C'4 4 D 1 .1 ..4e ++.7: ,, i, a •a nl...,.. 4i,o ~ a ~`~ n~~ m~c~r~~~v"ascrc~-vim' iiix oi~i,~cvsa ' ~ ~ Ee 1n.,a~ rn,..ae s ePe~ s~e - - ~} 4' F 4' o ^ r,a 41.n „4'n ^ n 'PGCIVII~I b Y Y ~7~~ ~ t~~ha~l__" t); ~'1 O 1 ' ' •-~F G~I Q •1'i~.u ~4 IITIL C b ,iIZ iiJVi! T77Z17 Z e~ 1-..a~3 4-3 ~f@C c-C-6i ~n tT . L Ri ~a~~ =•, ~ r c ~i~- E#ia~i'f3 i ~2° -i cF i ' i • = v r n 41"'3 ~ e c c : ~ i f3 ~ irxu~e~ vm'asvga- ~xan , --~-@E~I}~}ES 3 i~i c a ~ l 9ii~3 Kir - i r . , 1 iI 7t l~n Dn..:.7e..4:n1 ~ ~ ' ' /i7D1 xii22S Ta9~3c ei3i f v~3 41~. 4 .+ 41.e ., .a Q «A ~ 4n , r ~ a~ r 1` a 1 ~a :41. In l :1.. L... v v' 1 A(] S s Su$- i oici c° v ~cei c--rr~ QS 3 fi vCTfAA2 ~ ia r c r --~3 ~ c ~ } ~ ° x•14 ..,ie 4L.n &5 ~ ~-- a~ S SE~3ee -1-1 ' ~ 4 r ..n ~;4.. ..1.....1a >,,, -~4 tEes ee e~v 333@£ a~v ,. .. ., 1 ..4 .1 ea 4., 41.,.. :4n ..l.e R Y f A d.. nl+ ..F ~rr#'gE-U6~S $~}~~ rlti'&~E~&T~S~r-vr F '1 L,1..,+-1+.+...i~ Dnn+ ..:4.. .+.,l;n:nn T. n. n b ~ r 1' .i 4t.' 1 .a a 4i. .;.~o r« ~ TL. L.'71 .7 F.,«41+e« n 41.n ..., »4n;«n , nJrf ~ Saratoga General Plan 8 August 25, 2006 • ~~~' cy<~~o~~~A'`, Draft Open Space/Conservation Element T., Wi „b;,.~ 1~„~„ t, °....nt.»~..., .. ... » w..,,. .T - .7' 4 1. .1 :1,11:F T,.,1.;4.,4 accra~zc-r T axx cxxxca u a:.,.» ....... ........... ..»..,..... ~ uxxa-zram s, ..,.»...... b....... ~ ~. sa'~7sirx~ ' . .. .. .........» t,r,.,,,,.. » if s c z 4~ r :4..~n : ! ~!:» :.° w 'a v_ o--a _.c varc --- - . ». . » .. . -v 11 T. T« ne«n;'' , 1 l 41+' url ? vi ..........p.................w.b... ~R~-fe~6t~FEe ~-13e- 3r2~Sef- ~ ,~~,0 ~u x c - ~ 1 4 .7 4 4T, •(~'4, .fin v wvn4r n .a .+llun4n na M '1 4 TIo.T:.,.,4~.~1 4..n:1 a «4n ...T,:..T, 4 '.7 4: F.,~,7 ,, ,e.T~ro n~~a.. 4 4 .T '41,;«_ 41~os'4~. r- u ' yoo< «.~1 TCxnrr ax .,..~ » zxrccxcvrxrxcccc~dr -~l} ~t t ...», w... »... e e xxo~eer~xee T) 1 3~-SE136B~S-8 ~ t i v ~'e-~36t-i~( `~1 ~2S-@3 uE1 -k r~z cz~ . 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 particular 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, areas required for Saratoga General Plan 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 comdors, watershed .lands and utility easements. Open space used for the managed produc- tion of resources, including but not limited to, forest land, rangeland, vineyazds, pas- tures, agricultural lands, and ~azeas of eco- nomic importance for the production of food or fiber; areas required for the re- chazge of groundwater, streams, and-areas containing major mineral deposits. Op~n space for outdoor recreation, includ- ing but not limited to, pazks, recreation az- eas, azeas of outstanding scenic, historic or cultural value, azeas particularly suited for pazk and recreational purposes, access to water courses and areas 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 azeas which require special management or regulations because of hazazdous or special condition such as earthquake fault zones, unstable soil azeas, 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. • Open space for preservation of scenic viewsheds, including but, not. limited to, areas of natural scenic views, ridgelines, hillsides, valleys, areas with natural vege- tation, orchazds and roadway, scenery. Within the City of Saratoga Planning Area, there exists a diversity of open space lands which fall into each of the above-stated catego- 9 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element ries. 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 chazac- 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 catego- 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 aze 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 aze 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 modem City and its agricultural past. schools, three of which are private, two high Land area of agricultural lands currently under schools and a community college. Public Williamson Act contracts total ~ 109 acres. schools aze 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 .^, r~^ ~^~ -'~«~ The mini- `~~ - `'' --~•- ----=" ~" elementaryschool districts overlay other cities. mum term for a contract is 10 years. However, Saratoga General Plan 10 August 25, 2006 som~urisdictions exercise the option of making the term longer up to twenty years. Contracts renew automatically ever~year unless non- renewed. Upon request of non-renewal, con- tracts will expire 9 years from the anniversary date following the~ivin~ of a timely notice of non-renewal See Government Code Sections 51244 &= 5)r 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 Vi11a Montalvo, are leased for public use. Flood Easements Flood easements along creeks within Saratoga that Qreclude . development, are under the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley. Water District. A few portions are dedicated and owned by the District but lazge portions are still privately owned. The creeks and flood ease- ments aze important natural resources which contribute to the beauty of Saratoga. School Sites Saratoga is currently served by nine elementary • t • 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 Saratoga Union School district. City Parks The Citescontrols approximately 87 acres of parkland of which 63 acres have been improved for park purposes Citesparks are ee nerall 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 year olds, one tennis court, 2 horseshoe omits, 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. • Beauchamps Park contains 2.0 acres and faces east Beauchamps Lane between Crayside land and Bowhill Court. Improvements include chil- dren play area for 2-5 and 6-12 age appropriate etc uipment 1 basketball hoop, 1 tennis court, 1 picnic table, pedestrian pathway, security light- ing and open turf area. • Bellgrove Park is a linear a 2 acre park that parallels State Route 85 and contains a children's play area and picnic tables. • Brookglen Park contains 0.7 acres of land at 12734 Brookglen Court. Improvements include a children's playground, half-court basketball court, night lighting, climbing eouipment, picnic tables and oQen turf area. Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • Central Park or Heritage Orchard is located near the Civic Center, bounded on the north_bv 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 libraryparking lot. • Congress SDririgS 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 plan eouipment, picnic tables and barbecue, open turf practice field, concession stand, 2 restrooms, 2 drinkin fg oun- tains, pedestrian oath, benches and an off-street parkiriQ area, • EI 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, adrink- ins fountain, open turf area and a pedestrian pathway on 2.1 acres of land. • Hakone Gardens is a specialty park consisting of 15.5 acres and located at 21000 Big Basin Way. It contains a picnic area, hillside and high trails, a bamboo park and water-strolling_gardens; a Cultural Exchange Center, tea ceremonies, foun- dation offices, food service. restrooms and off- streetparking. The park is one of 12 sites desig- nated by the National Trust as part of the Trust's Saratoga General Plan 11 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Save America's Treasures program. It is avail- able for weddin s~ and special events. Historical Park includes .5 acre of nark located at 20460 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Site of three of Saratoga's historic buildings: the Historical Heritage Museum, Saratoga's first library build- _ in~(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- street parkins 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 crossingpoint over Hwv. 85. • Pollard and Ouito property. At the northeast comer of Quito Road and Pollard Road is a .6 acre open mace parcel that contains an unim- proved path. • 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 Sobev Road and Fruitvale Ave- nue at Crisp Avenue. This is a natural open space area with a trail that goes through it. • ~rinQhill Court property includes a 0.2 acre Qarcel 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 oaths stage and a~hitheatre, barbe- cues drinking fountains, grass turf area, pedes- trian pathway and security lighting. In addition to Cityparks, there are several regiona_parks that while not owned by the City of Saratoga are located partially or wholly within its Sphere of Influence and/or immedi- atel~djacent to its boundaries, and thus provide an additional source of parklands for the community These parks include Villa Montalvo Stevens Creek Park, Sanborn Skyline Count~Park and Fremont Older. (See discussion under Regional Parks). Exhibit OSC 1 shows the location of existing Parks and Open Space Resources within or adiacent to the Saratoga Planning Area. • Au ust 25 2006 Saratoga General Plan 12 9 - ~~ _ ~,~- Y ``fir` Draft Open Space/Conservation Element III i~ ~~ ., 1 - {~'^ Pmsperl Read ~" i ~ HafiGmpuo ~ 9uudumpc ~ I ~ ~~ Fanom Axuk ~~ 4 pdd ~ i. Open KevYi Mwm ff L ~~ ~` CoaAvenue ~ e+eolg~m ~t"Ei~ SleYem ~ ~ e~ ~-~- I ~~ ~,~Prk i a 6 7vt~. ktieq +~ r ~ BeUpova a q ::~ ~ ~,~` ~O ~. ~Q~ ,~ ~c~ sc - ~ ppendale Ave~nre ~~ a~ `~~~~--^7 FootlYO '~ I R d r / Ordwd ~{ Ouko at ~~ Polutl worry; ~ ~ ~ ~ K wf10WO0 'Blenry Plse t ,~,,.~ Y~+J 2 r !l~'f HlmorkaF ~r~~ ~ 'a8`'\1` ~~ ~ Bib' ~ ~: s '~''~ry /; ~-- ~4 ,,,•• ~' ~ SanEam5My4n ~ Cu+ity°"` ~ ~s,no~aer,K°9°can~ pep~s.mm ~',./~~- 1 - W~ ~~ y a O y SOURCE: City ol'Sarawga. July 2006. Exhibit OSC-1 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES City Limit ---•~--~•--•• Sphere of Influence - Parks / OS within Sphere of Influence Parks / OS outside Sphere of Influence o ua 12 i ,nue ~~~ r.-~-~-~-°- Saratoga General Plan 13 August, 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Large Residential Lots -• '4 ~,• ~, o n4 .dun n4oa n . , 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 rovin a„g rchery course and range, which is oven to the public. T~ ,, , a ~,:„n:an .;~~.;,, +~.e r,;«.. .,a Sanborn County Park is a part of a larger ~"" r ., , a ,, •.w:„ ~w:,. n:,.e;.,,~, n ,,,nb~ regional .Skyline Park. The Skyline Park contains 1,000 acres and extends from •. h~~~ ~ h ~4ti,~ 4~.. ~;~.. r...,..;.n r~r„n+ ~r~ Sanborn Park to Skyline Boulevar . It is - one of a series of multiple-purpose recrea- tion areas and trails, which complement Castle Rock State Park and create an un- ReQional Parks and Open Spaces. disturbed corridor along the scenic moun- tain highway. These trails are part of an Three major regional parks exist within, or even more extensive trail system that links partially within, the City's Planning Area and are the Santa Clara and San Lorenzo valleys accessible to Saratoga residents. The three parks with Castle Rock State Park, Big Basin are Montalvo Arboretum, Stevens Creek Park Redwoods State Park, and__ the Pacific and Sanborn County Park. These parks total of Coast. 1,830 acres. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Montalvo Arboretum includes 175 acres of lands woodland in the hills straddling the south- ern boundary of the City. The majority of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District this open space is located within the (MROSD) is a governmental agency dedicated County unincorporated area, but is par- to the acquisition and protection of open space tially located within the Cit~of Saratoga lands. The MROSD holdings include over 320 and is it entirety within the City's Sphere acres within Saratoga's Planning Area. Amon of Influence. The land is operated in trust them is Fremont Older Open Space, an 739- by the Montalvo Association and is leased acre preserve located on the urban fringe and to the County on a long term basis. The extending; to Upper Stevens Creek Park to the site contains the Arboretum and recrea- Saratoga General Plan 14 August 25, 2006 !. Draft Open Space/Conservation Element J north and west. This open space resource offers a variety of experiences to hikers, bicyclists, and equestrians. Trails Over the years the City has encouraged the dedication of a comprehensive and intercon- nected system of multi-use trails in the communi~ that link to the regional, county- wide trail system as well. The trails allow a range of bicycle riding, hiking, walking, ;ranging and equestrian uses as well as an alternative to motorized transport. Develop- ment of the trail system in Saratoga is guided by the 1974 Trails Master Plan, that was dated and adopted by the City in 1991 as part of the Parks and Trails Master Plan. This Ulan 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 ofproposed trails. Exhibit OSC-2 shows the location of existing and Qroposed trails within Saratoga as shown ~n the City's Existing and Proposed Trails Man. which has a common boundary with Upper Stevens Creek Park's eastern boundary. The City is planning a trail that would link S_ aratoga trails to the "County trail coming out of Stevens Creek County Park into the Mount Eden Valley Similarly. the Citv 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 thro ugh redwood forests into Castle Rock State Park and down into Big Basin State Park Hikers emerge 34 miles from the moun- tain rid a onto Waddell State Beach on the Pacific O ean. The trail would connect through a 65-acre former quarry owned by the Santa Clara Counter Roads and Airports Department, which is on the eastern slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains between Saratoga and Sanborn County Park. -The Santa Clara Coun Roads and Airports Department and the City of Saratoga will work together to enter into a joint use ~eement 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 Low 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 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element ,1 ~ .. ,~ r~_ ~_. ~ ~ ~_ ~; Y.m Tn ~r~g[T±.'~1 - r. `5~~ ~i '_`TS ~~3 i1'. ~ ~ ~ ~.` ~ , ~ ,„.x; T.I~~ - ~ ~<'~' . _ r, ~n ~ ~ r .~i. tr ti _. ~ I I;~..+~ '*yr ar i ~ ~~, T ~~ ,5` ` ~:f ~ ti° >^w' --,sue x' ' +~ r• ~ ~ ~ { ~ -/ ~ r~ J I F ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~ y~. ,,. i ~~ I~ r~ yy ,~ ~_ ~~~' ~r III ~~"'.~ .~-~ _ _/.l _ 7iF'Ce~, ~C ~, ~ ~ . _ l 1 .14 f~kq \ :~.,~ "yam ~ N h Y - Y •, ~~ ... ~ ^y,^ .~ 1. 1 c ~ ~r' ;. 1 r i ~.t+r•~~ a `ai .J ~ . ~ ~ }, ,~"' ray } {l. ~] il 4 / ~ ~ ,......... f ,rte, ~ r r y J ~ ~ y,~ i -.n ,1 '~;~,.,~. l ~ "'~.,~„ s sI t .r, ~ r- .., Ip~i `mot `~ ~1{ ~ ~~ 1 t~ [ '_' ,CJs-t"~ r ~ T ~ ~- L ~ 'j i i ~° ;~, _ -._,~ i 1 ' ; ~~ k t..,;,.~ rsd"'..:2~ ~Ytt~e;.~u;~yy ~~ 1 ~ IC I '~~,~ I i L ~~ ' ..... ; 1 r' {~~~~"~ r4. f fib, f I g~~s5"l -'`' 4 i. `~{ ~5 .~ '. ,. j ~ ! ~ .F j ~ It C. ~ '~ S ~ tXK 4 ~ -~. ~~. 1~-t . ~ 1 ~i"~, 1, .=r r 4 "~~ i } ,,fir _ ~` ~~,~ ,,,,-. CITY OF SRRRTO GR EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRAILS DRAFT FOR REVIEW EN TRA ILS C OM MRTEE LEGEND Existing City Trails ununui Proposed City Trails rurs.Other Existing Public Trails ~~~~~ Other Proposed Public Traik rnr.r Cily Limits ter. Sphere oflnfluence ~ Arteriak rT ^ Saratoga Parks °~ Other Park Resources Publie Schools ti ~,~J r rsrs 0 05 rv t August 1,2006 Saratoga General Plan 16 August 25, zUUEi • • a 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 a , 'cultural lands. Approximately ninety percent 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 aze essentially vacant in the Sphere of Influence. Most of these lands are located in hillside areas and aze subject to si ificant 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 azourid 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 desgnated a~icultural 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 Sazatoga 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 ca~abili of supportin dg_evelopment~ varies „ rg_eat~ throughout Saratoga and its Sphere 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 characterized ~ 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 resulting fr~ rg ound displacement, ground shaking, and landslides. During smaller earthquakes, the same phenom- ena may occur: however, with faz less intensity and extent. The Safety and Seismic Safety Elements of the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan more ~ecificall~define the geologic hazazds 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, Sazatoea, Wildcat, and San Tomas. In general, flooding from these creeks has been confined to the relatively narrow flood plain directly adiacent to the creeks. Exhibit OSC-3 shows the location and extenYof the 100- Saratoga General Plan 17 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element. year flood plain as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agenc~(FEMAI. In the mast however, homes have been con- structed in these flood plains which may be 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 lyin¢ areas of the City. Since 1982, several of the CitYs creeks have been widened and deepened to improve their water carrvine 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. Sarat~~a residents have expressed disapproval of anyplans to channelize the natural watercourses, ar uing that flood control systems should be developed that utilize natural systems and enhancement and restoration of natural features that can diminish flood flows and rates of flow. In re~onse to this, the Water District has sug_~ested 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 City passed a Resolution authorizin~~citizens to purchase flood insurance under the Qrovision 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 proposed development that might 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 b~ 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 emer~cy response to the City of Saratoga The Fire Districts consider the hillside portions of the Saratoga planning area to be hazardous fire areas. In some instances dwellings) are or could be, located near dense tree and 'brush areas with limited access for emergency equipment and in places where provision of a reliable and adequate water supply may 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 emergency response can be achieved that building sprinklers and effective alarm stems are~rovided and that an adequate water supply with appropriate water pressure is available. Saratoga General Plan 18 August ~5, ~uun • • .. «~ .. t` E f SE .h j~ ~ ~ , ~ adr~ S ~ ti~,i X~ ~~~~ k¢ ~ 7 C {{{~ t ~ ~ yN A a Draft Open Space/Conservation Element M C Ruad t ~ ~- - G i' u, r~ '~ »,,~» SOURCE: F£h1.A, Flood 1t15Uf811CE Rats Asap, Cih' afSazatog&, 3 July IJJ7. Exhibit OSC-3 FLOODING POTENTIAL -------» City Umit --r»--•»•»---~» Sphere of Influence ..•~~- 100-year Flood Plain f approx.) 0 ~1t4 172 1 rr6c V. Saratoga General Plan 19 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element F u S a e; x O IE ° E Prospect Road s; 4•:~ W' '•h'`4" a i ~Gh.Q., .h. :: :.'r ` ,:~q::a:~~ •e Cox Avenue .`;„,~~'~~a;r~•t ,:~..` • `~r '^---~~--~-._.L ; 'r r h'•a • ` ' I `h " < ~ ` ; ; r .y~': ti'Xy . ,~.R u,4 tip. ' • .' . h • R i ti `,tl•p~ ~ d h. .}"•.h ,< ".•rt''~,.a . v `"`<^«•~•r~ : yj : " ' " `;' ~ a ' : ~ " ' 'w en o ~ . Ntc. " ~ :.•; .. •", w, ~.° "• ,:y,'• • • ;ti.* r :;` :;• • •;• ~ $ z: "•' "' ` , ` o P `. -~, R4 ~.. ~+ :" :' ° • aa "; a :., ":1:°^ ~~~~: fie g ^c < . P° °r,r. O' ,. , .. ~o '" s ti.. •g:"h-; ~ '~ ti '~ ' '~ I , ~ , fie . . . .•, • s; : :h°4;~'" •*'"""a :~• r 5,°~S:R: r:R~fq.;4'`< OQ r "•;' . •° • • ndaleg ~ ,•~. N •r;r;r, r• p~ e yenue • p ' ' ~" " ° j •'w °" Ri5' "' .1` a '~R' a'•" h " "Y `"'~'/'p fC r °• '4 L~` S' ° ~ R e :4:5:•x; e• F fg,<y:x ~, j e,~{~ . ~S . ~"R ,"•,..•,~<."rR °p S. . . ,fir f r" rr •" ./'?.n s• `.fi`. .°.''4~•S Via. ;p..5.e•.• 8d r : ': `° a~ ° • , y . •~Ti~ `•.•"4 `••g:':'4.'°:r~; W Y: of .~f w " '~ ~ ~< ..• ~ : h '4 " ~k ~ ' :' wp. :< : Q. ! .i 5. • °Y '` . . S', S l h~ fh f • " i 'P~: ~:ra• 'm~. ~.°r~ •~ ~ ~t t~' ~ " « x•.° :ht~`f~:• h , s . ~;. •. ~.~ t • °" •'. R :'e i ~R'•~ r4~~ ~ " •~~r : fe :~.anyn° '.x •`. ~ " . , . y Ya ,r`" SOURCE County of Santa Clara 2006. Exhibit OSC-4 HAZARDOUS FIRE AREA City Limit ._.• ••--•• Sphere of Influence •~ Designated Hazardous Fire Area, }:"~' `'` F~rly Warning Alarm System 0 (/4 Ill I mile Saratoga General Plan 20 August 25, 2006 • • ~, C Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Water Supply Domestic water is supplied to Saratoga by the San Jose Water Company, a private company serving central Santa Clara _Co_unty, including the Cit~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 Va11e~Water District. Well and stream water is purified at the San Jose Water Company treatment_plant in Los Gatos. The San Jose Water Company does not supply water to areas more than one lift (300 feet) above the City's service svstem. Before more construction is allowed in portions of the Sphere of Influence or the western hillsides, additional water source(s) and an economical water distribution svstem must be identified that will allow a reliable delivery of an adequate supply and pressure of water for domestic and firefi hg tins purposes. 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 Quality 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 S stem ~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 project. Adherence to water quality standards for development proposals is the responsibility of the Cit~of Saratoga. The San Jose Water Companv updated its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMPI 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 capacit~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 Cit~phere 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 s .~ } %. i /!y / /rte ; f / ~ /r / ' ,,~~~ r' + Pr°sped Road / ' r'' %// / ,9t~yo .:%~~, ,, ,~. ~,9a ~; ,/ // f Cox Avenue /' /! ff /+`/f`~,r/, '', f/, cif,: /~% jJ~; / ~ o~iQ•y O' ! f // f/j p m / ~.~,% %':` f~;///r, i`~ ,% rr , ,~ plyendale Avenue ` i /r f /.'f// /~i /f//. 1 j r, r 1' l~ f F ,rf i' ~% -% r•/ a f/ r . irlr ' /~ v „~, ~; / s .%' ,/ ,~r,~` / / ;% r : , /f,~ r f i r ,/r,/ r~ / i,. / f ~rf ,rr/r/ /~/ r / +r / /• /I / ~;rSLJdly+~!~^_T„_~•/i%/ f/r r ~~ /,/~19t l %f ! /~ ~;% `~ / //'Wr'RR+)71r~"'~pJ'9Si''''./{, /J~'1/'f/r J//'•~'~i'r~~~~•~~~~1~ ~ `~t ; ? SOURCE: Cty of Saratoga, July 2006. E~ibit OSC-5 WATERSHED RESOURCES City emit ------•~--~•• Sphere of Influence Watershed & Hillside 0 I/d l/2 1 mile Saratoga General Plan 22 August 25, 2006 ~ • • • ti, -, Draft Open Space/Conservation Element C Plant and Wildlife Species Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence are charac- terized by a diverse array of wildlife and plant species. The landscape varies on the foothill and mountain slopes from drv 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 Douglas Fir forest and some groves of Coast Redwoods are found along many stretches of the Santa Clara Valley side of the ridge. Planni~ Area may include the California tier salamander and red-leg eg d frog. Both species are listed as Threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Hillside Area The Santa Cruz Mountains harbor many 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 larl~ frequent the area in search of food and shelter. 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. The one special status bird species that may still exist in the urbanized area is the burrow- ing_owl which is listed as a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Game. Local creeks and streams extending through the flatter, urbanized portion of the Saratoga The California Natural Diversity Data Base, maintained ~ the California Department of Fish and Game, lists several threatened and/or endan ered plant and wildlife species that may occur in the hillside potion of the Saratoga Planning Area, including coho salmon, steel- head trout, Zaxante band-winged agr shopper, California tiger salamander, California red- leg eg d frog, Cooper's hawk, San Francisco garter snake, Alameda whipsnake, white-rayed pentachaeta, Ben Lomond spineflower, Marin western flax. Tiburon paintbrush, coyote 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. Open Space and Conservation Ele- ment goals and strate ieg_ s require site specific surveys for sensitive bioloig cal species prior to actual development. At the present time, the one wildlife preserve in the Saratoga area is the_175-acre Montalvo Arboretum which extends up into the City's Sphere of Influence. The Arboretum is an official Audubon Society sanctuary for birds; over seventy-five varieties of birds have been identified on the proper ~ty_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 Montalvo Arboretum are maintained bathe Santa Clara Coun Parks Department. Arbor Resources The City of Saratoga owes much of its beauty to the wooded hillsides and native and ornamental trees found throughout its neighborhoods. The City of Saratoga has also historically recognized 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_pronertxyalues. The preservation of such trees supports the health, safety and welfare of the Citv residents by preserving scenic beauty preventing soil erosion, protecting against 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 Code) establish the basic standards and recommendations for the protec- tion and preservation of trees in Saratoga. The City's Tree Regulations are designed 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 reservation of trees, the City Council has ado~,ted 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 devel~ment of several luxurious spas, remind- ;nu 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 Saratoga the Citv 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 bod~to the City Council, Planning Commission, and other agencies as to the impact of proposed new development on historic resources. A list of des~o~ated 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, generally located at beginning 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 • • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element In addition to Citxlandmarks dating back to the 19`~ 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 investigation. Saratoga General Plan 25 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element OPEN SPACE/RESOURCE PLAN The City of Saratoga intends to implement the followin course of action to ensure that additional parks trails and resource conservation areas are developed, protected and preserved. _. .. - Park Standards The City shall seek to attain a bark Qoal 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 adeauacy of parkland. Parks maintained by regional entities are not included in this foal. 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 City 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- oped land will pose challenges to the City in seeking to attain its Qoal. The City will face particular challenges in the northerlyportion of Saratoga which is currently deficient in the amount of parks, primarily due to planning policies in effect when this portion of Saratoga was subdivided in the 1950s and 1960s.. City Trails Development of a comprehensive trail svstem has been a priority of the community for many years The Existing and Proposed Trails Map identifies proposed trails that when completed will provide the community with a trail svstem network that provides men space linka eggs for greater access to recreation activities and natural resources within and beyond City limits. The Citx continues to require dedication of trail easements as a condition of development adiacent to .planned trails. (Refer to Exhibit OSC-2 Preservation of Natural Resources Preservation of natural resources, including agricultural resources sensitive hillsides, rare, threatened and endan eg r~e_d_plant and wildlife ~ecies water resources and others has been a City_priority for a number of years. 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. plain areas, limit development in areas that contain sensitive Llant or wildlife species and protect watershed areas and scenic views. Land use regulations should be coordinated with amendments to the City's zoning o nance to ensure effectiveness. State grants Dedication of narks and trails The City can and should require dedication of both land for parks and trail easements wher- ever feasible when considerine subdivision maQs (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- ~ose fees to assist in financing trail develop- ment. User fees and charges Recreational fee revenues are placed into the Cites General Fund. The Citv 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 Citescould 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 ongoing agricultural operations, limit development in and adjacent to flood The State of California has adopted several bond QroQrams in recent years that provide full or partial funding for park acquisition and development, trail development and similar 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 ~ecific 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 " .. .b........, ».,. . , ».»,. ,.~ Y' s ; 1 i ~ ~erv e~ ~ Y ~ese~val~ e~ e~~ a~,,,~ -,, ~ 7-v ~ mo rc.....»..,,..» . ». L ,~, •i ---- ---- . lh, i cd -u o-- r---- '- ,..nl 1 «.ln. . -n ~ --- -- 7 G\ h1.n rc~vcrrcc~-a crcr z rr g r-Frs rna , mzii .~ .-~ :Iic. ......... . ....... .,». .J ._...,»b.. -- H ~e~Ia~= ~arQs ~x~r->~-a re ere a-.. ~ i= n n ., Y « n ,. Y Y Y Y J o ~8$S r. ;,~,eei~a~eeds, ~ tte~]-as tie-~~s~ea~~3` ~sal~e~, ~ Ike e~e~ s~ae~g «h n«,1 ~..h....n ;. nh:..«nl .. Han ,.c ---- ..nnn,.., ., ,,o,u.«e ---- -' r----- - -------- -- a - -a -' , : I,Irr~-~ crrvrv ai-acv~azo c. ..., . .. j .,... m cry 1 accep ~I ht i~ ... . n t:w,:hn. . ........ l }.. n .... ........» nlt ., ).,'11 '.1 O 11 C hl, lv}n ~'.. nn vll ITiJi Ci '~1 ;'f i{,.'Ti ,T «nl JZGRSZ~OIi ILIIbv nhn,l h„ ..1 . w, h,.,.nl .... w.s .. .. ~..h:..«n : .... ..,..... .»..,...... ;j. z Q - ' :rii u CZCCrcai .,, ..... ivixm .> ,.. .... .,... ,~ I > n n«,1.. «h nl > n e_ «.1 e ,-t hl,en hn.. /D n.,1 Hdn~ ~ ' e tx~es:Pe~ e~-€ee#.~ s-major ., _, __ _________- __~ ___- __ ___ _ ___r _r - __. ~ ~ ~ ~~e ~~ ~= 4 ~e ee~»I - ~ ~ rG ,.}• c hi,e , s _n}e,l l, ~ ~ ;lln:ae ; .,l.,a„a n n L _ _ ~L e ..4.,«}' nl ,.~' b,e ~~'.i--mxc arc ~~ ~ ~ a- r~ . TL.n t,:11 n ., ,:ae 1.,.}t, &iiiie3fe Ie Saratoga General Plan 28 August 25, 2006 • :7 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • C-~i~eeu~~e~a•~ , eel ~tse~ ~. L'. h..»,. 7 ...,.1 TTS.. 'Tl,n !`; t,. nl,nlt ,,,nl.n eenee~e~ e€fe~-~e~~e~ee~e~err-epee-~ t ,7 l,:ll~:.7n a ~l,~ll ~ 1., tl,o Do~;.7o.,t;..1 xsrtcc-rrrrrvnzc-Fireu-Feria .,..».. »YY.~ ......~...,........,..». tl+ 1 .7n ..1.,...1.7 tL,~.~1,oeomo~..,-t ..F h1.,o_!'~: t. ~ ~ ............. Y......~ .........~ ., .7 h., tl,e ~ . vraini°cfr%~-iircvZrr~ ~ F h....nn a; e.7 t., ~1+ 1+..«:t., „F C'n«nh...,n T„ vrc~asccix~raca-to cnc :.....»b: ..~ .,».»...b». ... l..nt:.,., F.,h..«e 1.,...7 a eF4;..-tn ni,nil l.e ...n,7e c~-~.mscrcrrr~rararczu:i~'.,..~, .....,..., .,..»., ........».... A-nt /~..«t«n ~.M D~ ~ 8 .7 n e.,t ..F hl. c . ~~ -le~~-ae~a~r -e ~eet~re ~ e~- ; g g A«.« t' i ° ,lnh;.,., ~ «...+«~~~ F .-:..nanl.. -ii~cs. r azss . r i v~ 1' a ~ i T "~F ~ a "' '? rc~v~irccn, ~u~- v., » .., ..v. a ~ .». . h' F tl. nt..«nl o o ..h ' A ~ 2'f17~iV ~,~ v ~ ~Ai ~.]....s. ~i ~ 3Si~S~ef3 o " h ~-~36h 1'~ ~~ --~ ~~ ifl ure8-- ~e61 - r z m aa ~ i ~1= ~ ~--rv~t# t~~~~~s ~es~~e-fie a~e s es, a~c ° . ................., .,Y.... .,Y»..... s ~ ~D,.n:,7n...tin1 a ,.l.;nl. e e«,tnil., na;,:o ..~1. , ,,,11.. e5t~s~~~eside~~--~ei~ ~ s e ~ e ~: A-r;-ese~~He°~Pe~t-$~~eee--~l~e--Ei~-e€ wee a€~er~s~~see-ice ~~e~eei~-e~ea > > 1 2, lf'"""""_ ' "" " ___ __ Saratoga General Ptan 29 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element ~' ~ a~s~e~ e~ tie- ~e~e S -e€ ~. - -t~P axx~ra'Ei~C , ~ i ~ t-a~ns~-~egtEa~---~~a~~~g---area bey-~}tr$aa:=tee-fee-a~- e ~ Ti1~:c~~~ »~ Wit:: : °...:~ ~ ~F .....,.a e~•e~e~: ....._.-°° -------~ ------- --- --o a t°.., ,.nt,n,.an~ F~xxrcrlrTlFarin~pciiiiioi ° 'r ~"°« ~'-'-~~'- --__"__ ... _____-o- .. --- - ____ -_ ~ i~~ll-~rrianrSv^ia-TCEt~r9y}s464iSc-~S a a .. ,,;, ,~;ae n ,,,~,~n, n n ~ , .,.,~.. ...... .....___- "-- v --- ------ ~ -- ~ ~ -- RmT 1 .7 ixcra° In«.7nnn«°.~1 n nn~~.r;do Y ~a-R,~s~°~~ert s~aEes $re ° ., .,~ .,..»».,._ .,___--- -r~-- -r-.,nod -- ---------- r . , ~~ =v-~~'uilfiA~6'H--L 1~1 ~ s 7 t ~ TeaC ~ ~~ ' ' ~S[- ~'Ere.~Eai iS ~ e'e E}~C Cj R III I ^1 ~~ ~' ' ° L.n ° Lt, ° 1,' 1,°..• ~ Ee 1} PmTa b ~ ~ T•n •a n . nl,,..,,, „~ Tt,° t,:tt..;a°....«a L1_° ~Eate--i~e`i~s 'mere€ere; ~eve~e~~e~~---x~s~ °a ~r° ~~ega's c-~t~ttre}-~er}~age-~~t~~ Saratoga General Plan 30 August 25, 2006 • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element i~ )•,n t:,r.:4na 4.. .,..t«„11n,7 ,.«n, 41.n .,F . . 7;..,, 1;m;4or1 ~l:n, ,1.M.. n:. ,., „1„«n f .,,..t:~~ of n4z•«r,l f f 7 n:an..n4; .,.. nl,,,..1.7 l,e R .. 4., 4)•.e o o..4,i.,~ • 1 6~2s1raE~e~-3i3~-SEs'i~2:-~li~~E ~ c c.,.n,:4 r.....,..,.,n...n.,.n n~,,., „l.:nn } -_ -nL.nil 4nyn «. n.lnr.nn , « 41,n . ,:.741, + «a Y• v.............. ...... ..... ........ ».... .7., .,,7 41,n nl,. ,.C SLL32QSGt-i~RU „~u~~ w. .. ...v ....s.v~a v ~.. :,7n ntl~ .,.7 .44n , ., ....... b»......,. ~Tt~c~~t-ie~ e€ Beanie-9pe :«: ,.r ~t S~aee-eke F «v :.,, e ~ ~te~e~~E nln~ n..,7 ..., n. n~t~~e: . ,lo ,.,,«e.,*;nl „~ «« •1 ..ln ,.L.n11 n nh., ..1 nle ~ n n ~ ~rl..,. r~:+.,ln n neon nh.,ltl,o ., ene,~..od ......_... .--- --v - ------- ------ -- r~---- -- ~~s~4e~ed-w~e~e~essib~e, n.....nl n ~ie~vs: rl«n e.1,4 «An n4n« 4 nL:.,n . .. o ehn{:..« 4n l,n «1n.,4n,7 ra ..+ .~.M:...n.7 ' 41.«.,....1.,,,,4 41.n ~:4~„ nll,. e e f ^^~~ °~T C Dn..1.7..,. i ..fin T n ..4;,,,,~,,,n._e nn°^ ^F s a~~~~ -~ t € ~ ~-- t~ s t~ g e s a~e ~ -e~c~r-age~e~ na„ ~hn.,., na ,.i. nl,.,,,l € a $ ~ = ~ ess~bte~ s-- : e-eee nse .~ .,+«,.1 ° ~ „~.. ...~ .,41.n nob. n.lln l,F_n .. n > «4 ' iz en,,.,;n n„n., c...,,,,, >r„~,o,.*,,,.sz~r n ....L.l:n f e-~Ii~eveie~~ne°'. T.. na,7:4:,,~ .,. a.n n non 4., n o _ o nl.nll l,n o ,n l..n4n.7 ..ri n« ,., ,., ..~~..._ . __ ..., .,----- -- - . ____--- r---- nL.nll n1...7n 1,..! «,.4 T`l.n r:r.. „F Qn«nr.,.,., n•.,,~d~_.,n +1.e .,n4n. •.. 1,n«., nFn« «nflnnhe.7 _. • ..., 1.. ..,. 41..n ,. n1;4.. „F Saratoga General Plan 31 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Wi i4r 7 e S J~ ~.. .. . ...,.. t..... ...... JZ e rrIT6. ~~u c_ =-~T-Ti tt Ii C. . ' .1 t 4' Q ., ., f., Tl, e .. ~ ., ., ,.,w 4:, ........ ., .b »YY" } }} ~ }} } } ~}E E }}}} a} }~~ E ~~ ~ }}gg E } }}~- S gam y ~' ~ TT-y~'~x ~~. y JC f Trawnrvvn ., ~. h 1 fl, 1'1. .....-- ` ' i t. _-.-____ rlr~.h„ v __ ..---- -- ----- «.1 ,. ul,,, "' znc'iivia ~v r x xy " YY b " "• T ~ ~€ -~;~--Qeex~- r ae ~ 7 A=-c6i~3ce~26i3S~9~~3E i ~ 'fie}]--Q~- 3~cre r 26 A i 7 ,_'11 '.1 7 ,1 f1,~.,.,..1,.,,,f fhe Cn«fn rl.,«.. x~3~r~rr71--~-.-.--_'--- -'- 7 -ruzx°7' 0 Y 7 r"r x~~t~~~e~~--t~~~e~g T 1A^7^7 fl+ r:a,.. ,.i.,«f.,,7 al,e TiT....f,.~ T....:1.. .,«.7 .., y ' _--r -- ---- - ------ ------- -- -h xD-afax., Dl ,1, .......7 _~ ~~ i .,,l,lo.l fi. n«Q ., °'^'~°v ~ii2 7 il~i~u6 3~--~3e-~ ¢@S~eF- 3 ef~3 u~4633 c}~@l~ i ~ i e2 m G T '7 .1 D fl.. rrurr ~ r o TA.,rfa« D1.. ~ `~ 4'•1.'1 1,' ,..1:«., n«.i 1..,.-~eh..,.L «.i;«.. f.-.,;1~ vx 7 J ""'b 1. 11 1. ..e.l ,..1.:. ~ O .1. ..l,,,ae~ fr.,:1., ..:fh;« a ..1 1, f. ..11 r:f,. _r`n, ,,~. Cf..f., .,«,1 .. ..1 ~ Tara-a , , ~ c 7 iar 'l~a~ cco--~~ciz-ao-i.,:l ~ t.: ~ ::'a;.'b »..,......, ~~::: '1~ T '1 A '~' / "' '• Tho !';f. _1,,,11 i i ci iu ` ~z-rc-icirz~rc~vi~icivn . x =xi.. ....J ....» c c „_ ~,~~. ff ........ ».... '... '------- r ~ ------o ----- r e~~ ~ t~ ~t^~~ ~see e - ea x 7 7 . 7 • Ee~ree~~e~te tel. ~~ ~s~ a~~ i ~ ~ ~3ii3 69 ~ 6~1- ~P 1~a ~ 7 y»"""""7 f .1 7 .. fl,e „ 1.. «foo.. .. e e «.7 ~ } .a C . ~ ~ ~ le«.,1 .. ...h:.,h , ~cb 6e3 , 7 & 3 }A}3& Saratoga General Plan 32 7 7 August 25, 2006 • • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element • I~ ~~ _ ; ~~ ~ 1 •,l ~~ett ~es~r-ie~te~-~~°~~ ~ee~~-ems-Say-mega--E~ee~~, ,_1° ~~ «a A 1. t .-t.+ 1: .:tl. tL.e a «~'.. ..F .~ °, ~_- +ci32-vcccxv~~c~-'-'T' ^ 1;.,« !`_l.,« Tl.-:..~ ..«.1 r'1°P ca,si~l t '1 L. 11 1..,, .le..:..«e.l .,«.l .le..ol.,«°d ~ a r } ~ •1. 'L.:1;1-.. veal.. ..4'_n o r.-~.~r-cn~accc ~~r 1Q'1 D ~7, .. __.. Q v n ia ~ U:Le «.,fl,~ .,1..«. .. _----- r----- ------o ir i° l" "ou i ~ . /'V+.. ..meet., --v ------ ,•C ~: •• c-=rxu a va - c rr a ~ ~Sa cr b b >,.`L ,~ viicel'zzxCC2ivaS- > aS-a~FA~~$~°. T« .~10 ~:.,., .. fl,°n° e nc~t}' }'~n4 ~~ ~i n~e~. ~T~~et~d--p~ei=ire-~e~~ •1 r:. ,..v Tt,~ r:r.. ~~~ ~}l~isna-irc ..~ ., .,».... Wit.:.....,. ».. afizxcscr!'~aF$~6~a ~Fai~S~B"~~ +•, «F ...Y. .,il Saratoga General Plan 33 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element e,~,-;zed ~ze#ietes b~e-e~ ~e~s~e~ 'dc~-td .luri zv «•-• • ,.«,. va . eT.:..te ~-~.~,_t~o;l~ ~'6_ ~viiiovrs ry~.'.le M.n............ »._».. 7~_~'~._~_ ~P+v.TQ 4 t. «.1nr....h4:«n n«.1 ~1~..,.l:n~ ., CT f j~ C ~ ~ r x-us~o>~'a f t 1 .1 .1 .. of ,.:., ,, t} `z W~ - ~~Et ~ B R''''°,~ a e~- C~t~~- e~- , ~s f ~ ~ •l .s !"`nl;~ ..«:n _ Te«n«t c 8~ risacEi$E9 a F t' 1. .7 eg36 , /'' .7 •1.,. T T«:+ n.7~ +..t 0 z > > ~ ' T1. !"''+. !'' .a nL .~,,.l.l l. o _ «.ln.i a „ .«nl...le o r « b a Q • ~~~~et~~ ~e~=e-as , e~Ee--a~ L~}~ ~ 2AQ TT C~ 7~ /10_Shc ~ ~~~~~ ~~ e , a~- ~t~st~Ee- Saratoga General Plan 34 August ~5, ~uun • .J Draft Open Space/Conservation Element nTt, 0.,4 .,~' 4L. e ..,,b,l;n ,014 ~.,----r- -- --- 1, a .7 .,1,,..:.,o - r----- ------ -- T4.e ,.ni.,e~ :ts i ~ irr .rcrrco--in-~~p l~ ~ ~ ... ., ., .. »., r.. j -~-~s ~e~a -- e e ae~e et aee ~- s r~e t, 4'F,, 1 n ,eil nn L ,on141„: c n tt ~t ~.,.. ett t ., .. v.. ~ J, "n t.. v,n.,,t ,ett v».»..v vv »r .. .... .-.. t~a „..«4:i,a,nlt ,,.t s..+:,.,.tn4na 4.. s e ».»..... .,.. ».. ... ~,{~.t t,. .~+4«..tt e,.t 11 , f 7 ~ s , > > t,• i. t. a 4,. ,.tt„ „4..,,ttea Ito ot~ ~,n ....»...,~ .. 4 .t t,, a ..-- -- ----- - e _ „~ 4,. ---------- -- ---r a .., a ..:;~ .t 4' „F a ,.~ ~ «,~_ of„ral ~ n ~~ T*•n •a n , .tn...,,n„+ >a„,._aoi,ut~„.v.e,.,4 „ id ~ ~ews~c~s-:-woe e;-epee s tie-l S~se~s~r 1 > > ......~ .., ----a-- ~- ~'4 4 ~ tt t. :, ---- ---- -------- - ---- o - t e.+4: F:ua n., `t ..«~4en4o(t_ ~~ n t a t-R .,,»:ntn tle,.et....w,e.,4 .,.:41,: ' ............. ' « -"- ..« ~i n . .... ..n --r--------~ ---- -------~ --- - - : : ; t t t .~ t, 4 4. ..4o..«n 4 .... . , 4 , 4 ,n r, n4„r__n it ~S@ $2~ L - ~ ' T ~ ~ ~ T 4 ' crro 1'~'~ cai i e E ~3~ 6 &~3 - rS-ianpv 9 i r- r c~ z ~~ee 4., ~ n ~ enn4 ; tal sr~ ,~ ee 1, .,t...:..e .,. .-t.. t..e~~me_n. ..a ., t,.te Q:...... 4t.e : ,.F ..-, eoaod F .. n ~ s~ ..:4:.~.T. ,.,4e e9e} Seems=~Y-~e~v~~~at~at--~,ae ^'T~:nt~12G.ZTi~YfEtGiC , •~n~ - -'--/' Saratoga General Plan 35 August 25, 2006 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element General Open Space ~f eel ,• e e ..~.. ,,.,a aea: rr ~e~rs ..,,..,, ,.,,.,,e w,.. ,,. ~, ,- s Goal OSC 1: To provide and maintain oven mace resources of local and regional signifi- cance accessible to the public. Strategy OSC 1_.1: Prepare an oven 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. Strategy OSC 1.2: Encourage and facilitate the participation of individuals, citizens, groups civic organizations, and those hav- ing syecial needs, such as the ph s~~dis- abled in the open space planningprocess. Goal OSC 2: To preserve the natural and rural character of Saratoga. Strategy OSC_ 2.1: Ensure through the yub- lic review yrocess, that all development yro- posals public and private, are sensitive to the natural environment and the commu- nity's open space resources. Parks Goal OSC 3: To provide and maintain narks which are located, designed, and imyroved to serve the needs of the residents, the community, and the neighborhoods of Saratoga. Strategy OSC 3.1: Ensure that existing and future Barks and dedicated open spaces re- main part of the public domain in perpetuity. Strategy OSC 3.2: Preserve oven space and recreational resources provided on school sites and surplus school sites through ioint use agreements acquisition and/or land use controls. Saratoga General Pian 36 August 25, 2006 • r~ 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 Open Space Linkages Goal OSC 5: A city-wide s} bicycling, .and... horseback . ridin provided within the community regional trail linkages with Cih and re i~nal^parks, and other open space lands. stem of hiking, trails shall be which includes ~. County, State, publicly owned Strategy OSC 5.1: The City shall continue to use the Parks and Trails Master Plan as a day to-day guide for the development, main- tenance and financing of trails in Sarato~ Strategy OSC 5.2: The Citv shall promote the acquisition of trails through purchase, dedication, or gift. Strategy OSC 5.3: Trail planning, acquisi- tion, development, maintenance and man- ~ement 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 sensitivity to the resources and environmental hazards of the areas they. traverse, as well as their po- 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 tential impacts on adiacent lands and private property, includingpotential impacts to pri- vate property owners' privacy and security. Trails shall be designed to City specifica- tions, require minimal grading, and include effective erosion control measures. Strategy OSC 5.7: The City 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 comdor. Strategy OSC 5.8: The Citv shall not ac- quire, .plan, or develop trail easements or public access easements along Wildcat Creek or Saratoga Creek, across sin lg_e 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 properiy. This policy statement shall apply to Saratoga Creek from Prospect Avenue south to Tollgate Road, and to Wildcat Creek from Ouito 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 Springhill Court, 3) Crestbrook Drive and Via Monte Drive, and 4) Via Real Drive, as shown on the Trail System Map. 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 Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Scenic Open Space 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. Strategy OSC 6.2: Public use and eniov- ment of the unincorporated hillside areas for recreational Qurooses 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 y OSC 6.3: Future land uses within the western hillside or any Sphere of Influ- ence expansion area shall be reviewed by the Citesthrough the development review process to ensure consistency both with ex- isting patterns of land use in the unincoroo- rated hillside areas and with the City's de- sire to maintain the area as predominantly open mace 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 grading, lim ited disruption of natural vegetation, use of structural height limits and structural design and densii euidelines SQecial considera- tion should be given to the eventual devel- ~ment of a canopy effect of tree growth. A~riculfural Resources Goal OSC 8: Encourage preservation of land uses for open~ace and agriculture. Strategy OSC 8.1: In evaluating future land uses efforts shall be made to maintain agri- cultural lands as a component of oven space and tomreserve the rural and agricultural heritage of Saratoga. The City shall discour- a e 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 4uality Goal OSC 9• Protect existing watercourses in the community and enhance water quality in surface and subsurface water sources. Strategy OSC 9.1: Retain surface water- courses in their natural condition to the greatest extent possible. Strategy OSC 9.2: Concentrate develop- ment in those portions of the community least susceQtible to soil erosion and mini- mize grading 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 25, 2006 • r-~ ~J ~J -..I Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Goal OSC 10: Maximize efficiencies in the use of the City's water supply. Strategy 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 Planning area. Strategy OSC 11.1: Minimize development that would encroach into important wildlife habitats, limit or restrict normal ran e~eas, 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 ment 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. --- --- -- __ ....._... - Strategy OSC 12.1: Development projects should include the preservation of protected trees and other significant trees. AnY ad- verse affect on the health and longevity of native oak trees, protected or other signifi_ cant trees should be avoided throw h~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 Citv. Strategy OSC 11.2: Throueh the develop- ment and CEOA process, preserve, protect, and maintain riparian habitats and creek cor- ridors. This includes requiring b~ iolo ig~cal surveys of parcels of land that could contain sensitive species or their habitats prior to allowin dg evelopment on these parcels. Strategy 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 aestheticall~pleasin~park- i~ lots. Strategy 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. Strategy OSC 11.5: Mature vegetation shall bepreserved wherever possible. Arbor Resources Strategy OSC 12.2: Trees used for new or replacement plantings should be selected primarily for low water use characteristics. Strategy OSC 12.3: To further support the Cit}r'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 ement activities, inventory and assess trees, sum- marize data and specify benchmarks. Fire safety shall be an important consideration when evaluating the preservation of native ve eta Goal OSC 13: The preservation of native and other plant species indicative of Sarato a's cultural heritage shall be 'given priority over development and provide for the perpetua_ tion of such species. Strategy OSC 13.1: To further preserve the city's inventory of arbor resources, the Citv 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- age public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City's east 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 herit~e trees. This can be done by publicizing information about heritage trees 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 historX• (Refer to Historic Character Land Use Element Strategies and Implementa- tion ProQraml• Strategy OSC 14.1: Support activi- ties/events that highlight Sarato¢a's rich his- torX as the "Valley of the Heart's Delight", such as the yearly Mustard Walk event at the Central Park or Heritage Orchard. Air Quality Goal OSC 15• Improve local and regional air duality by ensuring,.all development proiects incorporate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants. Strategy OSC 15.1: Require development Qroiects to comply with Bay Area Air Oual- i Management District measures to reduce )fugitive dust emissions due to grading 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 cial and office development projects to re- duce dependence on auto use. Draft Open Space/Conservation Element IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM: General Oven Space Goal OSC-1: To~rovide and maintain open mace resources of local and re iog_nal significance accessi- ble to the public. Responsible Agency: Public Works/Community Development Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: OriQOing Related Strategies: OSC 1.1, 1.2 Goal OSC-2: To preserve the natural and rural character of Saratoga. Responsible Agency: Public Works/Community Development Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing ~ Related Strategies: OSC 2.1 ~~ '~ 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: On og ing Related Strategies: OSC 3.1, 5.1 Trails and Oven Syace Linkages Goal OSC 5: A c~-wide system of hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding trails shall be provided within the community which includes regional trail linkages with City, County, State, and regional parks, and other Qublicly owned open space lands. Responsible Agency: Public Works/Communi_ty_Development/Pedestrian, Equestrian and Bi- cycle 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 existin¢ view sheds view comdors, 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. Respnsible Agency: Community Development/Public Works Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ongoing 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: Ongoing Related Strategies: OSC 10,1 Saratoga General Plan OSCI-2 August 7, 2006 • • Draft Open Space/Conservation Element Biological Resources Goal OSC 11: Protect and enhance sensitive vegetative and wildlife habitat in the Saratoga Plan- ning area. Responsible Agency: Community Development/Public Works Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: OrigOing 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 herit~e shall be ig~ven 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 I4: Through coordination with and implementation of other related General Plan strategies, safeguard the heritage of the City by providing for the protection of irreplaceable historic and cultural resources representing significant elements of Cites and regional history. (Refer to Historic Character Land Use Element Strategies and Implementation Programl. 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 puality Goal OSC 15: Improve local and regional air quality by ensuring all development proiects incorporate all feasible measures to reduce air pollutants. Responsible Agency: Community Development Funding Source: General Fund, Development Fees Time Frame: Ori og ing Related Strategies: OSC 15.1, 15.2 Saratoga General Plan OSCI-3 August 7, 2006 • Attachment 3 • Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations 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:.Ad language Retail) commercial which clarifies t t 100°° coverage ~ zones nto Saratoga only appliesto uillag'e Specific Plan area; add - for / new commercial development / ~i located adjacent to or across from an established single-family or Q a1 ~ U multi-family residential use, riate landscape buffers shall ro a ~ ~,' ~ ~w ~ p pp be required that are at least equal ~ ~j\' ~ ` 1"~ ~ to the setbacks of the adjacent 1 /I ~ residential district. Also, no single l ant of~said development shal ex d 15,OOa~square feet of floor area. ---~ PA (Professional PA PA Text Amendment: Eliminate Dice) reference to FAR; amend maximum building coverage to 30%, 'consistent with Zoning Ordinance ~,, ~ standards. ~ Land Use Ma me dment: Redesi n approzima .7 o ga acre ite at 13025 Sarat Av nue, on the west side of ratoga Avenue approximately J 1 00 feet north of State Route 5 J t the CR (Commercial Retail and u e designation. The purpo of the i' pr osed change is to urage ~ com cial Ian 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 comers 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 . • • 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 Refaill 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 jResidenfia/ Multiple 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/Cluasi 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 Map 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 Map 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: Healfh 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 ecitic 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 boundazy on Land Use Map Other Amendments: RLD RVLD R-1-40,000 La 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 pazcel 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 • r i w ~~ ~, r~~ Land Use. Map Amendments Exhibit 3 ® PDM/G to CR ® PDM to RMF u • ;. ® PF to CFS ® QPF to CFS SR85 PUC to SR85 ® PDM to CR ® PDM to RMF Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 4 ~dy / 1 T Y7r HERRIMAN ~ SARATOGA AVE BIRON SUNNYVALE- ~ SARATOGA ROAD ~ ,~;, ~ a~ ~~ ~ ~ 0 "U ~ ,~° ~~~ ~ N Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 5 ® QPF to CFS ® PDM/G to CR C7 • ;. >~ ~~ ,, ~I ARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD ` ~T ~S~ . L ~T ~ ' -N Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 6 ® QPF to CFS ® RLD to RVLD ® PF to CFS ® RA to CR h r, • • ® QPF to CFS ® PF to CFS sRaS PUC to SR85 • Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 7 :7 Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 8 ® QPF to CFS ® PDM to PA ® PA to CR ~ MUPD to RM10 sRBS pUC to SR85 ; i ~ ; QPF to RM 10 Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 9 ® QPF to CFS ® PF to CFS ~ ~ • ® QPF to CFS QPF to RVLD Land Use Map Amendments Exhibit 10 Attachment 4 JEFFREY B. HARE Attorney at Law. A Professional Corporation 501 Stockton Avenue San Jose California 95126 Tel: 408-279-3555 Fax: 408-279-5888 Jbhlaw@pacbell.net September 26, 2006 Via Regular and E-mail CATHLEEN BOYER CITY CLERK CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070 RE: OBJECTION TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING PROJECT: APPLICATION #07-082 (City Wide) Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements of the Saratoga General Plan and Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Boyer: This letter constitutes a formal objection on behalf of the Neighbors of Kevin Moran Park to the proposed Draft Land Use and Open Space/Conservation Elements project, Application #07-082, which has been scheduled for a Study Session on September 27, 2006. Pursuant to Government Code §6250, et seq., I hereby request a copy of any and all documents, writings, and other public records that pertain or in any way relate to the proposed project, including, but not limited to, the Initial Study, any checklist, or other documentation prepared by or on behalf of the City of Saratoga concerning the environmental review for this project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. Very truly yours, Jeffrey B. Hare cc: Richard S. Taylor, City Attorney Deborah Ungo-McCormick From: John Livingstone Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 10:41 AM To: Therese Schmidt Cc: Deborah Ungo-McCormick Subject: FW: General Plan update ATT599706.htm Hi Therese Please respond to this e-mail. Thank you John L -----Original Message----- From: Maureen [mailto:mohillconsulting~comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 4:47 PM To: John Livingstone Cc: dave~saraatoga.ca.us Subject: General Plan update I have recently become aware of the City's General Plan update, in fact according to the Planning Commission Agenda for 9/27, a study session is planned, followed by a public hearing for the consideration of approval of the land use element. I have downloaded the Draft Land Use Element, however the proposed Negative Declaration and staff report is not included with the agenda information available to the public. As such I have several questions for which I would appreciate responses to prior to Wednesday 9/27. 1) When was the General Plan Update initiated? 2) What was the process for public noticing of the project? 3) When and in what format were community input meetings conducted? 4) What is the basis for the adequacy of the CEQA determination for the project? How will the City comply with CEQA for the General Plan as a complete document? I plan to attend the Planing Commision study session and public hearing, and according to the agenda the public is limited to 3 minutes of opening statements. With this time constraint for address to the Planning Commisioners, a timely reply to the issues raised will be appreciated. Please call me if you have any comments or questions to this request. Thank you, Maureen Hill, Principal Owens Hill Consulting Land Use, Development and Environmental Planning 18813 Aspesi Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 P. 408-872-0794 F. 408-872-0219 M 408-202-3994 mohillconsulting~comcast.net Page 1 of 2 Deborah Ungo-McCormick From: John Livingstone Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:27 AM To: Dave Anderson; Deborah Ungo-McCormick Cc: Barbara Powell Subject: FW: count this email as 5 Citizens: OPPOSITION to 2006 GENERAL PLAN voted should wait until after elections-! FYI From: Kristin Borel Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:00 AM To: John Livingstone Subject: FW: count this email as 5 Citizens: OPPOSITION to 2006 GENERAL PLAN voted should wait until after electionsN! From: K C [mailto:historycalkc@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:40 PM To: Kristin Borel; kboyer@saratoga.ca.us; saratogakc@yahoo.com Subject: count this email as 5 Citizens: OPPOSITION to 2006 GENERAL PLAN voted should wait until after electionsN! mount this email as 5 OPPOSITIONS by CITIZENS to 2006 GENERAL PLAN I have permission from the following people to input their objections about any approval for the 2006 City Council General Plan. (See articles written in Saratoga News Sept 06, and Sept 20, 2006 Stereopticon, written by Willys Peck.) Willys Peck Betty Peck Gerry English Jenni Taylor-Young Kathleen Casey-Coakley Because not all people have email, letters maybe post marked for today! The date 25 September 2006, which was a date noted in one copy of a general plan, that due date was not clear to many citizens, because many people didn't even know about a NEW GENERAL PLAN! WHY RUSH to A NEW PLAN, when a new council being elected on November 7, which will effect the next council budget! The plan that has been used is dated 1989, realistically Citizens can wait another 6 months, Citizens want to wait! The aneeting on 27 September, 2006 Wednesday's planning will have many citizens giving their opposition! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9/26/2006 Page 2 of 2 ~. The City Council's vote should wait until after November 7th 2006 elections, and with more CITIZEN INPUT! The New City Council will be there to help decide for Saratogans, with more citizen meetings, and public input, with copies of general plan to be placed into the library for review, to review for a much longer period of time. This includes Annexation programs that can cost the next council, Los Gatos did not force annexation! They asked their citizens, and the council actually asked county property owners, if they would like to be annexed! MY OPINION: I would stop annexation just because the long term effect on Saratoga's budget will hurt future needs of Saratogans within the city limits. Being responsible for old county roads, water and sewage can only lead to big expenses!....Any landslide or water supply problems are large ticket expenses, these type of expenses are never ending, with mountain property. I know, Woodside knows, all of Hi-way 9 knows, Prospect Avenue people know, On Orbit Drive, people know, How expensive landslides are! County will have the money, Saratoga doesn't! THESE City Council needs to tell the public must be completed before any NEW City GENERAL PLAN can be accepted! Kathleen Casey-Coakley Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Y~jhoo!._Small_~usiness.: 9/26/2006 r Cynthia Barry 19281 San Marcos Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Phone: 408-867-3877 FAX.• 408-867-6024 To: Deborah Ungo-Mccormick Therese Schmidt Wanda Kownacki From: Cynthia Barry Re: General Reactions/Comments to Draft These are my initial reactions. Please do circulate them to the rest of the committee. 1. Page 3. Introduction. Need different language because this product is not our 20-25 year vision; it is merely an intermediate step in creating our 25 yeaz vision. 2. Introduction. Right up front there should be language as to semi-rural character of Saratoga. Don't find the word for 20 pages. 3. Page 10. Need to change "a generous amount of land devoted to pazks... to something that reflects our current status of only 40% of recommended and our desire to increase that percentage. 4. Page 11. Vision. Still no "semi-rural character". Seriously inadquate rendition of our existing vision. I think this is extremely serious-Vision statement is our aspiration-this suggests we have none. I hope that is not the City Council's direction! 5. Page 20. I'd recommend including our trees as part of our historic resources-remember the city logo is an Oak tree. See my note on page 27 for protection of our best trees. 6. Page 22. I really object to the absence of a statement that we are committed to redoing the area plans with the required community meetings in the near future. 7. Page 22 forward-I have not read all the crossed out policies-If there are things that are truly omitted in the reworked policy section, these need to be highlighted for us to consider. 8. Page 26. If the City Council agreed to allow B&Bs throughout the city in residential areas, would you please give us the citation. I frankly don't remember that happening. 9. Page 26. Goal LU-4 is not strong enough. 10. LU-5: Please refer back to Circulation Element that says development shall be limited where traffic impacts would be adverse. That's not what this update says. 11. LU-5. Please repeat Measure G language when you mention intensification of use. f 12. Section called Neighborhood Protection only deals with traffic. I think it should also include neighborhood character. What happened to our whole neighborhood preservation policy??? 13. Page 27: Section on Environmental Resource Protection.. Like to see something that addresses Saratoga's trees specifically and preservation of native trees and city inventory of very old and. very impressive trees of many species. 14. Page 29. Design Review. Need more than a mention. Need to say there are specifc guidelines that must be adhered to.. 15. Section on._VISION Who decded,on~ths_s_eanty_.product?...What happened to our existing vision. • Cathleen Bover ~~~~~~~Q From: Mary Robertson [robertson.b.m@mindspring.comj CITY OF SARATOGA Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:01 PM To: Cathleen Boyer; jilt hunter; Manny_Cappello@amat.com; lindarodgers@msn.com; jhlavaogden@Comcast.net; yanniezhao@yahoo.com Subject: Draft of Land use and Open Space use. There is a study session occurring tonight of which I will be unable to attend. I am concerned that this draft review process has not been properly noticed amongst other concerns. I do not see the General Plan changes noticed on the home page of Saratoga City web site. It had not been posted for review at the city's kiosk as well since I understand the review process was to have started in August. How are citizens supposed to know this is open for study unless they are part of a city wide notification list? Why are the area plans not being reviewed in conjunction with the land use portion at the same time? The land use portion of the G/P refers to them. These are very specific to each area for development and needs. How can a negative declaration be even suggested without defining the area plans again along with the implications for development at various locations. When making these types of changes to the G/P, a negative declaration is unacceptable. Equally, I have similar concerns for the Open Space portion of the General Plan. The wording of Tax Revenues on page 27 is a big concern to me and I fully object to such wording that "that the city could choose to Pass." This appears to take such choice directly out of the hands of the people and I fully object. I am also objecting to Page 27, Section titled Master Plan of Parks and Trails. This section indicates reference made to a Parks and Trails Master plan which refers to a number of specific Methods to expand park and recreation facilities. Claiming a negative declaration to put in this portion of the General Plan while talking about expanding facilities is unacceptable. This is as good as stating moving from a passive park to an intensified use active park has no impact. This is incorrect and for this reason and more, I am objecting to passage of this Open Space Policy. I addition the strategy of OSC 12.1 is unacceptable as well. Maintaining and increasing our Urban forest is necessary to retain the rural character of the very city we live in. A full design and review process should take place before any project is even considered. An EIR should be conducted as well. Once again, it appears that by adopting the Negative Dec, the city is trying to skirt around all possible EIR issues. This is unacceptable. For these reasons and more, I strongly oppose any adoption of these General Plan changes going forth for study tonight and would strongly and appropriately suggest that this city NOT DO a negative.Declaration and proceed with another form of the EIR. Why is there such a rush to dump these changes on a new council which should be involved in the process since they will be stuck with the administration of the G/P changes. Please make sure that my concerns which are too numerous to list are heard by this review board and public present. Respectfully yours, Mary Robertson Saratoga Resident 1 ' • ,. ,. --.. Cathleen Boyer ,~~ ~~' From: Barbara Stewart [barbara@barbarastewart.com] 206 Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:46 PM `~~ `:H~~ rOr; To: Cathleen Boyer; jhunter95070@yahoo.com;Manny_Cappello@amat.com;``""~--~.A lindarodgers@msn.com; jhlavaogden@Comcast.net; yanniezhao@yahoo.com Subject: Land Use and Open Space Before You This Evening Dear Planning Commission: I understand there is an item before you this evening .regarding changes to the General Plan with regard to use of the open space and density of land use. what methods of noticing were given to us that these items were up for review and how would a negative declaration possibly be appropriate given the contentious issues within this city regarding the use of open space and land use? Please table this discussion until appropriate noticing is given and the Saratoga citizens have had a chance to review the impact any decision or change to the General Plan would have on our city. Why do we feel that so many things are slipped in under the radar? Barbara Stewart (408) 366-0111 1 . • To: Saratoga City Council Cc: Director Community Development City Manager From: Cynthia Barry Wanda Kownacki Co-Chairs General Plan -Land Use Element Update Committee This letter constitutes a formal nonce from the citizen's committee appointed by the Saratoga City Council in 2004 to update the Land Use Element of the Saratoga General Plan. Our committee declines to sign the land use element update produced by the consultant who was hired by the city to complete that task. An explanation of the committee's decision is presented below. Cynthia Barry, Wanda Kownacki, Mark Weisler, Doug Robertson, Trish Seifer and Tom Marantette were appointed by the City Council in spring of 2004. Under the direction of Community Development Duector Tom Sullivan and staff planner Christy Oesterhaus, the committee was tasked with updating our general plan including consideration of future needs and including an opportunity for Saratoga's twelve neighborhoods (designated as "areas" in the general plan) to meet and update their specific area plans. In 2005 several events occurred that impacted this committee; Tom Sullivan retired, then, in consideration of budgetary and staffing issues, the Council decided to stop staff participation on all committees and decided instead to hire a consultant to complete th~ update on the land use element. Our committee was asked to contribute to the creation of a Request for~Proposal (RFP), one of the committee co-chairs served on the selection committee to hire the consultant, and the committee was asked to meet and work with the consultant and a newly hired staff planner, who was assigned to coordinate the creation of the land use update. The committee did all of these things as requested. In June of 2006, it became clear that the work product to be produced by the consultant was very limited in scope and did not fulfill the committee's original mandate. We understand the justification for producing a basic land use element that fulfills the state requirement and improves the city's legal position with respect to clarifying and enforcing our current ordinances and zoning. However, this revision does not represent the work of the committee and,. in our opinion, is not meaningful in terms of providing community input or a shared vision for land use decisions in Saratoga in the coming years. Our committee believes it is particularly important that Saratoga complete a comprehensive and substantive reconsideration of the land use element of our General Plan at this time because it has been over 20 years (1984} since the city last completed an update. After such a long time, the more limited technical and language "fix" does not seem to us to be what is needed, particularly as it does not reflect input from Saratoga's twelve neighborhoods as past updates have done. Therefore, we respectfully decline to consider this update a product of our committee, and committee members individually have stated their decision not to have their names associated with the report. The committee strongly recommends that the City move beyond this report to produce awell- .thought-out, comprehensive and up-to-date general plan based on community input. This project should have city staff support and involvement by all segments of the community. We understand that the city is in a period of change and that a new City Council will be seated after the November elections. We encourage consideration of a proposal to conduct a general plan update early in the tenure of the new council. We believe that some of the current committee members who have researched and written relevant sections of aforward-thinking land use update would be willing to participate in that project. We thank you for your consideration of this letter. r k gg ~'°it~~FaM''~" ~v,~rsv,m.~ w.,~...~ Cathleen Boyer Page 1 of 1 From: VFitch1181@aol.com CITY ~tj- Si~,i~tN.~i~OGA Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:54 PM ~~ To: robertson.b.m@mindspring.com; Cathleen Boyer; jhunter95070@yahoo.com; Manny_Cappello@amat.com; lindarodgers@msn.com; jhlavaogden@Comcast.net; yanniezhao@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [KMP-Neighbors] Draft of Land use and Open Space use. Since on such short notice I am unable to attend this meeting, !wish to adopt the letter sent by Mary Robertson as my own and request that the Council note my objections as noted in her letter. Thank you. Valerie Fitch Viewoak Drive 9/27/2006 ~• • Cheriel Jensen 13737 Quito Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 379-0463 September 26, 2006 Saratoga Mayor and City Council Members Saratoga Planning Commission Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor, Council Members and Commissioners, The proposed Draft Land Use Element the proposed Open Space/Conservation Elements must be reworked to restore the policies of our General Plan. MISSING POLICIES: The POLICIES of the current General Plan Land Use Element and Open Space/Conservation Elements have been reworded and turned into STRATEGIES. But nowhere in General Plan law or the General Plan Guidelines are there STRATEGIES. Attached pages from the General Plan Guidelines show POLICIES are essential. Policies are the heart of the authority of the General Plan: "A policy is a specific statement that guides decision-making. It indicates a commitment of the local agency to a particulaz course of action." (General Plan Guidelines, P. 1 S) The proposed Draft Land Use Element and the proposed Open Space/Conservation Elements, through rewording, effectively cancels out these General Elements by canceling out the policies. "An implementation measure is an action, procedwe, program or technique that carries out general plan policy. Each policy must have at least one corresponding implementation measwe." (General Plan Guidelines, P. 16) Combining policies and implementation into "strategies' is not proper. Without proper Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Elements, no development can conform to the General Plan and' therefore cannot be approved PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The General Plan Guidelines specify a public participation process. The General Plan Land Use Element Advisory Committee met for two years and in the end advised against the proposed Draft Land Use Element prepared by consultants. There is an assumption that public participation means actually listening to the public, especially those who have an official role and who have invested two years in the.process. Surprisingly, the staff has brought the rejected Draft to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has no Environmental Impact Report and no agreed upon document to review. ~. ~• •: ENVIRONMENTAL IlVIPACT REPORT: If the proposed Draft Land Use Element is to be considered by the Planning Commission, a proper Environmental Impact Report must be prepared so the Planning Commission has a proper basis to evaluate it. If the proposed Draft Land Use Element and Open Space/Conservation Elements are assumed evaluated in an older Environmental Impact Report or Reports, those reports should be brought forward to the Planning Commission so a proper environmental review can be done. If "strategies" are not reworded to restore "policies and implementation," the loss of our policies is certainly subject to an Environmental Impact.Report for that reason alone. Assuming this mistake will be swiftly corrected, an Environmental Impact Report, either a new or an older applicable report is still necessary. The proposed language says: "All uses or their expansions, including building intensity, are evaluated through the use permit process and must comply with criteria indicating their compatibility with adjacent uses." (Draft LUE, P. 14) But this is a backwards process. The Environmental Impact Report should be done at the first stage of a project. "CEQA Guidelines § 15126 specifically requires that an EIR, including a general plan EIR, address feasible alternatives that will reduce or avoid one or more of the significant effects associated with the proposed plan. The EIR must also analyze the "no project" alternative." (General Plan Guidelines, P. 43) There have been significant additions to the potential for densification since the last General Plan Revision. The Draft Land Use Element includes additional significant potential for growth, especially with the Abrams property changes. An Environmental Impact Report is the only honest way to assess these proposals. The proposed Draft Land Uses Element and Draft Open Space/Conservation Elements cannot rely on an EIR that does not exist. The impact of the freeway is now more evident and it is clear it's Environmental Impact Report failed to honestly report the impacts it has had on our traffic flow, air quality including vastly increased particulates, noise levels, and growth inducing impact. The Draft Land Use Element proposes to designate the freeway corridor with no limitations on additional lanes. A Negative Declaration is therefore not appropriate for this reason. Incomplete information: "Solid policy depends on solid information. The analysis of data collected during the planning process provides local officials with the knowledge about trends, existing conditions, and. projections that they need to formulate policy." (General Plan Guidelines, P. 15) Also see General Plan Guidelines, P. 136-141 and 201-204 and P. 240 attached. "The planning staff must distill the mass of raw data that has been collected during the early stages of plan preparation into usable form. The analysis of data serves as the bridge of logic from raw data to policy." (General Plan Guidelines, P. 42.) ;F .. ~i Nowhere is there an assessment of undeveloped land that can be developed under the Land Use Plan proposal, land that can be redeveloped for different uses or densities (for example, land that masquerades as Commercial Retail but is actually half high density residential}, and land built at the uses allowed but not built at the densities or intensities allowed. How can the environmental aspects of development be evaluated if the vacant or underdeveloped land is not mapped nor quantified? How much of the remaining land is flood plane, how much is landslide, how much is fault zone, how much is too steep or potentially unstable to build roads? How do these factors effect development potential under the existing policies? The Planning Commission and the public were recently surprised to see the three story proposal that would completely change the character of and intensity in the village, but the current plan apparently now allows such massive changes that have never been addressed in an EIR. How many more dwelling units could be added in ow commercial areas under the 50% residential in commercial policy? How many dwelling units could be added to ow residential areas with the granny unit policy? What does this mean for traffic congestion, noise, and aquifer recharge? Where is the EIR that assesses these impacts? Nowhere is there an assessment of the extent of the reliable water supply or the integrity of local collection and aquifer recharge system essential to ow water availability as densification and land coverage increases. The capacity of the sewage treatment plant we depend on and the need for and its potential for expansion due to designated land uses is not discussed. Nowhere is there assessment of the quality of ow air, what steps can be taken to improve our air and how the options for intensification and congestion built into the Draft Land Use Element will impact ow air. Nowhere is there assessment of the impact of global warming on ow city and ow well being and what approaches can be taken to do ow part to reduce greenhouse gasses. Nowhere is there discussion of the impact of noise on land uses, and the failwe to protect 1/3 of ow city from Highway 85 noise levels that exceed state and ow own general plan standards for residential land uses. There is no linking of land uses with the status and capacity of the roads in Saratoga or en-route to job centers of the San Francisco Bay Area. For example, the Abrams property is proposed to be designated Commercial Retail (currently Professional Office) without any analysis of the current traffic in that area now, at times, completely impacted with traffic from the freeway on and ofd=ramps Nowhere is the population or its characteristics, household size and composition discussed either current or as the population ages. 3 4 2 The Draft does not explain that Saratoga does not create any significant housing demand, but instead fills demand caused by the industrial land uses in other parts of Santa Clara County and the San Francisco Bay Area. Nowhere is there a discussion of the steps that, have been taken to honor our history on the ground, such as preserving significant historical structures and trees, how permitted land use densities influence and impact these and how the Draft Land Use Element should account for and protect these values. "Data collection, data analysis, and special studies should be coordinated with the needs of the CEQA document being written for the plan. In the interest of efficiency, data collection and analysis should be comprehensive enough to satisfy the needs of both the CEQA document and the general plan. For instance, the traffic analysis prepared for the land use and circulation elements must be complete enough to allow for the evaluation of alternative plans, the final plan, and the project alternatives discussed in the general plan's final EIR." (General Plan Guidelines, P. 42) Alternatives to the proposals, as required by CEQA are nowhere to be found Assessment of the state of our riparian corridors, our flora and fauna and the role of flora in moderating our temperature, energy dependence, air quality or other well being is nowhere to be found The Abrams site has been proposed for redesignation to Commercial Retail from Professional Office. The site is big enough that the Commercial Retail designation could easily mean abig-box warehouse-scale development, especially when the potential for 50% of the site under the proposed Commercial Retail designation could be high density, residential. Such a facility in that location would be completely out of character with Saratoga, violating our primary goals, making our general plan internally inconsistent. MISSING LAND USE DESIGNATION: Missing from the land use designations is an equivalent to the County's Hillside designation. The county Hillside designation is not a residential land use designation and the densities permitted for land divisions are far lower than any land use designation the city has. Yet the introduction states that all county land within our sphere of influence is slated to eventually be incorporated into our city. Without an equivalent city land use category designation, and application to these Hillside areas, the potential for growth of residential land uses in the steep, unsuitable hillside areas is increased. Without such a designation to protect the hillsides, the Environmental Impact Report should address these hillside areas and their potential for development. A recent Santa Cruz court case made it clear that a jurisdiction can rule out logging in its hillsides by General Plan designation. Because the watershed is so critical and fragile the hillside land use category should also include a prohibition on logging. ~f' CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, October 11-2006 = 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 27, 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 DHiECTION TO STAFF: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on October 5, 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 07-082 Citywide, The City of Saratoga is proposing to amend the Land Use Element, amend and combine the Open Space and Conservation Elements, and amend the General Plan Land Use Map of the City's General Plan. As part of this proposal a Negative Declaration will be considered. This item is to be continued. (Therese Schmidt) 2. APPLICATION #07-073 (503-13-067) HO, Mount Eden Road south of Villa Oaks Lane: Request for Extension of Tentative Map approval granted by the Planning Commission on October 27, 2004. Tentative Map approval expires 24 months from this date. The applicant was granted Tentative Map approval to subdivide a 29.28-acre property into five clustered lots with .an average lot size of 1.73 acres. The remaining 19.49-acre portion of the property is to remain in open space with a pedestrian, equestrian trail winding through the open space. Access to the property is to be via a cul-de-sac, which egresses onto Mount Eden Road. An emergency access road is proposed from Vista Regina Road to the cul- de-sac. The property has a general plan designation of RHC -Hillside Conservation and is zoned HR -Hillside Residential District. This item will not be reviewed at this meeting. (Lata Vasudevan) - - 3--APPLICATION-#06=430-(397=26=002)-BR~ANT-1-41-95-Saratoga Avenue: Request for-a-Modif cation- - - of Approved Plans to construct aone-story 163 square feet addition to a project that was granted Design Review approval, and is currently under construction. Design Review approval was granted in September 2003 to construct atwo-story residence, a detached second dwelling unit, a detached three-car garage, and a basement which is to be located under the main residence. The proposed modification will add 163 square feet to the main residence. With the proposed modification, the total floor area of all buildings on the site will be 4,507 square feet. The property is zoned R-1-12,500. The property is located along Heritage Lane and the Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed modification to the approved plans. (Lata Vasudevan) 4. APPLICATION #07-086 (393-01-024) PRASAD, 12860 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Rd.: -The applicant requests approval for a Conditional Use Permit and a Sign Permit to operate a dentist office and install a wall mounted sign at an existing tenant space within the Argonaut Shopping Center in the CN zoning district. (Therese Schmidt) DIRECTORS ITEM: - None COMMISSION ITEMS: - None COMMUNICATIONS - None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, October 25, 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 October S, 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 ag ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via a-mail, please send your a-mail address to planninS(a,saratoga.ca.us • 0 9 ~~ ~ r MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, September 27, 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, Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of September 13, 2006. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of September 13, 2006, were adopted. (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Jeffrey Schwartz, San Marcos Road, Saratoga: • Said he wanted to discuss the Open Space and Land Use Elements of the General Plan that were the subject of a Study Session by the Commission tonight. • Reported that the State had asked the City of Saratoga when it planned to update its General Plan in 2000. The City started its efforts in 2004. • Suggested that there is no pressure from the State and no reason to stampede the City into doing something. • Asked that a one to two-year process be initiated and that the State be asked to support that time frame. • Said it is hard to comment on the update materials as there are hundreds of pages and many extensive changes, some may be technical while many others are substantive. • Opined that there is no technical update and that if policies are replaced with strategies they become ambiguous as to whether they are rules or guidelines. • Suggested that no two-step process be undertaken. When it is time to submit the updated General Plan to the State it should be one plan. • Stated that 20 years ago a wonderful job was done on the General Plana Stated support for going back to the original update process proposal that included neighborhood meetings. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 2 • Restated that this update should be done all at once in a comprehensive basis. Ms. Wanda Kownacki, Bainter Avenue, Saratoga: • Identified herself as the Co-Chair of the Land Use Update Committee together with Cynthia Barry. • Explained that this Update Committee understood that its charge was broad and would include aone-and-a-half to two-year process that included complete rewriting. • Added that through a variety of events, the City made the decision to produce a technical update instead. -• _-E-xplained-that the-Update-Committee felt that it -was--not-fulfilling its-role and-the members removed themselves from the process. They didn't want to be affiliated with a document that didn't fulfill what it was supposed to do. • Said that it is very difficult to determine what is technical versus a substantive update. • Asked if the City could really produce a document that is truly a technical update sufficient to satisfy the State and allow the process to go on to meet the needs of the community through additional public input. • Reiterated that this is not just a technical document. Ms. Kathleen Casey: • Read a statement on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Willys Peck expressing opposition to a Santana Row-like concept for the Village. • Proposed that any action on updates to the General Plan be postponed until, after the November election. • Pointed out that only seven minutes was spent in the Study Session and that the group appointed to work on the General Plan Update resigned. • Said what is proposed is very objectionable. • Stated that it is important that any consultant involved in the General Plan Update know Saratoga. • Said that the process should start after January 15, 2007, after the conclusion of the holiday season and should include a local representative group, local consultant and City staff. • Advised that Measure G states that this update .does not have to be complete until 2025. • Said, "don't do it." Ms. Denise Goldberg, Scully Avenue, Saratoga: • Advised that she served on the Interview Committee that selected the General Plan consultant. • Said she had never heard the term technical update before tonight in relation to the General Plan update. • Said that a General Plan is a critical document for any city and should be done properly. • Added that public input is critical. • Stressed that there is no such thing as a technical update to a General Plan. Ms. Cynthia Barry, San Marcos Road, Saratoga: • Said she is the other Co-Chair of the Land Use Update Committee but she wants to speak this evening as a citizen of Saratoga as well as a former Planning Commission member. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 3 • Said that this Planning Commission needs to take the high road on this important issue. • Encouraged that the right follow through be done.. • Said that. when their Update Committee received its direction, it had never heard about zone changes before tonight. • Said that the Abrams property should be removed from consideration as part of the --General Plan-Update. - • Reminded that this Abrams property is the largest left in Saratoga. It is not right to handle decisions about it in this way and she urged the Commission not to go along. •- -Suggested_that the Commission go ahead with a round table discussion that it wants to have and the public should be able to hear that discussion. • Stressed that transparency in the process is important. • Asked that the Commission take the time to be educated and particularly to take the Abrams property off the table. • Said perhaps items in the Update can be determined to have no philosophical impact but rather are just purely technical in nature. • Reported that Dave Anderson has agendized this for the first meeting after the November election. • Suggested that 12 area neighborhood meetings be scheduled. • Asked that the General Plan Update be complete and not just a technical update. Mr. Walter Kool: • Stated that he is a 40-year resident. • Said he enjoyed the recent parade. • Suggested that the City wait for correct analysis. • Expressed appreciation for the Planning Commission's efforts. Ms. Maureen Hill, Aspeci Drive, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a Principle in a Land Use Planning firm with 25 years of experience including working as a Planning Director. • Said she wishes to voice her concern over an inadequate and flawed process. • Stated that a technical update is inconsistent. • Said that both updates and amendments to the General Plan require public participation. • Pointed out that a General Plan can be amended up to four times each year. Many cities elect to do amendments just once per year. • Asked the purpose for revision in the process. • Explained that most cities form Advisory Task Forces with 20 to 30 citizen participants working with an outside consultant. They put the draft update together. The consulting team makes recommendations and the Committee makes the choices. It is valuable to have input provided by the public. • Said that this process currently being proposed is the result of a City Council and City Manager that are in resistance of public process. Mr. Jim Sorden, Shadow Oaks Way, Saratoga: • Stated that he is stunned that anyone would vote fora "tune up" of the General Plan that includes the rezoning of the biggest chunk of land left in Saratoga. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 4 • Cautioned that the decisions made by this Commission will live with them for the rest of their public lives. Mr. David Mighdoll: • Said he wants to speak of a different subject from the previous speakers. • Stated that Mountain Winery is an important venue for the City of Saratoga and it is important to support it. • Announced that immediately following his comments he will be meeting with Peter Frampton at the Mountain Winery. • Said he wanted to talk about the City Council and the fact that Item 3 has been two years in the works and is looming as a deadline. Council is requesting approval from the Planning Commission on Item 3. • ~ Said that staff has done a wonderful job. The Ordinance is consistent with common practices. The policies are consistent with most other cities. There is no cost issue as it is a staff job. Compliance is not an issue. In summary, to give meaning to the actions of the Planning Commission, conditions of approval should survive time and occupancy. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF Commissioner Hunter said that good advice has been given by the public and is appreciated. She suggested that this matter be discussed at the end of the meeting. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that the Commission cannot make any decisions on .the subject of the General Plan Update and must limit its discussion too. The Commission should direct staff to set the item as an agenda item to properly discuss further. Chair Rodgers asked if. this direction should occur now or at the end of the meeting. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied either. Chair Rodgers said that there has been lots of discussion and additional study is required. Commissioner Hlava suggested that the Commission continue its discussion on the General Plan Update now while there are people here who are clearly interested. Commissioner Cappello explained that the Study Session was to gather information. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that time ran out. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that she has no problem discussing the process, as the Commission needs. to give some direction to staff on how to proceed. • Said she would like to set up a Planning Commission Study Session after the next site visit. This can be a round table Study Session that is not limited to just one hour. • State that this Study Session can allow the Commission to go over the issues and process with staff as well as with members of the Land Use Update Committee. • Asked if the Commission is in a position to make a decision on how to proceed. ., r, Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 5 • Said she is undecided at this time on how best to deal with the General Plan Update and feels that more discussion is required. Commissioner Hunter explained that the School Board frequently held round table discussions at which only Board Members spoke and the rest just listened. Commissioner Nagpal:. • Said that there are several elements under consideration and suggested that the Study _ _ _ _ __ Session be_ limited to just two, Land Use and Open Space. • Suggested that it would be helpful to have staff designate what are philosophical versus technical impacts and take all philosophical items off the table. • Added that all meetings must be noticed where the public is welcome. Chair Rodgers said that there are several types of meeting with different types of input but this would be a working meeting of the Planning Commission. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that per the Brown Act, the public has the right to speak at any meeting. Public comment cannot be precluded. Chair Rodgers asked if set times for comment could be established. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes. The Brown Act allows reasonable limitations. for public input. Commissioner Nagpal said that a key thing would be to put up on a board what exactly that meeting is expected to accomplish. What is the question that we hope to answer? Commissioner Hunter said that this is not known at this poinf. Commissioner Kundtz said that there is an existing General Plan for which changes must be crafted. The objective is to highlight what are the proposed changes and the rationale for them. Chair Rodgers said that either smaller meetings or a daylong meeting on a Saturday could be considered. Commissioner Kundtz said that it would be nice to consider one section at the time. Commissioner Nagpal said that the General Plan is about public input and technical modifications. Chair Rodgers suggested that the first meeting could be short to discuss process and scope as well as to schedule additional meetings. Commissioner Nagpal said that it should establish the flow of what, the Commission wants to accomplish. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 6 Commissioner Hunter stated that a longer meeting would be better. Commissioner Kundtz said that he is simply talking about major logical break points, perhaps sections. Commissioner Nagpal said that ultimately, they would make a recommendation to Council. Chair Rodgers reminded that Council has already appointed an Advisory Committee. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer agreed that this was the action of the Council. Commissioner Hlava: • Suggested athree-hour format allowing a presentation of material by staff, discussion by the Commission and then public input. • Added that the Commission may have to go to Council if it is not comfortable doing what has been asked. • Stated that one good serious Study Session is needed first on this update. Commissioner Nagpal agreed. f Commissioner Cappello: • Said that direction given to staff this evening is quite good. • Added that the Commission needs to break into additional meetings and break the subject down into pieces. • Stated that a General Plan is a very large document with a lot of different things to consider and breaking the subject into smaller pieces make sense. Commissioner Zhao: • Said that she is new at this. • Stated that she would like for staff to identify those that are technical changes versus things with impact on the community, going item by item. • Asked how many sessions would be needed to accomplish that? Chair Rodgers: • Advised that there are some properties with inconsistencies between their General Plan and Zoning designations. Additionally, there is the Abrams property. • Suggested that those matters be pulled out from the General Plan Update and be handled as General Plan Amendments. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that some of these are fairly simple such as the Montalvo area. She added that she had a hard time matching the pages with those mentioned in Cynthia Barry's email. Chair Rodgers said it is important to be on the same page literally. .., .. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 7 Director John Livingstone clarified that the Commission has a third draft while the others are looking at first and second drafts. That is the reason that the page numbering does not coincide. He added that the table at the end shows the issues breakdown. Chair Rodgers said that the Land Use Element is a very wieldy document. Commissioner Nagpal asked if it is on the website. Director John Livingstone replied yes, it is located under Community Development Department Draft General. Plan Update. Chair Rodgers asked if she is the only one supporting the idea of pulling the 11 properties and the Abrams property from the General Plan Update process. Commissioner Hlava said that she would have to look at it first. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer stressed that it is important that no specific discussion occurs right now. ~ Chair Rodgers asked if staff needs further direction. Director John Livingstone said it is not yet clear. Chair Rod ers said that the Commission is askin fora ublicl noticed hearin to be held g 9 p Y 9 after the next site visit for athree-hour session discussing the General Plan in a format that allows public input. Director John Livingstone said that a three to four-hour Study Session would be scheduled for October 10th following the site visits. He added that there would be a newspaper notice published for this meeting. For Planning Commission meetings a large noticing for each parcel touched, changed or within 500 feet are noticed. He asked if the Commission wants the notice or ad. Commissioner Hunter suggested that since the reporter from Saratoga News is present perhaps the newspaper could publish meeting information so that noticing may not be necessary. Director John Livingstone said that staff is willing. Commissioner Nagpal asked if a mailing list could be started for this. process. Director John Livingstone replied certainly. Commissioner Zhao asked if a workshop with just staff and the Commission could be done • first. Chair Rodgers explained that any meeting of the Commission is a public meeting: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 8 City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer clarified that the Brown Act requires notice and allowing the public to-be there. Director John .Livingstone said that more of a workshop type atmosphere could be' accommodated. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said it is fine to go ahead and start a mailing list but cautioned that this list is not the legal noticing process. It is not binding on the City in the event that someone inadvertently gets left off. Director John Livingstone said that the City goes above and beyond the noticing required The minimum requirement is a newspaper notice. Staff will do extra noticing. Commissioner Hunter said that many don't follow ads or even know the significance of a General Plan and. Zoning until a change is done that impacts them directly. Director John Livingstone said it is always a problem that mail from the City is often looked at as recyclable mail. Chair Rodgers thanked those in the audience for attending. 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 21, 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 #05-220 (503-25-028) STANLEY/FLANAGAN, 14567 Biq Basin Way: The applicant requests approval fora 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 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 9 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) Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas provided the staff report as follows: • Explained that-the-applicant is seeking approval fora monument tenant sign for Plaza Del Roble. • Said that the site has access from Big Basin Way and from the parking area and consists of different levels. __ ___ _ • Stated thafthere is a problem with visibility for the tenants. • Reported that there are several tenants in the center and often their customers cannot find their businesses. • Passed around photographs of the center showing the current planter and portable signs being used on site. Chair Rodgers advised that Commissioner Hlava has left the dais briefly. Assistant Planner Suzanne Thomas continued her report: • Described the proposed monument sign as being four feet high and five-and-a-half feet wide. It will consist of brick pillars and brick veneer. Tiles matching those used on the structure will be incorporated into the sign. Metal appearing nameplates will be used to identify each business. • Provided a photo simulation of the new sign. • Reminded that at the site visit questions were raised about the proposed height. • Explained that the top of the sign would be at a four-foot level. • Reported that the existing planter would be rebuilt and the landscaping replaced with low creeping vines. The planter is wired for Iaghting. If lighting is used, it will only be between dusk and 10 p.m.- • Advised that neighbors .within `500 feet were noticed and no negative responses were received. • Informed that the applicant has been cooperative making their sign smaller and reducing the bulk and number of colors. • Said this proposal is consistent with the guidelines. It will enhance the shopping environment for the area. • Stated that findings can be made to support this request. • Recommended that the Commission approve this request for Application #05-220. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. James Stanley: • Said he has been a business owner since 1994. • Stated that this is a 34-year-old plaza and that 10 years ago the original monument sign went down. • Said his location is hard for customers to find. • Advised that the proposed materials for their sign would match the materials of the building. The lighting, landscaping and planter are to be taken care of. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 10 • Showed a brick sample • Stated his availability to answer questions. Commissioner Hunter asked about the color of tile. Mr. James Stanley showed the sample. Commissioner Hunter asked if it were ared-red. She said she hoped it would not be too red. She said that she thought this building is in desperate need for a sign. Commissioner Cappello asked about the 13 nameplates. With nine tenants in the plaza currently, he asked if there are vacant tenant spaces. Mr. James Stanley replied that there are currently two vacant tenant spaces. Mr. Jim Sorden, Shadow Oaks, Saratoga: • Questioned the sign area being allowed. ' • Said he loved attachment #5. • Expressed skepticism that 10 yes forms were brough~ in to the City on the same day by the developer while 200 others did not send one in. • Suggested that it might be "neat" if only the person signing the form could be the one to bring it in to the City. • Said the process needs to be fine-tuned a little. Mr. James Stanley said that this proposal is in keeping with signs in the neighborhood. He advised that he dropped off the approval notices one week and offered to come back the following week to collect them. Chair Rodgers asked Mr. James Stanley if he left off turning in any negative responses. Mr. James Stanley assured that he turned every response he received. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter asked if the process allows a proportionate sign to the site: Planner Suzanne Thomas said that amulti-tenant sign requires a minimum of five tenants. The maximum allowed sign area is 40 square feet. Chair Rodgers asked Planner Suzanne Thomas if the noticing was done correctly, Planner Suzanne Thomas replied that the 500-foot notice was properly done. It .included contact information to reach staff and resulted in no calls or comments. Commissioner Cappello: , • Stated that this is a beautiful sign that is an appropriate size for its location. • Added that he loves the flexibility for growth in the number of businesses in the center. ~. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 11 Said it is ludicrous to say the sign is not in proportion for its square footage. Said the findings can be made to support this request. Commissioner Hlava: • Said she hopes this new sign will be the end for the deli's use of impromptu signs although she can appreciate why they have needed them. This becomes a compliance issue for Code Enforcement. • Stated that this is an attractive monument sign and she is looking forward to seeing it in .place. Commissioner Hunter said that this sign is great and she is pleased to have it. It looks good. Commissioner Nagpal said that the sign is completely appropriate. She added that there are businesses there that she did not even know existed. This is good for the Village. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving a Sign Permit (Application #05-220) to construct I a freestanding multi-tenant identification sign at Plaza Del Roble, on property located at 14567 Big ' Basin Way, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers- and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.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) Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Reminded that in 2005, the City proposed to sell the site known as the North Campus and approved a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow nine residential lots. This project required . a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan designation to Residential. • Reported that a group of concerned citizens started a petition against this proposal that became Measure J. Measure J passed and the City elected to keep the North Campus as City property for public use. • Explained that tonight the Commission is being asked to reverse the process and return the General Plan designation to Public Facilities. • Said that the project meets the required findings. • Recommended that a Resolution be adopted approving the Negative Declaration and recommending the General Plan Amendment. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 12 hi h ng s e Commissioner Hlava said that returning the General Plan to Public Facilities is somet has no problem with supporting. She asked staff if the future General Plan changes in the technical update would still include the Public Facilities zoning designation. Director John Livingstone explained that there would be a hybrid zone. He added that since Measure J was a citywide vote it is important to keep this process for the North Campus on a separate track and move this forward on to Council. Commissioner Hlava said it does not make sense to her and asked if Measure J requires that the General Plan designation be changed back. Director John Livingstone said that if the property is not to become a residential subdivision but rather stay City-owned property, the zoning should reflect its actual use. Commissioner Hlava said it seemed that the three current public facility designations should be merged into one such category. The City should use just one of its allowed General Plan Amendments rather than having to rezone it again later. Director John Livingstone said that the City typically sees only one General Plan Amendment a year. It is rare. Commissioner Hunter asked why not rezone to C-F (Community Facilities) instead of P-F (Public Facilities). Commissioner Nagpal cautioned that at this time it is not yet known what changes there ultimately might be to the zoning classifications. Commissioner Hunter expressed support for returning the General Plan designation to what it was prior to the change to Residential. Director John Livingstone reminded that the General Plan Update process could end up taking anywhere between six months and two years time. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this is the first use of a General Plan Amendment for this calendar year. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the year is already into late September. Director John Livingstone reminded that there were a couple of clean ups initiated by homeowners in November 2005. Chair Rodgers added that if the three Public Facilities designations end up consolidated through the General Plan Update that action would automatically include this property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 13 Commissioner Kundtz said that this action could be delayed. Commissioner Hlava said no. There are people who are concerned about this so it is okay with her to revert to the R-F designation. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Kathleen Casey: • Stated that the rezoning of the North Campus was done ahead of its time and was a waste of time. • Reminded that Council had been begged by citizens to not turn this property into residential use as there was overwhelming public support to keep it for public use. • Said that she would like to see a calendar of all City events that includes all meetings such as Planning Commission, City Council and Recreation. • Said that when she looks at the City's website she believes it needs change. • Suggested that the Commission wait to act until the next Council comes along. Don't rush to judgment but rather wait until after the November election. This decision can be delayed. • Asked that the community be allowed to decide what it wants on the North Campus and wait for the new General Plan. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Ms. Kathleen Casey does .not support returning the site to public facilities use. Ms. Kathleen Casey said she does support the P-F designation but no changes otherwise. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal said she is normally concerned about General Plan Amendments but as this case is simply putting something back to where it started she will support this action. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending Council approve 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. for. the North Campus, on property located at 19848 Prospect Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Hunter, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None • *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3 ,, {, Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 14 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) Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Provided background by reporting that in 2004 an Administrative Design Review project was considered. Noticing occurred and neighbors were involved in the process. One issue was raised and a neighbor asked that a barbecue feature be removed from the project. The applicant agreed and it was removed,. However, later the applicant pursued that item in an over-the-counter process. • Stated that as a result, this neighbor complained to Council that the conditions imposed are not seen as permanent and that over time things can be changed to an original approval. • Reported that Council at that time approved an Urgency Ordinance stating that conditions of approval are permanent. • Added that in September 2006, staff brought a report back to Council. The Urgency Ordinance had been extended once but can only be in effect a total of two years. At this time, a decision needs to be made as to whether, conditions should be considered permanent or not. Three options were presented to Council. One is to mandate that all conditions of approval are permanent. The second is to allow the Planning Commission to impose permanence for conditions on a case-by-case basis. The third option is to allow the Urgency Ordinance to expire. • Advised that Council directed staff to bring this issue to the Planning Commission. It is being proposed that conditions of approval be recorded with the County so it comes up in the Title Report when property changes hands. • Said that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission discuss and support one of the two options and forward its recommendation back to Council. Chair Rodgers asked whether Council is not recommending letting the Urgency Ordinance expire. Director John Livingstone said that Council gave Options 1 and 2 for consideration. Commissioner Cappello asked whether, for conditions that have been recorded with the County, the only avenue to get them removed is to go back to the original approving body. If corrected, the amended conditions would then have to be re-recorded. Director John Livingstone: • Clarified that this process does not say that conditions cannot be changed. If they must be changed, the applicant goes back to the approving body to get them changed. • Added that once that body has approved a change, the applicant re-records the new conditions overriding the original ones. Commissioner Hunter asked if this action is complaint driven. She said it is very strange. ,, <. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 15 Director John Livin stone,: 9 • Said that when a modest addition is sought, staff checks for any permanent conditions of approval previously imposed on the property and looks at the previous plans. • Said that long-term enforcement of permanent conditions will be complaint driven. Staff will not go out to ensure compliance of permanent conditions over the years without the generation of a complaint that one permanent condition has not been met. Commissioner Hunter said if a property is sold there is no way for a new owner to know. If the concerned neighbor moves away who was in place when the condition was imposed, the concern usually goes away too. Commissioner Nagpal said that she is concerned about far-reaching changes without understanding the basis for those changes. She asked staff if this is a frequent problem or is it the result of just one problem. Director John Livingstone said he does not hear many complaints and one does not typically see drastic changes to approved projects for the first nymber of years. Perhaps five to 10 years down the road changes might begin to occur and staff. does not generally get feedback that far down the road. Commissioner Nagpal said that a deed restriction is not required to enforce conditions. Those conditions just have to be looked up. She again asked why this is coming up. Commissioner Kundtz said that he has heard input from people that support this proposal. He said that it is a movement to add clarification and definition to the existing Ordinance and clears things-up for-the future. Chair Rodgers thanked Commissioner Kundtz for reporting the contact he had on this matter for the record. She said that when a Commissioner is contacted about an item, it is important to let the others know what that contact involved. Commissioner Zhao asked if there are any impacts to homeowners or staff. She added that it seems that recording conditions of approval makes them harder to reverse. She asked the impact of Option 1 and the difference with Option 2. Chair Rodgers advised that Commissioner Cappello has briefly left the dais,. Director John Livingstone said that the recordation process is required for both Options 1 and 2. Option 1 is that all conditions are permanent. Option 2 allows the Planning Commission to determine on a case-by-case basis, which, if any, conditions need to be called out for permanent status. Commissioner Nagpal said that some conditions are only important prior to building permit issuance. She asked how hard it would be for staff to identify those conditions that should become permanent. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 16 . Director John Livingstone said that there are some typical boilerplate conditions. All arborist or geotechnical requirements should be made permanent. Chair Rodgers added public health, safety and welfare conditions. Commissioner Hunter recounted one property owner who was instructed to have just wood chips below-an oak-tree. Today there are plants there:--She said she couldn't see the City becoming involved in small things like that. Commissioner Hlava said that City of San Jose approach is disturbing to her. They have no single-family design review. However, she said that she is concerned with the idea of doing this recording of permanent conditions and pointed out that many times issues that concerned neighbors before construction are no problem following construction. A lot of times people like it after it is built. The reverse is also true where a neighbor who was supportive of a plan does not like what is actually built. Chair Rodgers acknowledged Commissioner Cappello's return. Commissioner Hlava .said -she is concerned with permanent conditions for single-family without a time limit and cannot envision recording these conditions on the deed. Chair Rodgers asked staff if setting time limits could be considered. Director John Livingstone reported that Council briefly brought up time limits. However, the direction to staff was to consider Option 1 or Option 2. Time limits of five to 10 years were brought up. Commissioner Kundtz said that there is language requiring the return of permanent conditions to the governing body for any changes. Director John Livingstone replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this would be an administrative burden to staff. Director John Livingstone said that since the Urgency Ordinance has been in place over the last two years, so far new projects constructed are not coming in for changes. He added that staff is looking at a software program to red flag things. This information could be fairly readily available. Commissioner Hunter asked if it were legal. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer replied yes. However, the situation mentioned earlier did not have the prohibition of a barbecue incorporated into the conditions of approval. The neighbors came to an agreement privately and the applicant took his barbecue off the plans. He stressed the importance of conditioning anything that needs to be permanent. ,, ~. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 17 Director John Livingstone agreed saying that the house in question was built according to the approved plans. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said the question could be asked, if the barbecue was not on the site plan was the project actually constructed according to approved plans. Commissioner Nagpal agreed saying the plans approved did not have the barbecue. Director Jonathan Wittwer: • Said that the question becomes what can you add later. • Explained that there was no clear regulation at that time to say someone could not come back in later to add to the site. • Added that this recordation of permanent conditions makes it clear. • Said that any Design Review approvals can only be amended or modified with a new approval by the same body. • Stated that Council indicated they want to go in that direction. Commissioner Hunter asked if a house originally painted beige could not later be painted grey without Planning Commission review and approval. ' Director John Livingstone replied yes. He said it would depend on which of the two Options is adopted. If all conditions were made permanent, any modification to approved paint color would go back to the original approving body for approval. If the Option to allow case-by-case adoption of permanent conditions is selected, paint color could be designated either as permanent or not. Commissioner Kundtz said that if staff is the approving body through Administrative Design Review or over-the-counter review, staff would review and allow changes to its imposed conditions. Commissioner Zhao asked if staff gets to decide which conditions are permanent. Director John Livingstone said there would be a little bit of trial and error. He said he expects that staff will attempt to recommend which conditions should be made permanent. Staff will get a feeling over time of the Planning Commission's preferences. Commissioner Hlava asked if a specimen tree on a site plan becomes diseased and has to be removed would the owner have to come in for approval to cut it down. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said an equivalent would have to be replanted: Commissioner Nagpal asked what if the Commission does not pick one of the Options. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer reminded that Commission is simply making a recommendation of its preference to Council. Chair Rodgers asked if Option 3 could be recommended to Council to let this expire. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 18 , than Wittwer re lied es. City Attorney Jona p y Commissioner Hlava said she can understand having some time limit but did not know what would be reasonable, five or 10 years. That way staff could simply go back and check the approval date. If it is less than the time limit, no change is allowed. Having conditions last indefinitely does-not-make sense to her. - - Chair Rodgers agreed that case-by-case time limits might be possible. Director John Livingstone said that the City Attorney has said that any recommendation can be made to Council. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Kathleen Casey: • Reminded the Commission of the recent application on Baylor where atwo-story was proposed for asingle-story neighborhood. • Said that Option 3 is dangerous. • Said that this would have to be a complaint driven system. • Added that changes should be done through the Planning Commission. • Said that a two-story home in a single-story neighborhood endangers that neighborhood. • Said that it is a. bad system when neighbors have to complain. • Said that people change things all the time in their homes. • Expressed the need to honor the neighborhood. • Said that trees. and landscaping cannot be controlled. _ . . Chair Rodgers asked Ms. Kathleen Casey if she is in favor of permanent conditions. Ms. Kathleen Casey replied that the issue is not thought through and is not enforceable. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Hunter asked if this has to be tied to the Title Report. Commissioner Nagpal said that a solution would be come up with but that it sounds like Council would like conditions to be recorded. However, the Commission can recommend the Option it prefers. Chair Rodgers pointed out that this Commission would make a recommendation based upon a Planning basis and not on a political basis. Commissioner Cappello: . • Pointed out the number of times the Commission has felt that a condition was important. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 19 • Said that the current Ordinance states that conditions of approval stay in effect indefinitely. • Added that if the Ordinance is not sufficiently clear and there is some wiggle room left, an applicant comes back after final sign off to change something. • Said that he sees this Option as putting language in place that he thought was being --done all along.--If the applicant-wants to change an imposed condition of approval, that applicant must come back to the Commission to consider that proposed change. • Agreed that there are times when conditions don't require permanent status and could have a time limit.. - • Said he is open to modification but likes the direction that this is going in since the Ordinance is not clear enough. Commissioner Nagpal: • -Said that the Commission works hard on Design Review approvals and the corresponding conditions. She said that she was sure that in 95 percent of the cases, those conditions are met. • Stated that this is an enforcement issue in her mind. • Added that a deed restriction won't change ,anything. Most homeowners will not come to the City in order to change the paint color of their home. • Said she thought this would be an administrative burden. • Stated that she was not sure what the basis was for the Urgency Ordinance but that she is afraid it may have been based on one case. • Suggested strengthening what is done over the. counter and controlling things on that end. • Declared that she is completely against deed restrictions. Chair Rodgers suggested addressing the issue of deed. restrictions later when the decision is made on whether to recommend Option 1 or Option 2. Commissioner Nagpal said that she couldn't imagine anyone coming to the Planning Commission for a change of paint color. She said this has to be reasonable. Commissioner Cappello countered that if there is a condition of approval for the color of a home it is usually for a good reason. If so, changes to that need to come back to the Commission. Commissioner Nagpal said that she has seen very few modifications to Design Review that have come before the Commission in the last three years. This could become atime- consuming process that is likely to be costly to the applicant. She said enforcement takes over. Chair Rodgers asked how to put an enforcement mechanism into this. Commissioner Hunter said that she likes having paint color restrictions especially on hillside properties. ., Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 20 Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that he agrees with Commissioner Cappello that this brings clarity and proper language to what the. Commission is approving. • Added that this will also increase the Commission's responsibility for its conditions of approval. , • Questioned why even look at color boards if not to make them a condition of project approval. • Said he is comfortable with Option 1 but feels that recording the conditions is going too far. • Recommended Option 1. • Said that he does not like Option 2 as it leaves the door open for inconsistencies. Chair Rodgers asked if it might not be a more appropriate thing to do Design Review guideline changes as a better approach? Commissioner Kundtz said that it is better to identify permanent conditions of approval on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Hlava: ~ I • Questioned what if future neighbors agree to a change in conditions. • Said that this issue sounds like a parent who is trying to control their kids from the grave through their will. • Said she does not see this as a good idea. • Suggested that the City has enforcement people to deal with complaints. • Said she cannot go with either Option 1 or Option 2 but she could go with having all Design Review conditions as permanent for five years outright. • Said this proposal just doesn't make sense and is impossible, expensive and difficult to enforce. It would have to be made easy to enforce. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that in the last two years under the Urgency Ordinance there haven't been repercussions. Director John Livingstone replied that there have been no enforcement issues of which he is aware. Commissioner Cappello said that the Ordinance as written does not state that conditions of approval are to stay in place. The Urgency Ordinance gave it more teeth. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that is a fair statement. Design Review is what will be in effect unless an applicant comes back for a modification. Commissioner Nagpal said that right now conditions of approval that are not followed have enforcement capabilities. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer agreed. , ,, ., Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 21 .Commissioner Nagpal said that it is important to make sure that conditions are enforced well and that they get into the file. Chair Rodgers agreed that diligence is an issue and everything relevant must get into the file. Commissioner Nagpal said she could not support either Option 1 or 2 but perhaps a hybrid. She said that ,approvals already have teeth. The Commission just has to make sure that everything it wants is included in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Zhao agreed that there is a venue to change and/or remove conditions. She supported acase-by-case basis of defining those conditions that should be made permanent. Said her support is for Option 2. Chair Rodgers: • Expressed concern for people who may buy without knowing of existing permanent conditions. • Recounted her own experience in buying an historjc home back east and painting it brown without understanding that it was not a colohial color that matched the era of the home. She admitted that she should have known better but didn't realize her mistake until it was done and she could not afford to repaint it to something more appropriate. • Said it is important. to look at what is reasonable for a new buyer. • Said that Option 2 is her personal favorite allowing acase-by-case basis, with restraint, based upon health, safety and welfare considerations for those conditions more appropriate to be made permanent. • Sought a straw poll of the Commissioners based on .Option 1 (all conditions permanent), Option 2 (conditions deemed permanent on a case-by-case basis as determined by the approving body), Option 3 (let the Urgency Ordinance expire) and Option 4 being a hybrid that establishes a specific number of years that permanent conditions would stay in effect before expiring. Commissioner Hlava said she does not like Options 1 or 2. She said the Commission should consider either letting the Urgency Ordinance expire (Option 3) or creating a hybrid that establishes a limited time frame by which conditions are permanent. She stressed that recording conditions should not be a part of that process. Commissioner Kundtz expressed support for Option 1 without the requirement to record . the conditions. Commissioner Hunter said that she supports Option 2 being judicious about it and with no recording required at all. She reported that she purchased a house in Tahoe that was constructed in the 1920s. The deed read that no Chinese could buy that house and said that she is not comfortable with too many impositions on the deed. Commissioner Ca ello said he could su ort O tion 1 or 2. PP PP P Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 22 Commissioner Zhao said she prefers Option 2 with the condition that this not require recording on the deed. Commissioner Hlava agreed to no recordation. , Commissioner Nagpal said she couldn't support any of the options especially recording conditions. ---- - --- - - - - -- - ---- -- -- - --- Chair Rodgers said that Option 3 is also a consideration, as the straw poll appears to be a three to three tie. Commissioner Nagpal said she could support Option 2 allowing the Commission to determine permanent conditions on a case-by-case basis. She said she worries about the future and about enforcement. Commissioner Hlava said if the Options are just 1 and 2 she is not voting for either. Chair Rodger said it appears to be three for Option 2 and two for Option 1. Director John Livingstone said it appears that Commissioner Cappello's choice has not been counted. Commissioner Cappello: • Said that by his count of the votes expressed, four are in favor of Option 2. He said he prefers Option 1 but is willing to support Option 2 if that is the majority choice. • Said that he thought the permanence of conditions was already in Code. • Said he is in favor of recording conditions as a protection to incoming buyers. Recordings appear in the Title Report so there would be no basis for a future buyer not knowing of conditions in place for their property. Commissioner Zhao said she does not support recording. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that either Options 1 or 2 could require recordation of the permanent conditions. Commissioner Hlava reminded that she does not support a requirement for recordation: Commissioner Kundtz said no to recordation. Commissioner Nagpal said no to recordation. Commissioner Zhao said no. Chair Rodgers also said no recordation. She asked for a motion for Option 2 that allows the Planning Commission to consider conditions for permanent status on a case-by-case basis. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 23 City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that some changes to the draft Ordinance would be necessary for Option 2. He ran through three sections '(2-A, 2-B and 2-C) that required modification and provided the updated language. -- -Motion:- -Upon .-motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending that Council adopt an Ordinance that would allow the approving authority (Administrative staff level or Planning Commission) to review conditions of approval on a case-by-case basis for consideration of any that should be made permanent conditions and require any modifications to these permanent conditions of approval to be reviewed by the original approving authority for approval of any change, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hunter, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: Hlava, Kundtz and Nagpal ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 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) Director John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that Council directed staff to prepare a staff report on Administrative Design Review. This report was presented to Council on July 19, 2006. • Said that at that time, Council appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to review the current Administrative Design Review process and report back. The Ad Hoc did its review and reported back to Council. Council has now referred this matter to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. • Said that there are two groups of recommendations. The first are things that can be implemented right away such as changes to the neighbor notification process. A new version has been drafted based upon comments from the Ad Hoc Committee. The second group is changes that will require Code amendments. • Explained that typically in December or January Council conducts a retreat at which time they look at what Codes need to be updated and creates a work plan. • Said that any Code that needs amendment would be prioritized and the top priorities would be put into the work plan first. Chair Rodgers suggested reviewing the proposal section by section. ,~ Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 24 Commissioner Hlava asked what would happen if a neighbor refuses to sign the notification form. She said she is concerned about the possibility that a neighbor gets a "veto" right by refusing to sign off. She reminded that -people have property rights and this possibility makes her nervous. -Director-John Livingstone said that Item 1 requires an applicant to submit a plan to be signed by neighbors that shows that they have reviewed the preliminary plan. The initial plan would have to be taken to neighbors within 250 feet. This would go from a more casual process in place now to a more formal process. Item 2 is changing the notification form to indicate that preliminary plans can be changed prior to final approval. Commissioner Hlava asked what if a signature is refused. Then what? Director John Livingstone said that this happens fairly commonly. Staff makes sure that the applicant can document that they tried. If a neighbor refuses to cooperate the applicant gives staff a letter explaining the efforts taken and that letter goes to the Planning Commission in the packet. Commissioner Hunter reminded that sometimes the applicant does not go to their immediate neighbors, as they should. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that in addition to Director John Livingstone's response, there has to be a process, as one neighbor cannot have veto rights over another. ,There simply must be some proof provided that an effort was made to obtain this sign off. It is up to the Planning Commission to determine if that effort was satisfactorily proven. Commissioner Hlava asked if the Code currently requires that an applicant has to go around and talk to their neighbors. Director John Livingstone explained that it is a policy and not in the Code. Commissioner Hunter said that during her tenure on the Planning Commission there has been a lot of discussion on this issue. Sometimes the neighbors directly adjacent to an applicant never hear about a pending project .next door. She added that .most cities encourage neighbor notification. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this requirement means the applicant must provide an individual set of plans for each neighbor. - Chair Rodgers asked for clarification if the requirement is to provide a set of plans or simply to show the plans. Commissioner Nagpal said as written the requirement is to provide a set of plans. Director John Livingstone said that the plan size to be provided to neighbors is not yet specified. Whether plans are to be left for a period of time is to be determined. ~,~ /1 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 25 Commissioner Hunter asked if one set would suffice. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that recently when a project denied by the Planning Commission was appealed to Council; someone requested a full size set of plans. The architect refused that request based upon copyright laws. Instead, the City provided a reduced 11 x 17 set to review. Commissioner Hlava said she has a problem with the idea to require providing a set of plans to all nearby neighbors. She reminded that they get lots of notice. However, she added that the notice descriptions don't give a very clear idea of what is happening.. She suggested that the applicant be asked to write a one to two-paragraph description and attached it to the neighbor notifications. The current notices seem to be written in legalese. Commissioner Hunter said that projects should be posted in front of the property. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that neighbors alto have the right to come to City Hall to inspect full size plans. Chair Rodgers reiterated that full-size plans couldn't, be taken because they are copyrighted.. Commissioner Hlava expressed surprised that a standard check off form is not already common practice for the file as is recommended in Item 3. Director-John-Livingstone said that-staff- does ~go to the site but doesn't currently record that visit in the file. What is proposed is an official note to file. For- over-the-counter approvals no site visit is conducted. For all Administrative Design Reviews and Planning Commission Design Reviews site visits are done. Commissioner Hlava sought clarification that these recommendations are for processing Administrative Design Review. Director John Livingstone replied yes. Commissioner Hlava said she is less interested in documenting site visits as she assumes those happen routinely but she does support having a checklist of all that happens in the processing of that application in the file. Director John Livingstone said that the Administrative Design Review is done almost identically to the Planning Commission process but there is a 250-foot notification compared to 500 foot. The staff report and findings are the same. Commissioner Hunter said that people have brought up to her that some homes have been approved through an Administrative Design Review that were not compatible. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 26 Chair Rogers turned the meeting over to Commissioner Cappello and left the dais. Commissioner Hlava said she is not in favor of Administrative Design Review. A Planning Commission member used to be involved years ago, either the Chair or a designee. Commissioner Cappello suggested sticking to focused questions. Commissioner Nagpal asked if story poles would be required for just two-stories or for any addition. Director John Livingstone said the recommendation is for story poles for all Administrative and Planning Commission Design Review applications. Right now, staff. asks an applicant to install story poles when they think that story poles are warranted. Generally applicants will if asked. Commissioner Nagpal asked if improving Design Review findings on compatibility is intending to address beyond what we already have. Chair Rodgers returned to the dais. Director John Livingstone said that the improved findings are intended to be more specific. Commissioner Hunter said she did not understand Item 5 and asked for an example. Director John Livingstone said it is intended to prevent, a home being approved under Administrative Design Review that is not consistent with the Planning Commission. The findings need to be more consistent and specific. They need to be tightened. Right now Item 5 is a very broad statement to see if there is need to revise findings and design review handouts. Commissioner Cappello asked if the findings could include specific neighborhoods where carports could be prohibited because they are aesthetically not compatible? Director John Livingstone replied not as specific as neighborhood by neighborhood but to develop more findings to guide applicants and staff. If a crazy design element is proposed that is not consistent, staff has the option to deny Design Review approval and that applicant can appeal to the Planning Commission. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer reiterated that Item 5 is stated fairly broadly. When reviewed it could be tightened with language that is in enforceable terms that address things that we've come across. Chair Rodgers asked if language or pictures would be utilized. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that that would be left to whoever is doing it. This is a more general discussion tonight. ~ f'. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 27 Commissioner Hunter said she wants to see what comes out of it. She added that requiring a neighborhood meeting in every case would be very difficult. Director John Livingstone said that staff.would run the Administrative Design Review hearings. -Commissioner Hunter said that the-City-has to have a Planning Commission. Chair Rodgers reminded that what is being discussed this evening is staff-level Administrative Design Review only. Director John Livingstone explained that there are currently no public hearings for these Administrative Design Reviews. Commissioner Hunter asked if it would be hard to do. Chair Rodgers asked if a subcommittee from the Planning Commission could do these but agreed that this would then no longer be an Administrative Design Review process. I Director John Livingstone said that while a hearing process would allow more of a public hearing, it would be informal and less than a Planning Commission meeting. He explained that staff approves over-the-counter projects. They include additions less than 50 percent, less than 18-foot height and include no site visit by staff. As long as the project meets setbacks there is no real discretion. With a project more than 50 percent and up to 18-feet in height, staff does the review through an Administrative Design Review process as long as it meets all requirements. Everything over 18 feet in height, two-story or more than 6,000 square feet comes to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hunter said it might be a good idea to go out and see each site with a Planning Commission member. Director John Livingstone said that Item 5 suggests having findings that address architectural style compatibility. Chair Rodgers suggested having Administrative Design Review items on consent for the Planning Commission. Director John Livingstone said there could be a process by which plans could be available for review by interested Commissioners. Commissioner Zhao asked what is to be achieved with Item 3. Is it to help the neighbors to learn and understand what the applicant is trying to do or is it to help staff. Director John Livingstone said that it would replicate the Planning Commission process on a lower level with the Community Development Director or a designee. Commissioner Zhao said she thought there was a notification form. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 28 Director John Livingstone said that there is no opportunity to meet in a hearing format right now for Administrative Design Review. . Commissioner Cappello said that it is not all or nothing. This is a menu. Tonight the, Commission has the opportunity to pick and choose its priorities among the suggested areas of improvement to the Administrative Design Review process. Some of the suggestions are redundant or duplications. Director John Livingstone agreed saying that these are just rough ideas and concepts. It is a menu that is general and not specific. Commissioner Hun#er suggested prioritizing the options. Chair Rodgers said after the public hearing. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this issue is here before the Commission simply based upon one complaint or many over the existing processes. Director John Livingstone reported that in 2004 there were three Administrative Design Review appeals. In 2005 and 2006 there were one each year. Commissioner Nagpal asked how many total hearings. Director John Livingstone replied 46 in 2004. Commissioner Nagpal said that 1 in 46 is not a bad problem. Chair Rodgers said that in a way it appears to be using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. Director John Livingstone gave the total number of hearings by year as 59 in 2002; 33 in 2003; 46 in 2004; 35 in 2005 and 23 as of June 2006. Chair Rodgers asked how long Administrative Design Review hearings would take. Director John Livingstone said that at this point the Commission needs to select the items that they want to prioritize for the next Work Program. Later each specific Code amendment would come back to the Commission for in-depth comment and recommendation. Feedback on overall topics or ideas is requested. Later noticing and public hearings will be held where actual recommendations are developed. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. • Ms. Maureen Hill: • Said she is a resident of a predominantly ranch-style neighborhood where pink Mediterranean-style homes have appeared in recent years. • Added that they were probably approved over the counter. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 29 • Said she is concerned about how neighbors are being informed when major remodels or reconstruction are proposed. • Suggested the use of posted signs on the subject property that outlines the review process and showing the plans and/or rendering. At least a week should be allowed for neighbors to see what is proposed for their neighborhood. • Said that noticing by only 250 feet does not help much with larger lot neighborhoods. The whole street can be impacted by an inappropriate design of a house. • Stated that she is glad that public noticing is being addressed and said she hopes that over-the-counter permits also include public noticing. Ms. Kathleen Casey: • Said that lead times are important to discuss and should include between 60 and 90 days. • Asked that a calendar be prepared that shows all public meetings for the month. • Stated that two-week noticing is not enough and that use of registered mail would help take care of noticing. • Questioned the practice of allowing up to 50 percent increase in a house as only an over-the-counter permit. • Said that check off boxes should be incorporated on the form. • Said that compatibility and privacy issues must be evaluated. • Suggested that a proposed front elevation be incorporated on the notice form with a map included. • Said that materials such as this should also. be available on the City's website, including plans. • Said that all versions of a plan should be rerouted. • Stressed the importance of setbacks. • Pointed out that there are different opinions every five to 10 years. • Reminded that there is a new Council coming and suggested that action be postponed until about January 2007 when more people would be around to make comments. • Pointed out that only two members of the public are here today looking over the Commission's shoulder. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Chair Rodgers asked if one by one review and discussion is okay? Director John Livingstone: • Gave a rundown of how other nearby communities handles over-the-counter permits. There is a big spectrum of processes. • Advised that In Atherton, staff approves all new homes if they comply with Code. Homes only go to the Planning Commission if a Variance is required. • Said that in Belmont all homes larger than 4,000 square feet are sent to the Planning Commission. • Stated that in Monte Sereno the Director approves all new structures larger than 120 square feet. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 30 Chair Rodgers clarified that policy recommendations can be immediately implemented by staff following Council and City Manager direction, including having preliminary plans signed by neighbors. Commissioner Hunter said that she wants to make sure that the most. impacted neighbors are directly contacted including the houses on either side and behind. Commissioner Kundtz agreed. Commissioner Hlava: _ • Said she is not in favor of that requirement as it is an unnecessary burden on the applicant and not a part of noticing requirements. • Said that she supports the use of a board out front with posted plans and with the use of story poles. • Said that there are lots of ways to let people know of a pending project. • Added that she would like to see better project descriptions in the notifications. Commissioner Cappello agreed with Commissioner Hlava about not requiring an applicant to go around with their plans. He supported Item 4 that requires the posting of a 4 x 8 board. He said distributing the plans personally is too much of a burden. It is easy if there is a good relationship between neighbors, no so easy if there is not. Commissioner Zhao agreed, saying that problems sometimes can occur with a difficult neighbor. Commissioner Nagpal said that she is concerned with the fact that hours have been spent evaluating how to improve Administrative Design Review when statistics clearly show that there has been few appeals. The system is not broken. She .said that she would vote for things that will improve the system. She said that Item 1 is difficult to implement but she will vote in favor of Item 4. Commissioner Kundtz agreed with Commissioners Nagpal and Cappello. Commissioner Hunter said that it is critical to post plans on the property. It is more important than going to the neighbors personally. Director John Livingstone said there is no resolution on this item just feedback to Council. He said it appears that Item 1 is not supported. Chair Rodgers said that there are five no votes, hers included, but two Commissioners do support Item 1. She said she is not sure that she likes people having to go door to door. Commissioner Nagpal said that this is a majority. Chair Rodgers said that Item 2 requires improvements to the existing neighbor notification form regarding plans being preliminary and subject to change. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 31 All Commissioners said they support Item 2. Commissioner Hlava said she wants to see a better legal description Chair Rodgers suggested modifying Item 2 to improve the project description. The vote was three against ~ (Rodgers/Cappello/Nagpal) and four in support (Zhao/Hunter/Hlava/Kundtz) of the amendment. Commissioner Nagpal asked how difficult these descriptions would be to change. Director John Livingston said that a general description is prepared but does not include color or materials. Chair Rodgers asked the Commission to vote on Item 3 requiring a check-off form that includes a site visit and other required actions. The vote was 4-2 with Cappello and Kundtz voting against. Chair Rodgers asked about the requirement for story poles being in place for two weeks for all Administrative and Planning Commission Design Review applications. Commissioner Cappello said he does not support this concept for all projects. There are times when story poles are not required. He is in favor of story poles in the right situations such as hillside properties and two-story homes. Commissioner Zhao said she agrees they are not necessary in every case. Commissioner Nagpal said she would like to explore the idea so yes for now. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said it is not productive for Council to have just raw votes. Everyone wants to explore story poles but not for every situation. These are stated very generally. It is important to tell Council what you want. Commissioner Kundtz said that when the specific items come back the Commission could articulate specifics. Commissioner Cappello said that giving the Community Development Director the authority to require use of story poles is something he supports exploring. If they become required in every case, he does not support that idea. Commissioner Hunter said that guidelines are needed on when appropriate to use story poles. Commissioner Cappello said that there have been times when the Commission wished that story poles had been installed. He reminded that the planning staff recommends • them when they feel they are needed but cannot compel an applicant to install story poles. There needs to be something in place that allows staff to require story poles as needed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 32 Commissioner Zhao said she agrees with that position. Commissioner Hlava said she is fine with story poles being required for two weeks when required but does not feel they are required with every application. She said she would like to have an Ordinance that requires story poles in certain situations. Commissioner Kundtz said he agrees and is in favor of forwarding a recommendation to Council that this item come back to the Commission. He said it is most important to use story poles on hillside properties so impacts can be seen. He would like to have the opportunity to get more specific on how this requirement is applied with further study. Commissioner Huriter said that she does not see the need for story poles every time but does for hillside and small lot development. For large lots, there is no need. She agreed that there have been times when she has wished that story poles had been there but were not. However, she also likes for the story poles to come down. Sometimes they are left in place for months. • Chair Rodgers agreed. She said that she is a proponent of story poles in key areas such as Big Basin Way. She said she is fine with atwo-week period of time but that they are not required in every case. Some flexibility is necessary and language would need to be drafted to get us where we need to be. Chair Rod ers asked about Item 2 to increase notification distance for Administrative 9 Design Review from 250 to 500 feet. Commissioner Hunter asked about cost. She said that she would like to see it .go to a 500-foot notice. If the board is used in front or story poles are installed, it becomes a non-issue. Director John Livingstone agreed that story poles also have a noticing impact and everyone knows that something is pending on that site. Commissioner Hunter said that staying with a 250-foot noticing is okay if the story poles and boards are placed on site. Commissioner Kundtz said he is good with 250 feet noticing. Commissioner Hlava said that she supports 500 foot noticing but stated it is everyone's responsibility to inform themselves. Commissioner Hunter said she was changing her vote to 500 feet. Commissioner Cappello said he votes for 500 foot noticing. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 33 Commissioner Zhao said she is okay with 250 feet because 500 foot adds cost. The 250 foot notice will include immediate neighbors who are the most impacted and is therefore sufficient noticing. Commissioner Hunter said that the City pays for this mailing. Director John Livingstone said that the cost is passed directly to the applicant. They pay fees on a deposit system. Time and costs for work on their application is transferred to the applicant. Commissioner Nagpal said she supports 500-foot notices. It is a small thing to do and get the benefit. It is something for the community. Chair Rodgers agreed with the 500-foot notice that is equivalent to the Planning Commission notices. She agreed that the most effective notice would come from story poles. Chair Rodgers -asked about Item 3 that creates an Administrative DR hearing/neighborhood meeting held by the Community Development Director or his designee. Commissioner Nagpal said no. This is an administrative process with lots of notification. There is also an appeal process to the Planning Commission for public hearing. Commissioner Zhao voted no, saying not too much would be gained from it. She trusts staff to do this job and this process would be hard to implement. Commissioner Cappello voted no. Commissioner Kundtz voted no. Commissioner Hlava voted no. It is too hard, too expensive and wasteful of staff time. Chair Rodgers said that not a lot needs to be done. If a hearing is required, the project can be brought to the Planning Commission. Chair Rodgers asked for feedback on Item 4 that requires the posting of a 4x8 board in front of a project site describing the project. All Commissioners expressed support for Item 4. Chair Rodgers asked for votes on Item 5 that will improve Administrative Design Review findings so that they are more specific to neighborhood compatibility and architectural design. . Commissioner Hunter voted yes. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 34 Commissioner Nagpal voted against, asking, "what are we fixing?" She said that with the • improved noticing, issues would come up with the process. Commissioner Zhao said if the current findings do not include neighborhood compatibility she supports developing such findings. Commissioner Hlava said she agrees with Commissioner Nagpal and votes against this although it might be worth discussion further and exploring. Commissioner Kundtz said it might be more helpful with more specifics. Director John Livingstone agreed that more black and white is always easier. Commissioner Hlava asked if these findings would apply to the, Planning Commission too. Commissioner Kundtz said he would like to look at that later perhaps in the spring. Commissioner Cappello voted no but said that it would be worth exploring later. I Chair Rodgers said that the consensus on Item 4 is no, not now but later. Commissioner Hunter said that this is a big issue that ought to be looked at. She suggests that happens. s Chair Rodgers said that the recommendation to change language to make findings more specific with a lot of neighborhood participation is not an easy one to do. Director John Livingstone said not more specific but rather looking at the big picture when time permits. Chair Rodgers: • Said that the Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the concept that an applicant should disclose if they are a developer or future neighbors. • Said that the City Attorney has an opinion on this idea. • Stated that in her opinion it is an important piece of civil rights legislation and it is very important to preserve that. • Pointed out that circumstances change, people die and/or properties are transferred. If an applicant for some reason has to abandon a property, there is no reason they should have to tell why they are not ending up living in a home that they built. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that Design Review standards apply no matter who will live in it. Land use issues cannot be decided on the basis of who will live in a house once constructed. He pointed to Item 2 on the policy recommendations that states let people know that designs and/or people can change. i Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 35 Commissioner Hunter said that there is no way you could know from people whether they plan to live in a house they have had constructed. Once built, it could go on the market. There is no way to know .and/or to enforce this. Commissioner Kundtz said that he would like to be able to enforce that but is also supportive of fair-and open housing .rights. He-.said he is sensitive to speculative houses but the City has to live within its design guidelines. He said he is just anti-spec house. Chair Rodgers agreed that there is lots of antagonism against speculative development. However, the City must look at all houses against its standards. Commissioner Hlava said it doesn't make a difference. Each house must be evaluated by the rules. You don't get an approval just because you are nice and have four kids but rather because you meet the requirements. Property owners have rights to develop. The issue is compliance. There is no reason to even ask, as the issue is irrelevant. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that speculative building maxes everything out. It does have an effect on what is built that can cause resentment in a neighborhood. Commissioner Cappello agreed but said that it is up to the Commission to keep to good design regardless of who is building. Commissioner Zhao said that owners have the right to decide what they want to do with their property and a right to privacy. Commissioner Nagpal said she agrees that it is not relevant if the owners or a developer --are-building:-Good design review-findings are necessary. Commissioner Hlava said it might be helpful for staff to be able to kick a project up to the Planning Commission if there are compatibility issues. She suggested adding this as Item 7. Chair Rodgers advised that all agreed. Director John Livingstone said he could provide a prioritized list to Council based on this evening's discussion. *** DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS PC Meeting on Night Before Thanksgiving: Commissioner Hunter-asked staff if the meeting scheduled for the evening before Thanksgiving will be cancelled. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for September 27, 2006 Page 36 ' cussion it was determined that there would not be a uorum of the Commission Following a dis q available to meet the evening before Thanksgiving so Director John Livingstone advised that that meeting would be cancelled. COMMUNICATIONS There were no Communications Items. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 11, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 11, 2006 TO: City of Saratoga Planning Commission , ~ ,~ FROM: Therese M. Schmidt, Associate Planner,~~"" SUBJECT: Continuance of Application 07-082 -General Plan Update Item 1 During the Planning Commission September 27, 2006, study session for the General Plan Update the Commission directed staff to organize an additional study session and to defer action by the Planning Commission to a date uncertain. The application was scheduled for the October 11, 2006, Planning Commission hearing and a notice was placed in the newspaper; therefore, this item must go before the Plannin~ Commission on October 11, 2006. Staff requests the Planning Commission formally continue this item to a date uncertain. • • Item 3 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 06-430; 14195 Saratoga Avenue Type of Application: Modification of Design Review Approval Applicant/Owner: Homer Bryant (Applicant and Property Owner) Staff Planner: Lata Vasudevan AICP, Senior Planner d~ V Meeting Date: October 11, 2006 APN: 397-26-002 Department Head: ~.g.~ ~C ~' • • N R p~ 4 .:-avexue- I .ALL, Subject: 14196 Saratoga Avenue ~~ APN: 397.26-002 ti00' Radius T. ~. ~ ..v.~~r~m SPRAT A _ -_] wt. !. ~ I i. ~ ~ 4? ~ 9 v~ `t 3~ ~ 6 ! ~- '=':.;(~ a i~ "~ ~ .l. k e~ 4 ~ s rLe -~'Ai r ~ ~ 67 ~. `o ,b'~ ' .~ .~ ~ . 0o p - ? ~EC ~ , ' b~~ ' L,/ =:4 i~ ~ ~ ~ 61 ~ ~ ~~ s ~ n it ,t ~:~, ~ ~ ~n ~~ ~](` a Li 60 ~ ~ ~~ "~ C7 ~ ~ .o/ 14195 Saratoga Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 06/20/06 09/13/06 09/27/06 09/20/06 10/05/06 The applicant requests a Modification of Design Review Approval to construct aone-story 163 square feet addition to a project that is currently under construction. Design Review approval was granted by the Planning Commission in September 2003 to construct atwo- story main residence, a detached second dwelling unit, a detached three-car garage, and a basement which is to be located under the main residence. The proposed modification will add 163 square feet to the main residence. With the proposed modification, the total floor area of all buildings on the site will be 4,507 square feet. The property is zoned R-1-12,500. The property is located along Heritage Lane and the Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed modification. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve this Modification of Design Review Approval by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Documentation of the property owner's neighbor notification. 3. Arborist Report, dated September 26, 2006 4. Public Hearing Notice, Affidavit, of Mailing and Mailing labels for project notification. 5. Reduced Plans, Exhibit A • ~, i . ,, ., • ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: MEASURE G: • PARCEL SIZE: STAFF ANALYSIS R-1-12,500 Residential Medium Density Maximum Dwelling Unit Per Acre 3.48 Not Applicable 21,766 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 9.7% GRADING REQUIRED: none I ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The project which proposes a modification to the size of a new single-family residence under construction is categorically exempt from .the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of ahingle-family home in an urbanized area. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: Proposed materials and colors for this modification will be the same as what was approved in the original application. Materials include wood shingle siding and a stone veneer on the lower portion of the walls. Roof materials are to be slate. Copper for the downspouts and fascia are proposed. • PROJECT DATA R-1-12,500 Zonin Pro osed Code Re uirements Lot Coverage: 37% 55% Building Main Residence 2,380 SF Main Residence Addition 163 SF Detached Garage 651 SF Second Unit 663 SF Driveway, patios, & walkways. 4,236 SF Maximum Allowable = TOTAL Lot Covera e: 8,093 SF 11,971.3 SF Floor Area: Main Residence Total: 3,193 SF First Floor 2,380 SF First Floor Addition 163 SF Second Floor 650 SF Detached Garage: 651 SF Second Unit: 663 SF Maximum Allowable = TOTAL Floor Area: 4,507 SF 4,596 SF (Basement) (1,640 SF) Setbacks: (Main Residence only) Minimum Requirement Front 135 ft. 25 ft. Rear First Floor 110 ft. 25 ft. Second Floor 130 ft. 35 ft. Right Side First Floor (w/ addition) 9 ft. - 5 in. 6 ft. Second Floor 35 ft. 11 ft. Left Side First Floor 11 ft. 6 ft. Second Floor 11 ft. 11 ft. Height: (Main Residence only) 22 ft. Maximum Allowable Height of Proposed Modification: 13 ft. 26 ft. * Lot width is non-conforming. Side yard setbacks are determined by MCS 15-65.160(a). • • • • PROJECT DISCUSSION ,The new main residence, detached garage and second dwelling unit were approved by the Planning Commission and minutes from that meeting are attached for reference. The project is' under construction and has changed ownership since the original approval was granted by the Planning Commission in September of 2003. The new owner proposes to add 163 square feet to the right side facade (facing towards Seagraves Way) of the main residence. This addition would result in a larger family room than its originally proposed size of approximately 229 square feet. Zoning Code Section 16-05.035(c) (2) requires review by the Planning Commission of proposed modifications of approved plans when the original approval was granted by the Planning Commission and when there are any material changes. Since the project was noticed and approved by the Planning Commission according to its originally proposed square footage, staff is requiring a Modification of Design Review Approval to provide information to the public that the project now consists of a new main residence that will be 163 square feet larger than originally approved. The proposed modification will be consistent in design with its original proposal. Elements of the originally proposed design include low-pitched rooflines, shingles and stone accents. The architectural style of the proposed residence, dwelling unit, and garage are similar in style and appearance. The mass and bulk of the proposed two-story residence is reduced by the recessed second-story building line, partial second-story addition, and minimized height of the second-story addition at less than 22 feet. Additionally, there is substantial modulation and articulation of the building lines of the proposed two-story residence, which will be situated in a neighborhood of one and two-story residences. Staff finds that the proposed addition would not detract from the originally approved design of the new structures. Heritage Preservation Commission There are several historic and architecturally significant structures in the vicinity of the project which is located along the City's Heritage Lane. The Heritage Preservation Commission [HPC] approved the original project plans. on August 12, 2003 and found that the proposed project would not have a negative impact on the City's Heritage Lane. The HPC also reviewed the proposed modification at its September 12, 2006 meeting and had .no concerns. Arborist Report The City Arborist has reviewed the impacts of the proposed addition, and has provided a report dated September 26, 2006 (attached). According to this report, the corner of the proposed family room extension will be underneath the canopy of oak tree #6, which grows on the neighbor's property. The City Arborist has required that the foundation be a pier and grade beam structure under this portion of the tree to minimize impacts to the root zone. As seen in Exhibit A, a pier and grade beam foundation is proposed for the addition. No other issues exist with regard to the trees as a result of the proposed modification: A City Arborist Report was' prepared for the original project and the trees are currently protected from construction areas with chain link fencing which will remain in place during the construction of the family room. A bond in the amount of $34,766 is in place for the trees on site, and will remain in place until construction is completed. Neighbor Review According to the property owner, the plans were reviewed by neighbors and the Neighbor Notification forms are attached. Staff has not received any other written comments as of the writing of this report. Design Review Findings Staff finds the proposed modification is consistent with all of the findings required for design review as discussed below: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed modification is only 13 feet in height and the project site has mature trees on its periphery which provide sufficient screening. Furthermore, the site is not located in a hillside area where there may be unreasonable interference with .views. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed modification would be located over a level portion of land such that no grading would be involved. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. There are no heritage trees that will be impacted by this proposal. However, the proposed modification will be located within the root zone of a protected oak tree. The City Arborist has reviewed the modification and has required that the modification be built on a pier and grade beam foundation, as shown on Exhibit A. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulb The proposed addition is relatively minimal in relation to the square footage of the main residence, and will not result in a building having excessive bulk. Like the rest of the home, earth-tone colors with a variety of textures and materials will be used to adequately minimize the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk a~:d height. Many of the homes in the neighborhood are different from one another in design and materials. The colors and height of the proposed modification would not detract from the originally approved design of the main residence, such that compatibility in scale and height with the other homes in the area will still be applicable to the modified design of the home. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. No grading is proposed for the modification. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed modifications conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views and minimizing bulk as detailed in the findings above. Conclusion Staff finds that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The modification is consistent with this requirement in that the proposed addition to the main residence will be situated at least 150 feet back from Saratoga Avenue and is single story such that there is minimal visual impact. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed modification to the main residence conforms to all of the finding required for granting design review approval. There will be no impacts on view sheds or privacy, and the proposed modification will not result in a residence that is incompatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission conditionally approve application 06-430 for a Modification of building plans and development conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. • • Attachment 1 • • i /'. RESOLUTION N0.07-004 Application No. 06-430 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Homer Bryant; 14195 Saratoga Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Modification of Design Review Approval to add 163 square feet addition to the main residence proposed in a prof ect that was granted Design Review .approval by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2003. The property is zoned R-1-12,500 and is 21,766 square feet in size; and WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 16-05.035(c) (2) requires review by the Planning Commission. of proposed modifications of approved plans when the original approval was granted by the Planning Commission and when there are ariy material changes; 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 which proposes a modification to the size of a new single-family residence under construction is categorically exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant has- met the burden of proof required to support said application for a Modification of building plans .and development conditions and the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15-45.080 have been made in the affirmative: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposed modification is only 13 feet in height and the project site has mature trees on its periphery which provide sufficient screening. Furthermore, the site is not located in a hillside area where there maybe unreasonable interference with views. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The proposed modification would be located over a level portion of land such that no grading would be involved. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. There are no heritage trees that will be impacted by this proposal. However, the proposed modification will be located within the root zone of a protected oak tree. The City Arborist has reviewed the modification and has required that the modification be built on a pier and grade beam foundation, as shown on Exhibit A. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bul/a The proposed addition is relatively minimal in relation to the square footage of the main residence, and will not result in a building having excessive bulk. Like the rest of the home, earth-tone colors with a variety of textures and materials will be used to adequately minimize the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. Many of the homes in the neighborhood are different from one another in design and materials. The colors and height of the proposed modification would not detract from the originally approved design of the main residence, such that compatibility in scale and height with the other homes in the area will still be applicable to the modified design of the home. (f) Current grading and erosion control methods. No grading is proposed for the modification. (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed modifications conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views and minimizing bulk as detailed in the findings above. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Modification of Building Plans,' and this application is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The modification is consistent with this requirement in that the proposed addition to the main residence will be situated at least 150 feet back from Saratoga Avenue and is single story such that there is minimal visual impact. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed modification to the main residence conforms to-all of the finding required for. granting design review approval. There will be no impacts on view sheds or privacy, and the proposed modification will not result in a residence that is incompatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 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 submitted by Homer Bryant to add 163 square feet to a new main residence that was originally approved by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2006 is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMU1vITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit A, date stamped September 27, 2006, incorporated by reference. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. ' 2. The approved plans shall be submitted to the Building Division incorporating this Resolution and the City Arborist's Report of September 26, 2006, as a separate plan page and attached to all construction plans. 3. All conditions of the original Design Review approval as adopted in Resolution No. 03-038 shall remain in effect as shown in Exhibit B, incorporated herein. CITY ARBORIST 4. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated September 5, shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: CITY ATTORNEY 5. 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 of 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11`h day of October 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 or Authorized Agent Date ~ EXHIBIT B ' APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION N0.03-038 Application No. 03-116 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA _-- - - Sam Raissi; 14195 Saratoga Avenue WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a new two-story residence with a detached three car garage and detached dwelling unit; 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 project, which proposes to construct a new single family home, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15303 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. This Class 3 exemption applies to construction of a single family home in an urbanized area; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for design review approval, and the following findings specified in Municipal Code Section 15-45.080 and the City's Residential Design Handbook. have been determined: The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Policies: • The second story windows on the left and right side elevations are clerestory windows to reduce the privacy impacts of the second story. on adjacent property owners. • The two-story residence is low in profile with a maximum height of less than 22 feet. • The second-story building line is recessed from .the building line of the. first-story (with the exception of the left side elevation). • Materials and colors are earth tone and will blend well with the surrounding environment. Materials and colors include beige shingles, stone accents, .and a slate roofing material. • The proposed ceiling heights are minimized at 8 feet maximum height with the exception of the proposed living room which includes 10 foot ceiling heights. • p • Hip roofliries, variation of materials including shingle and stone, columns, and a bay window and deck contribute to the architectural interest of the proposed residence, and reduce the mass and bulk of the proposed residence. The applicant has provided evidence that the immediate and surrounding neighbors support the project. These property owners include the parcels immediately adjacent on Saratoga Avenue and behind the project site on Squirrel Hollow Lane. 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, application number 03-116 for Design Review Approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A." 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report dated April 16, 2000 as a separate plan page shall be submitted to the Building Division. 3. The site survey shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. 4. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 5. The maximum height of the house shall not exceed 22 feet, as measured from the immediately adjacent natural grade not created by fill. 6. A grading and drainage plan combined with a storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with-the complete construction drawings. 7. The applicant or his designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit if deemed necessary. 8. All proposed landscaping shall be installed prior to final building inspection. • • • • -CITY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations contained in the Arborist Report dated April 16, 2000 shall be followed (see condition #18 of this resolution). ' 10. Prior to Final Building Inspection, the Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance, with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after a favorable site inspection by the Arborist, the planting of any required replacement trees, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 11. Roof covering shall be fire retardant and comply with the standards established for Class A roofing.. Replacement less than 10% total roof area shall be exempt. 12. Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall be installed and maintained for the entire main and second dwelling unit ("granny unit"). Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative ~to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. (City of Saratoga Code 16-60) ' 13. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/dexached garages, workshops, or storage areas within the garage which are not constructed as habitable space. An NFPA 13D sprinkler system with 2 heads per car stall and 2 head calculation is required. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall. have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact the appropriate water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. Documentation of the proposed installation acid all calculations shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system and underground water supply must be installed by a licensed contractor. 14. Driveways: All new or improved driveways shall be a minimum of fourteen (14) feet wide with a one foot shoulder on each side. . a: Unobstructed vertical clearance shall be not less than 13 feet 6 inches. b: Driveway surface indicated as paver blocks, provide manufacturer's specification for load bearing, must be capable of sustaining 35,000 pounds vehicle weight. 15. Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from Saratoga Fire District. Details shall be shown on building plans. ~_.J 16. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. CITY ATTORNEY 17. -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 Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING COMMMISSION 18. The tree bond amount shall be increased to 50% (from 15% of the total value quoted in the arborist report). The total value stated in the arborist report is $69,532. A bond in the value of $34,766 is required to assure the mitigations and recommendations required in the arborist report are followed. 19. Landscape screening shall be planted (in a manner which does not require the existing shrub screening to be removed) at the left side property line along the main residence building line to buffer the view of the elevation with clerestory windows from the adjoining property. Section 2. Construction must commence within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen days from the date of adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission. State of California, the 24th day of September 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Garakani, Nagpal, Schallop, Uhl, Zutshi and Chair Hunter NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None • • • ,' ~ „~, ,. % '' `~/ Chair, arming commission - -- - ATTEST: I ~" t .~--,r 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. ~~ ' `~ fir, ~. 1 j Property Owner or Authorized Agent ~~`s ~~ ~ Date • • Attachment 2 r~ L ... r f'. _ City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ~. ~~. Ot0 _ PROJECT ADDRESS: ~y-I ~1 ~ ~~~r~a ~~ , Applicant Name:~~~ r ~ ~ C{ x'1-1- Application Number: 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. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the proj~t 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. I 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: C ~'~ ~~ ~~'e~~ ~A~y ~~2F~ ~6 j~ ~S~ I C~ -s ~ ~i o ~~~ A ~~~ U~ 2 g 2~~6 COM~~Y~ S,g~TOG DF~Op~ City of Saratoga Planning Department City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date: ' PROJECT ADDRESS: I ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~-~ ~~ ~V~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ Applicant Name:. Application Number: ~~ 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.- My 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:l 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): G' _ Neiglibor Name: ~ Ir---_.i ~~~ -~-~~ i~Fr~ ~"~~ Neighbor Address: ,~ Signature: Neighbor Phone #: ~~`~~ ~'~-' ~D~ Printed: AUK 2 4 • ~Do • ~ '1- ~ ~~h-~2~~ ~ C~~MU~ r~FS ?0~6 ~~ ~~ ~ Y~~TpCA ~ppMc~. _ City of Saratoga Planning Department. City of Saratoga 1:~ ;P'tc-~e~(~ ~ . Neighbor Notification Form o~ ~-(-~- r~pa~ ~ r. Date:': 7 2d6 •()1Q PROJECT ADDRESS: ~ , "J ~ -~i (jj' ~e , '~(1 k ~. Applicant Name: t-~(~I~`~,~ ~YtlG1Yl-~- Application Number: 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. L" 1M si afore below c ' y gn ertifiies 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 aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~P ~ ~ /~ S S ~ o L5 ~~ Neighbor Address: A ~ ~~ l ~ // I T 6D S ~ Co~yM~~D~T~ ~ ~ ~~ ~k~~ Nei bor Phon~ ~O ~ ~ '- a ~ l"~ Signature: Printed: ., ~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form Date:. ~ . 'ZQj • ~ ~ PROJECT ADDRESS: lq'I ~ l~Oi /~^ ~'~/~ , Applicant Name: ~DY1nQ,r ~rU G("-~t{~ r---• Application Number: ~~ ~~ . 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 atl 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. ~ j,~,t7 aMy 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. ~,G ~"~~ ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I n understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion j p0 ~" with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns aze the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ,~L Neighbor Name: ~J tL w ~©O f~ `>U 1'u Neighbor Address: ~~//~- Signature: ~. ~~ ~~~-~ -~ t I ow- +~ ~ , ick~ed U-p ~IZI. q~~r~l~bl~ or O ~~ q~ ~0~ car G~ g Neighbor Phone #: ~~ ~" ¢ 7 ~ ~ ~~'O~`~T~ Op~ Printed: ~/j/~` y< ~ /~ ~~ K..G~- I P AIL 7 C~4^~- Q s' 1. ~ Gil ~ ~GC. ~ D /.~/ • City of Saratoga Planning Department r'. City of Saratoga Neighbor Notification Form ' Date: ~ - 2~ • (~~ PROJECT ADDRESS: I ~-i ~~ say r~~-od~ lie , Applicant Name: mom- ~~!1C4 n+- _ _ Application Number: ' ~~ec+se ~cl ~ 6~ ~ ~'~ be ~ ct~-~ed t~~ ~~ . Q 0100 ~1 QY' Sa~Rcl ay , ~'h X ~_ 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 fhe right to amend your opinion at a later date during the actual public review and appeal periods. ~My 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 r~viewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work• and I Lave issues or concerns, which after ' c'on with the applicant, have not been- addressed. My concerns are the folio g J~ attach additional sheets if necessary): u AUG 2.4.2006 ` COMMUNIDyp ~OP~ ANT D g~~ . ,,.~ . Neighbor Name: ~ ~ ~~ r,~~ --~ ~ F ,. A .r", r. Neighbor Address: CITY, ~MM~IIVITY r,. Signa ~ Printed: .i Neighbor Phone #~ ~ ~ Q~ Q !/p 7 ^ ~~--~ r~ City of Saratoga' Planning Department. • Attachment 3 • ~.~~ f'. • Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 14195 Saratoga Avenue ARBORIST REPORT APN 397-26-002 Owner: Sam Raisse, Homer Bryant MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS Application #: 03-116 September 26, 2006 Prepared by Kate Bear ISA Certified Arborist WE 2250A The property owner of 14195 Saratoga Avenue is in the process of constructing a new single family home and granny unit. On June 20, 2006, they submitted plans to add 163 square feet to the family room. Plans reviewed for this report included Sheet 1, Site Plan, dated May 30, 2006. No preparer's name is on the plans. Also reviewed was the arborist report from Barrie Coate and Associates, dated Apri126, 2000. SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICAL DISCUSSION The corner of the proposed family room extension will be underneath the canopy of oak tree #6, which grows on the neighbor's property. The foundation will require a pier and grade beam structure under this portion of the tree to minimize impact to the root zone. No other issues exist with regard to the trees from the change in the plans. A bond in the amount of $34,766 is in place for the trees on site, and will remain in place until construction is completed. Trees are currently protected from construction areas with chain link fencing which will remain in place during the construction of the family room. REQUIREMENTS 1. This report shall be included in the modified plans. 2. Tree protective fencing shall remain in place throughout construction. 3. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 4. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and according to ISA standards. 5. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil, gasoline or herbicides) is prohibited beneath tree canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies. Page 1 of 2 14195 Saratoga Avenue Additionally, fuel shall not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 20 feet of the tree's trunks. 6. When landscape is done, plans must show the following: a. Design irrigation so that it does not spray trunks of trees. Valve boxes and controllers must be installed outside of drip lines of tree canopies. b. No more than 20% of the area under the tree canopies may be planted. Plant selection must have similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed. c. Lawn must not be installed up to the trunks of any tree; it must be confined to the outside 20% of the area under the canopy. Mulch under the canopy instead of a lawn is preferred. d. Design topdressings so that stones or mulch remain at least one foot from the trunks of retained trees and 6 inches from the trunks of new trees. e. Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil beneath the trees' canopies, including for weed control. f. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the trees' canopies must be established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using stakes). • • Page 2 of 2 I~• • Attachment 4 • 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 11th day of October 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: #06-430 -14195 Saratoga Avenue APPLICANT/OWNER: Bryant (Both Owner & Applicant) APN: 397-26-002 Description: Request for a Modification of Approved Plans to construct aone-story 163 square feet addition to a project that was granted Design Review approval, and is currently under construction. Design Review approval was granted in September 2003 to construct atwo-story residence, a detached second dwelling unit, a detached three-car garage, and a basement which is to be located under the main residence. The proposed modification will add 163 square feet to the main residence. With the proposed modification, the total floor area of all buildings on the site will be 4,507 square feet. The property is zoned R-1-12,500. The property is located along Heritage Lane and the Heritage Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed modification to the approved plans. 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, October 2, 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. Lata Vasudevan, AICP Senior Planner 408-868-1235 ,, .. •' 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 20`h day of September , 2006, that I deposited 78 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) I 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 described as: Address: 14195 Saratoga Ave APN: 397-26-002 that on said day there -was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above ~. ~~ I ~,~` ,, enise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services • SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 500' OWNERSHIP LISTING PREPARED FOR: 397-26-002 BRYANT 14195 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 397-23-029 397-23-030 397-23-031 CYRIL B MECWAN KAREL & JITKA CYMBAL ROBERT & S CANCELLIERI OR CURRENT OWNER _ CYMBAL,KAREL & JITKA'S TR p0 BOX 82 14268 SARATOGA AVE 14262 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95071-0082 SARATOGA CA 95070-5931 SARATOGA CA 95070-5931 397-23-032 397-23-033 397-23-034 MATTHEW D BERARDO ROBERT & SHIRLEY CANCELLIERI STEVEN HOFFMAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 2819 14250 SARATOGA AVE 14244 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-0819 SARATOGA CA 95070-5931 SARATOGA CA 95070-5931 397-23-035 397-23-036 397-23-037 SINA & FARIBA BARKESHLI VINCENT & ARLEENE TONG ANTHONY PEREIRA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14232 SARATOGA AVE 14221 LUTHERIA WAY 14241 LUTHERIA WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5931 SARATOGA CA 95070-5979 SARATOGA CA 95070-5979 397-23-038 397-23-039 397-24-019 NAN-KUANG & HELEN HSU STEPHEN G & LINDA JOHNSON GLORYN FARAONE OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14285 LUTHERIA WAY 14307 LUTHERIA WAY 14290 LUTHERIA WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5979 SARATOGA CA 95070-5914 SARATOGA CA 95070-5976 397-24-020 397-24-022 397-24-023 VIRGINIA A UPTON JEFFREY WANG GUANGSHUN CHEN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14280 LUTHERIA WAY 14230 LUTHERIA WAY 14200 LUTHERIA WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5976 SARATOGA CA 95070-5976 SARATOGA CA 95070-5976 397-24-042 397-24-043 397-24-044 CONSTANCE ISHIHARA MICHAEL SHIAU DOUGLAS N LET,SON OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14199 JUNIPER LN 14211 JUNIPER LN 14221 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5902 SARATOGA CA 95070-5902 SARATOGA CA 95070-5902 397-24-045 397-24-046 397-24-058 CYNTHIA GARVEY RICHARD M & ELIZABETH BRENNER SHOKROLLAH & EHTERAM OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER SEDARATI 14231 JUNIPER LN 14241 JUNIPER LN OR CURRENT OWNER SARATOGA CA 95070-5902 SARATOGA CA 95070-5902 14230 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5956 • • 397-24-059 397-24-063 397-24-064 WALTER & GLORIA EPPLER HENRY T & CYNTHIA STANSBURY HARISH & DEEPTI DEVANAGO~ OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14228 LOVELAND CT 14218 LOVELAND CT 14216 JUNIPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5905 SARATOGA CA 95070-5905 SARATOGA CA 95070-5957 397-24-065 JUSTIN S & IVY. WANG OR CURRENT OWNER JUNIPER LN TOGA CA 95070-5957 397-25-056 JIM R HUR 19933 DOUGLASS LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5522 397-25-059 HENRY H & SALLY CHIT 19247 ALLENDALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-5137 397-25-062 C & SARA ALLEN OR CURRENT OWNER 14101 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5412 397-25-092 SAL S & MARTHA RUIZ OR CURRENT OWNER 14082 LOMA RIO DR S TOGA CA 95070-5413 3 - 5-095 IMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF SARA OR CURRENT OWNER 14103 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-5437 397-26-016 ROBERT S & JOAN SEIPEL OR CURRENT OWNER 14127 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 397-26-019 KOON-CHEUNG FAMILY 2001 TRUST 400 ESTHER AVE CAMPBELL CA 95008 397-26-022 POLK & ANNE LAFFOON OR CURRENT OWNER 14191 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 025 S IA FEI & HUELLING OR CURRENT OWNER 14204 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5418 397-24-066 BING K & ROSE TAM OR CURRENT OWNER 14164 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-5438 397-25-057 ' JEFFREY E & ELIZABETH ESSNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14069 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5412 397-25-060 RICHARD L & ANNE SANQUINI OR CURRENT OWNER 14087 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5412 397-25-063 397-27-026 SCVWD 5750 ALMADEN EXPY SAN JOSE CA 95118 397-25-093 JIA-JYI LIAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14058 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5413 397-26-002 SASAN H RAISSI OR CURRENT OWNER 14195 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-5420 397-26-017 GARY J & PATRICIA VICK OR CURRENT OWNER 14137 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 397-26-020 DAVID N & ROBEN MARTIN OR CURRENT OWNER 14167 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 397-26-023 ALLEN J & CYNTHIA RUBY OR CURRENT OWNER 14205 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 397-25-048, GARY M & FIONA RODRIGUES OR CURRENT OWNER 14098 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5413 397-25-058 YUAN LIU OR CURRENT OWNER 14075 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5412 397-25-061 JOHN B & MARY CALLAGHAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14093 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5412 397-25-091 JOSEPH F & FRANCES SPADES OR CURRENT OWNER . 14090 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5413 397-25-094 JOHN M & MARY MORIARTY OR CURRENT OWNER 14050 LOMA RIO DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5413 397-26-002 HOMER BRYANT 419 QUARTZ ST REDWOOD CITY CA 94062-2225 397-26-018 WENDIE E WEISMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14147 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 397-26-021 CHRISTINE & JAE CHO OR CURRENT OWNER 14173 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 397-26-024 MOHAMMAD & FARIMAI-I MASSOUMI OR CURRENT OWNER 14215 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 397-26-026 397-26-027 SUBRAMANYAM & PRATHIBHA TALLAK JAMES A & CAROLYN GRIFFIN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14190 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN 14170 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5418 SARATOGA CA 95070-5418 397-26-028 397-26-029 397-26-045 JAY M & PAULA BLOOM DONA R TOBIASON EUGENE & LILIAN BARNA OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER ~ OR CURRENT OWNER 14150 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN 14130 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN 14199 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-5418 SARATOGA CA 95070-5418 SARATOGA CA 95070-5420 397-26-046, 047 397-26-054 397-26-057 HOMER & ANNETTE BRYANT JACQUELYN GLASS WILLIAM & CLARIS SCHREEDER 419 QUARTZ ST OR CURRENT OWNER 14189 SARATOGA AVE REDWOOD CITY CA 94062-2225 14410 SQUIRREL HOLLOW LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5420 SARATOGA CA 95070-5417 397-26-061 397-26-058 397-26-059 JOHN E & ELLEEN BOSCH SAMUEL B & LOETA FISHER TABER & TINA SMITH OR CURRENT OWNER PO BOX 3385 1737 N 1ST ST 110 14241 WORDEN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-1385 SAN JOSE CA 95112 SARATOGA CA 95070-5434 397-26-062 397-26-063 397-26-064 JURI & ELIZABETH MATISOO ALAN H & DIANNE PORTNOY VICTOR C CHAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 14253 WORDEN WAY 14265 WORDEN WAY 14277 WORDEN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-5434' SARATOGA CA 95070-5434 SARATOGA CA 95070-5434 397-28-023 397-28-024 397-28-025 DAVID & CONNIE ESHLEMAN WALDEMAR M & LUCYNA JOHN & SANDRA WANG OR CURRENT OWNER PASTUSZKA OR CURRENT OWNER 14130 ALTA VISTA AVE 1116 WALSH AVE 14110 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-5459 SANTA CLARA CA 95050-2646 SARATOGA CA 95070-5459 397-28-027 397-28-040 397-28-041 OJALA TRUST JOHN P & KAY NORA WEI & ANNABEL CHANG OR CURRENT OWNER p0 BOX 73 OR CURRENT OWNER 14054 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95071-0073 14078 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-5422 SARATOGA CA 95070-5422 397-28-043 397-28-062 397-28-063 SASAN RAISSI BRAD STUART ALBERT & DIANE CLEMENT OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 20481 WALNUT AVE 13999 ALTA VISTA AVE 13992 ALTA VISTA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070-5426 SARATOGA CA 95070-5421 SARATOGA CA 95070-5422 397-31-001, 002 397-31-003 CITY OF SARATOGA WILLYS I & BETTY PECK ROLLIN E & VIRGINIA BUCKMAN ATTN: LATA VASUDEVAN OR CURRENT OWNER OR CURRENT OWNER 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE 14275 SARATOGA AVE 14285 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070-5930 SARATOGA CA 95070-5930 • • r'. i '• Attachment 5 • • • • ~ ~ ~ ~~`2C.~ o , ~ Z y'~ ~~ Q-L-$~h;~ ~ o~ N ~~~~ ~s i $ ~ ~ ~ ,. P Y a ~i o ~' y~ InI rn L~=-~ ,~, ~~ i~ ' d ~ 00 ~ u ~ d ~ e 0 a ~ .' of ~ _ ~ ~ ~• ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~a ~ p fin i J ~ ""`~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { ~ ~1 ,9 + i . I ~ ~ ~ 2 ( ~ ) ~~ j ~ Q ~ 4 i ~ b , ~ ~ ~ 4. ~ ` r ~ q X fk ~ 3 ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~J „ ~ ~ 9.. y. Wan p o i..{ ~ r R 9~ 3 O~I L r . ~ ~ ~' - '_ ~_- ~o~ ~ - ~ r} ~ ~NMrvn~ ~ 3a~1~ ` o L. ~ ~_ v u O C.7 C. MaM .. \ w i o E- - --' ----- - ~ ~ ~- z . ~ ; . % uI~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ I `~~ --+/ -- g~ w Q` C/7 U~ - - - LMR~ ~ d J C ~ ,0-.6 . ... fe~~_ ...._. _._ i .._.....~ ._.._ ~ i Q ~ ~ in _ ~.1 ;. -, _ . ~.1 ~W r. !! ~ ~~ ~W --.~ , ._~~_..........--t- ~ ~ h q. ! ~ q _ _ --- r-_, ....__. N H --- -. _. _ _._. ~ ~ . ~ a ~.~,e J _ 4 .__ •»gz r f _. `8~S ~ ~ _ -. - .__ I c - ...o Syr .. ~ it 1 p o- I ~ \ ..~-, f' ~,~ I r c ~~' ---- t~ .. m ~ ~ __ __~ y>~., . ~~ ~ ~ ~ NN ~. ~J \ . ' K(~~S q ~~,\ ~N, ~ ~\ ~ M ~ lol, ~~~~ 1 t N ~i N Q. • ~~I1NO~ ~. ~-~ _.__ '" 1 I ' 1 Q ~~~ p V I - 11 W 4! Jp 1• 1 ~ ~1 ~ Z ~ ° O O 1~ JV Z Q ~ 2yy, ~. ~ t ~. ~ a~ p ~ ~~ ~ ~ ? ~o W ~ ~ m .~~ g aa t~ ~ ~~ ~ h~ ~ ~ o ~~ ,~, P u a a ~~~ ~ ' ~~ I ~1~ 4. il'i ~}yS.tl~ 8614""dvl!i ~}I171A' ~U ri ° X, v.t'YMM':l.r~ ~S3{.OI+LhI CI`h~ F+ ~ J ~~ p~ g5 ~NS$ ~aYg ~~~~ ~~~ ~y3 ~~~~8 _$ 3= ~p~ 5 'ya ~~ ~~ ~~ q -~g ~~C. q 6 ,9~ 8~ Cd~ tl~.~g(sh~~p ~~Rp? bd ~E8 z d tly fl y 9 GG a fl~ 8~ ~~' ~~ia ~Y ~~" ~c;= x-!'`' ~~2 ,a ~ g aB1~? a e~ ~~ ~ ~9 's ~ § ~g~ E i E dd.€ ~~~ Sig 8 ~ ~ ~ 8~_;:: ~51 ~~ ~L~r~~.=pro ~ ~~ ~ $~ ~8~~' bj i~8~~ ~~ iLag a~p g p ~ ~ ~I~.-~~ ,~~qa jg gp YY 8 g {a' E `~ ~ Sad. ~. 9~ttlB ~ .~~ ~~ ar 5 ~,~~~~ R~s~ a ~~ ~b ~ ~ ~' °' eg{ ~ ~ 8~1 ~ .~ d r J I a ,~ ~ ~ ~ n I ~ ~ ~ti i y a i 5.9~ ~ ~ 3a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~qq ~~~ ~ } 1 ~ m rnmu .9 G a~2~ ~ t .~~~~~.,o a5o'Inj~ a °g~ ~5 ~ ~ 1,,, ~ S ~ ~ ,y ~ . m i v ~~ ~ y ~" ~ ~ ~~.~d4~ Ql ~ a~~~ gas ' a:'~jp~pap~j".~~~~"~~ ~,.~~~ Q 3axxsa~s~84 ~. ~ i. ~:r _ ., tV - O. .h. _ .~p~ r m -O. ~ .. I ;~. a i VN ~_ "' ~~~ k~~ -~- ~~'~ ~ _. u J u wi. ~>fl :~ 0 ~~~~ 9 ~~~ , ~~ ` w; . ~~ ; ~ . y~'-3 ;u~ R¢, j I ~~~bs ~7D?~~ ~ 3 1 .1. H ~ :: d ~1._. ~. 1 . ( I' •> ~ ~. ~~1 ~ vti N b ~ ~. U~~~Op, o ~2 ~ ~ 2 i ~ ~ .: _ ~J p SPS ~ ~ Q .• R . r x U. ~j 11 V >~ ~Q '~ 1~1 \ ~ ; ~ i~° ` ~~ >n ~. o '~' cn ~ .p ul ~' ~ of ~ W ' , ~~ ~ ^^ .. l V ~ ~ V `/ / __ _ _ N -_~ 8~ 0 ~p .._. 'O .. .. .... ~.. - .. ~.. ...1. ~ ~ ~ Its I a'~'~ N 7e ~. " ~" ~~ ~ ~~,g~ILTOL p ~ •~ ~~ Nom, ~y~ Yin S~G CY tom{ ~ ,~. ~. ~~0"1 ~~++ ll , ~ ~ ~ , ~~(.]a~. ' ~ M' v a, ~' ~ ~ r 4. ei ~ Y N J r a c~ c5 N o-L s Q' ~ Q .~ ~( a. ~: < Q < Q < Q < K d Ada<~_~ ~t ~~s~ u ; oco4e vo 'voo~ va rim ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V >] env vo~ie•avs ga tv 1. • ... 3SSIV>:1 Wb~3 pt t Z w 6' ~..... I I~ W; ~~ ~~ Z W 0 4 a ..~ ~. ~ W ~ . F,, . I ~ r ~ Q F ~ O 4~ +n_ ,h .. .. ` Y - ~' ~ .v R~ =9/ 0 e~ ~~ ~ ~ -_ ~~ ~~a ~~ ~~ 3~ ~y -a ~m W. d i.3 S r ~Z..; \ S I~ •~ • I r Q. I 72Y :" a J 3 ~ ~ ~'p ~ U eaS.i:-~~ ~~! O u ZZ ~ 4 V X G 3'i ~~`~, r i `r ~ 2 ~•~ mrf w ~as3~~~~a~ ~ ° S ~~ a ~ ~ ~r'` m, ¢ = 'god JI K V ~8 ~A d 2 x Leege 5°.S" ~.~ ~~~ F- 0 ~. i- Z ~V ~ ~ ,` n <~f olmm aMOHS ' S91nN ' ~d -4 °, •~ Jr:al~ `°I ': - ~ - ~ ~ ~ - r- c :y -- '- - - °~ 1q I ~~~ n J ~o_ fi = o,, a ~ ~ "r J '. - -- ~ j ~, s ~S!1 ~J -- -- - m ,,~ y r ~ `Y :.. _.. . _ . -_ __. _ _ - ~ -` i - , ~ t anv v~o-LVa<rs ss ~ d ~ T ++~ I ~ ~ 1 ,~. ~ asstva wvs ~ "_ I `~ ;j1 o~lv D N O ~{ a O ~- --~ _ ...o-_;~.~ - ---- x~~~xxa.3 x~=a : I I I ~ I~ eA I ~Y+`4~ ~`% t ~ y ' ® t ~. G iNbb I ~ ~ ^~ /, I ~ n . w i \` ~~~ gLL. xy o5wl ~ ~ I ~ r I ` .. _-.. I ~ ° _- r- n ~-- - ~ F .. I i ~b '_~i ,,; ~ ~. J ~~ ~ ~~ I I 0 ~~ Lip ao -t) J F z .~ ~_ I I - - m ~ u`~ ~4~ e1~ m u I~ N ~ I~~ '~ I ~ ZI p P MI ~pA d \ I ip s ~~ ~. ~ T ~S VY ~~ }~ h /~Y ,e 51 JL p) S'b~ ~ c X I ~(\1 . tl jj V - sn' i _~ 1 I r ~ ha .. I ~ 5 I - -~V i1 _ I = _ I. ~ - r - aMH I iI .ldo ~ .. ~ BBB ~ ~~' ~ % . S.M a ~' p ~ N ~ ~~ F 41 I~ ~ V' I d I I a ~ ;3 I b~~ _ - '0 I I F I ~ _~ (/~~ _~ _ I P O ' ~C.1 9 Ib otrb n Z B I s ~~4 I ~ ~ ~~pifr N,~ ~ ~ - ~ e~ o~sa~n ~ '~~ I ~I~t N I I ~ _< _r - N ~ I Sr ~ '~r~.~~~, h Oro '\+~ ' _- CJllllssd '\ i ~ a C a _ ~ 3 -- ~ -~ _ - -p -~ -LL O ~ ~~ . .o j. -i, , m ~~ ; ~ I ~ ~~~ a I ,l ' ,~ {~ ;:~ l Ir r ~ -'~ ) T ` I ' i ~ ~ ~ S ~ _i -'~ am 0. ~ F* 8 o J3 c _... S,' ~.. a/I • • S P \i ~ = I j r m ~ ,~ ~ S -m : _ N ` I + Y- -I •` - --. -~ r I ~ V~ c~ - ~~ ~ I _. _. - __ 1---.. .. .. . _- ... _._ .___ ._.-...-_ z at ~ ~....... ~ ~~ii Z ~~~ ~~~~ o ppC ~~~~7it y R ' •spval oSor M "p _c.y .~ Q ~ - t•` ' ; I _ ~ -I --- - •N ~u a ~ ~ ~ I F .; 1 . I ~ ~. I ~ - t Q. I I~. P i ~ I F ~ ~ J ~ . N\ r r~ ~^ Q1V I I : ~~ I ,Q ~ ~ ~ r i I ~ ~ I i i i ~ I ~O i I is is .~ •'k3 b3 .~ .-~_.._. - .ba -~ gi S-~9 I tl 11 1 a- J` I i ~"` Ian. 3~ r! -I L nn~ ll.. ~_ 'Q T ~ 1 \ 3 Q ~ ,~;.`, ~~~ Z +~p~ N ~~ ~~ , N •C LL ~ SHIs S i ti~~}~~ ~ ~ S 1 -~ O 9 , ~qY 1~$p F ` 1 ~ 3 1 I H ~ a b ~ ; p~,,;N~ rz~r~~xxa.3 x~ia z; ~ ~.:j g ~ ..,..~ .,... .. 7' - n, F ~ ..:tend ~ c tt. J i CI r ~ ,'. m~ 1 N f~? ~ z ,•o Q~ f - iM '+} F Q 2 ~ V 7 ~ ~ r r ~ ~ ~~ XJ' W ~ t5 ?4. l 7 ~ 1: -1 J N ~ N'~~J/ y~4 _ ~J 11 j ~ ~. 1 .. - Jr Niw °~ I ~ l ~ ~~ ~ ~ CBI _ s ~9 ~ 4 ~_~_ _ ~_ __ I _~ _ , _ __ m ~ ~ ~ ~~__ ~ ~~ ~~d~~ ///\\\ _ i v-.. i i ~ p. I ~ r b~ N `~i 11 ~ ~ flf. 3 ro r~Y'i~ ~. P~ o- 'o ... ~ ~ U O ` ~ _ ~ R LL aa. ~~- ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~ " ~d.. ~ ~l to r ~ ' _._._.- -~--.-- .-_- . ~ i J -~ ~ ~' ~ , i -Q I _ _ /~ .' ' , ". P ~>t ~ / W ~ - qqg qq m i ~ ~. : ,~ ~ M Y ~ J I I Z i ~ ~ ' ~ ~ / ~ K T~ ~ d' l i I . d i .\ L _ ~ i N i Y H L ..~ ~`_._ ~ x 1~ .'''\ N. ~~ i \ _ ~ ~ ~~_~ 1L ~ 6 Z LO 11\1\C) W S v ~ ~ ae or € ~ #3 33 = ;~ ~i Q ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2c~ ;3 ~ a ~~ ~e 44 ~ ;~ 4s i~ b ~~LL ca ~~~ ~ ~ Ie of ~• ~3 = ~S ~~ e~i O ~ F ~y •~ S` .~ .V j•ft g~ d~ oQ[ S a• a U .,~ Y~3 ~Z S. ~ Y~ ~- .' ~x7 ~p ~~ v~ N 58 ... ~~€ ._ 3 's~ "s~~eY fS $Ci S,. SS b. r . •~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~L~'6 ' ~ 1 I f i I ~ O\NEEq Y pNl ~ I .~ ~ e ~ o __ __ > o z e . ' ~~ m so.,, , % a ~ ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~ '~ a N I I \\ _ I ~~ --- - -- --•- - ~ ~ n ` ~ Q I ~ ~ I tit y I:TJ ~ r -- ...-- ---k _ ~; ~ .. .. ~ \ _. .. ~ s\ +z .. ~ ._ .. '' _. _ ..I . , _ _, \ M' ~I ~ n. I.N 1A I ~ ' SM' apros~.Wl.ay' ' 2.'s\O a xZ 1~ .. 0 y '. • • • r'. Item 4 i REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. & Location: 07-086; 12860 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Type of Application: Conditional Use Permit and Sign Permit Applicant/Owner: Sahana Prasad, DDS (Applicant) Argonaut Associates, LLC (owner) ~,, ,, l Staff Planner: Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planned>~~/"~' Meeting Date: October 11, 2006 I _ APN: 393-01-024 Department Head• John F. Livingsto e, AICP ;, _ , :..wnagEUaD..,, wAaDEU aD ~....._.......__... ...._~......_.....WARDE411FU~-~._ ~I i ~ I I ~. ~ __ _ ~.. A6M' \ ~ 1 ASHLEYNA' T"' ASHlEY1ML ::. 1 ~ ~L~~ ~ _ ~l""-._..~ CT roH ~ ~T._ /L '"~ I~~~ I ~ I! III ' ~ CARNIFI CT ~ I ~ JEPSfMg4~.. -sUN .. . . Fy' ~ E _._~_.._ (' .._.. i ~~ ~\ „, `.+ I .. T'-- ~ j ~ I i '~ ~ l I . ~ ygM~ Ci . ; i I . \ I / Y.i \ ~ lfl j ~ I ' ~ ''. ~ ' I ~ i ~. ~.. i .. ._ .' ~ I i..._. ' \ _~ _ `._ ~ n., .. Y........ _ I r i ' I r I ~ 1 . ~ ~ , ~ ' I s ~E~ _..._._ ._.__~.._._.L__ ~ I 1 ~'., ®120 $2f810Q2'SUMYV2IQ fm .' ~ , ~ .. _ 1 ._...P.IERCE RIS __.._..._ _..._ ..J..._~ _-_ _. Q ParCe6 wffhin 500.H ~.. .. •.,~ _. , I ~ ~ I -..~.._._.[-._.. _r..-...i .__r~ER,a I f I 1 i ~ 5f1NN ' ~ ~ ~ I i I _I__. _..~1 _ __.L..__ I .1 'v SV2EL5 _ '~ i f~dfCElS __ I I ~ , HP I .. •. .. _ R ~ `. ~ ~' _ \ \~ t ~ CHAT~ U.QR ~~ ~ •. ~ ~ , ~ ' PIHCCPkD ~' __ ~ ~ a 1 CIIFTII:A / ( i ~ . i E ADR`•, REND ~ ~ YN9 ~ ~ 1 1 __ ~.. ~ ._ i __- I I ~ .. ~. i ~ ~ ' '., i 9ARAro6A-s '' ~ %' I 7 ' _ _ _.. ...E W I } i ~_ \ ~ 1 ~~ L ._..._' w'c ~ ~ ~ ~ .. \ . I .. _ ~ ~ __.. ~ ,r '. J~ \ ~ -_ . .~ ,. ~, " ..` ~ ... _ __ ~_ ~, .._ ~ ~:..... ~ I ~ T i _ ~ _. ~~ 1 i . ~ f --._._. 12860 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road • File No. 07-086;12860 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Conditional Use Permit and Sign Permit -Argonaut Dental EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 09/06/06 Application complete: 09/18/06 Notice published: 09/27/06 Mailing completed: 09/22/06 Posting completed: 10/05/06 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval for a Conditional Use Permit and a Sign Permit to operate a dentist office and install a wall mounted sign at an existing tenant space within the Argonaut Shopping Center in the CN zoning district. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the Conditional Use Permit and Sign Permit applications by adopting the attached Resolution. PROJECT DATA ZONING: CN-Neighborhood Commercial GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR -Retail Commercial MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: Approximately 10-acres SQUARE FOOTAGE OF TENANT SPACE: 1,665 sq. ft. AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Flat GRADING REQUIRED: None ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is not subject to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080(b) (5), "This division does not apply to any of the following activities: Projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS: The applicant is proposing one flush mounted neon-illuminated wall sign in translucent green with trim cap and return color in bronze. • • • ~,~~ f, ' File No. 07-086;12860 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road v Conditional Use Permit and Sign Permit -Argonaut Dental 3 PROJECT DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing minor interior tenant improvements to a 1,665 sq. ft. space located in the Argonaut Shopping Center to convert the space into a dentist office and install aflush-mounted exterior wall sign. The space is located in the northern section of the Shopping Center, 'fronting on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, between a personal fitness studio and Blockbuster Video. The proposed tenant space has been vacant for approximately 16-months. Hours of Operation Proposed hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and closed on Sunday. Parking and Circulation The proposal would not require additional parking spaces above and beyond those required for a commercial use. Signage ~ The applicant is proposing one flush-mounted, neon-illuminated, sign with 18-inch high, translucent green, channel letters consisting of 19.5 sq. ft. of sign area. On September 10, 1997, the Planning Commission approved a Sign Program (Program) for the Argonaut Shopping Center, which was later amended on April 28, 1999. The Program limited signs to a maximum height of 18-inches, a maximum area of one-half square-feet for each linear foot of store frontage, and required non-national, local tenants to choose between two colors -Black Forest (a shade of green) and Cranbrook (a shade of plum). The proposed tenant space frontage consists of 17-feet 7-inches of linear feet; therefore the tenant space would be allowed 8.75 sq. ft. of signage. The sign proposed does not meet the maximum sq. ft. allowed by 10.75 sq. ft. In addition, the applicant has called out translucent green for the sign color, not Black Forest. Correspondence and Neighbor Review The applicant has submitted eleven (11) neighborhood templates (See Attachment 3), none of which expressed objections or concerns. GENERAL PLAN FINDINGS The approval of the proposed project would not be consistent with the following General Goals and Policies stated in the Land Use Element as discussed below: Land Use Policy 4.0 states: `Encourage the economic viability of Saratoga 's existing commercial areas and their. accessibility by residents, keeping in mind the impact on the surrounding residential areas. " Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states: "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City. " File No. 07-086;12860 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road 4 Conditional Use Permit and Sign Permit -Argonaut Dental Discussion: The a licant is ro osin to occu a rime retail location frontin on pP p p g pY P g Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. The City has limited commercial retail opportunities. Land directly to the south .has a zoning designation of Professional and Administrative Office, which permits medical offices without issuance of a conditional use permit. Approval of the proposed dentist office would not encourage the City's economic viability and would limit potential retail uses and therefore, does not meet the General Plan Policies. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS The proposed Dentist Office is classified as Medical Office pursuant to the City Municipal Code and requires a Conditional Use Permit. This process acknowledges that this use may be permitted, but allows the Planning Commission to impose conditions to ensure that a project is compatible with surrounding land uses. . The granting of a Conditional Use Permit shall be based on the findings stated in Zoning Ordinance section 15-55.070. Staff has determined that 2 (two) of the 3 (three) required Conditional Use Permit findings stated within Section 15-55.070 of the City Code can not be made in the affirmative. The following is a discussion of each of the 3 (three) findings: Finding #1: The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The purposes outlined in Municipal Code Section 15-19.010 for the Commercial Zoning District include: providing appropriately located areas for service establishments offering goods and services required by residents of the city, provide opportunities for service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public in a mutually beneficial relationship to each other, and to promote stable, attractive commercial development which will afford a pleasant shopping environment and will complement the essential residential character of the City. Staff is unable to make this Finding. Establishing a dentist office in the Argonaut Shopping Center (Center) would limit potential retail uses by reducing available leasing space. Finding #2: The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed dental office would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Proposed business hours of operation would not create loud or excessive noise to surrounding neighborhoods in the early morning or late evening during the week or on weekends. Operation of the business would not require storage of hazardous materials or waste. Finding #3: The proposed establishment will comply with all applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code. The proposed sign does not comply with all applicable provision of the Saratoga Municipal Code. File No. 07-086;12860 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Conditional Use Permit and Sign Permit -Argonaut Dental . CONCLUSION 5 Staff finds that not all of the Conditional Use Permit and Sign Permit findings can be made in the affirmative, the proposal is not consistent with the General Plan, and the proposed sign is not in compliance with the adopted uniform sign program for the Argonaut Shopping Center. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that this Application is not subject to CEQA review and deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Sign Permit by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHI~ZENTS 1. Resolution of Denial. 2. City of Saratoga Notice, Noticing Affidavit, and Noticing Labels. 3. .Neighborhood Notification Forms. 4. Letter from Mr. John B. Machado, Colliers International, to City of Saratoga Planning Department, dated September 5, 2006. 5. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A." • • Attachment l • .~ /'~ ' RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07-086 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ' Shana Prasad, DDS; 12860 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Property Owner -Argonaut Associates, LLC) WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Conditional Use Permit and Sign Permit approval to establish a dental office and install a wall mounted sign at 12860 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road in an existing tenant space within the Argonaut Shopping Center; 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 Planning Commission finds that 'the proposal is not subject to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 2108(~(b) (5), "This division does not apply. to any of the following activities: Projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves." and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application for Conditional Use and Sign Permits, and is not consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies: Land Use Policy 4.0 states: "Encourage the economic viability of Saratoga's existing commercial areas and their accessibility by residents, keeping in mind the impact on the .surrounding residential areas. " Land Use Policy LU 7.1 states: "The City shall consider the economic impacts of all land use decisions on the City. " The applicant is proposing to occupy a prime retail location fronting on Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. The City has limited commercial retail opportunities. Land directly to the south has a zoning designation of Professional and Administrative Office, which permits medical offices without issuance of a conditional use permit. Approval of the proposed dentist office would not encourage the City's economic viability and would limit potential retail uses and therefore, does not meet the General Plan Policies. WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden. of proof required to support said application for use permit approval, and the following findings specified in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15-55.070: Finding #1: The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The purposes outlined in Municipal Code Section 15-19.010 for the Commercial Zoning District Application No. 07-086 (Prasad); 12860 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road include: providing appropriately located areas for service establishments offering goods and services required by residents of the city, provide opportunities for service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public in a mutually beneficial relationship to each other, and to promote stable, attractive commercial development which will afford a pleasant shopping environment and will complement the essential residential character of the City. Staff is unable to make this Finding. Establishing a dentist office in the Argonaut Shopping Center (Center) would limit potential retail uses by reducing available leasing space; Finding #2: The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed dental office would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Proposed business hours of operation would not create loud or excessive noise to surrounding neighborhoods in the early morning or late evening during the week or on weekends. Operation of the business would not require storage of hazardous materials or waste. Finding #3: The proposed establishment will comply with all applicable provisions of the Saratoga Municipal Code.. The proposed sign does not comply with all applicable provision of the Saratoga Municipal Code. WHEREAS, on September 10, 1997, the Planning Commission approved a Sign Program (Program) for the Argonaut Shopping Center, which was later amended on Apri128, 1999; and he WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the conditions unposed by the Sign Program for t Argonaut Shopping Center. - -- 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, application number 07-086 for Use Permit and Sign Permit approval is hereby denied. Section 2. 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. 07-086 (Prasad); 12860 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11th day of October 2006 by the following roll call vote: AYES: ' NOES: ABSENT: ' ABSTAIN: Linda 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. Applicant Date Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ii Attachment 2 • • ~..~~ /' • ' AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I; Denise Kas~ar ,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 19`h day of September , 2006, that I deposited 70 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) i 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 Ordinan6e 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: Address: 12860 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road APN: 393-01-024 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services • September 19, 2006 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 393-O1-024 Prasad/Argonaut Associates,.LLC 12860 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road SARATOGA CA 95070 393-01-002 393-01-003 393-01-004 QIONGZHONG JIANG K H & P KHOKHANI GRACE M & JAMES BALANESI or current owner or current owner or current owner 20395 WOLCOT WAY 20391 WOLCOT WAY 20385 WOLCOT WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-3814 SARATOGA CA 95070-3814 SARATOGA CA 95070-3814 393-01-005 393-01-006 393-01-007 JOHN W & CAROL BRITTAIN JEN-I CHENG JOHNNEY W LEE or current owner or current owner or current owner 20380 WOLCOT WAY 20375 WOLCOT WAY 20370 WOLCOT WAY SARATOGA CA 95070-3814 SARATOGA CA 95070-3814 ~SARATOGA CA 95070-3814 393-01-009 393-01-010 393-01-008 FRANK L & GOLDIE BROWN VENG-LIT LEI KATHLEEN E MYLES or current owner ~ or current owner 38 DAVIS RD 12771 BEGAN LN 12791 BEGAN LN STOW MA 01775-1509 SARATOGA CA 95070-3812 SARATOGA CA 95070-3812 393-01-011 393-01-012 393-01-013 VERNON A & GENEVIEVE HILARY HASCO DANIEL A & SARA VINSON MALLINSON or current owner or current owner or current owner 20361 PIERCE RD 20379 PIERCE RD 128 i 1 BEGAN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3841 SARATOGA CA 95070-3841 SARATOGA CA 95070-3812 393-01-014 393-01-015 393-01-016 JEFFREY P & ANNA SUNG JIANHUA YANG JOSEPH R & KAREN GARAPPOLO or current owner or current owner or current owner 20397 PIERCE RD 12851 BEGAN LN 12861 BEGAN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3841 SARATOGA CA 95070-4366 SARATOGA CA 95070-4366 393-01-017 393-01-018 393-01-019 GERALD G & MARY LASS ROSH LOAYZA STANLEY & DENISE LEVY or current owner 5.463 MARY JO WAY or current owner 12879 BEGAN LN 12915 BEGAN LN SAN JOSE CA 95124-6235 SARATOGA CA 95070-4317 SARATOGA CA 95070-4366 393-01-021 393-01-022 393-01-020 FRED & ALICIA MIRELEZ JEANNE WHITLOW MI LEE or current owner or current owner 12933 BEGAN LN 12951 BEGAN LN 12969 BEGAN LN sarATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070-4317 SARATOGA CA 95070-4317 • • 393-01-024, 025, 026, 028, 041 393-01-029 393-01-032 . ARGONAUT ASSOCIATES LLC S C V W D RONNOCO SARATOGA PROP 1285 OAKMEAD PY 5750 Almaden Ex 43612 EXCELSO DR SLTNNYVALE CA 94085 SAN JOSE CA 95118 FREMONT CA 94539-6297 393-01-034 TOM D & KATHY YIU or current owner 3 PIERCE RD TOGA CA 95070-3852 393-01-037 RANSFORD L MITCHELL or current owner 20486 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3800 393-01-035 FANNY C KING or current owner 20409 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3852 393-01-038 JIE-XING MAO or current owner 20464 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3800 393-01-040 ~ 393-07-001 FRANK R & ARLENE NOODLEMAN __ _ ARLENE O BERTELLOTTI or current owner or current owner 20420 PIERCE RD 20360 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3800 SARATOGA CA 95070-4356 393-07-003 ERIC W CHEN or current owner 20291 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4315 393-07-008 DAVID LISCOM or current owner 20351 CRAIGEN CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-4315 393-07-032 WILLIAM R & LINDA MULLEN or current owner 12960 REGAN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-4321 393-OS-003 JOHN F HOLMES 218 MATHESON ST HEALDSBURGCA 95448-4110 393-08-029 KUHN TRUST 98 ANDERSON FARM RD HANOVER MA 02339-1350 393-09-034 GUN RHA or current owner 20311 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3855 393-47-003 ERIC J & KARLA EARNST or current owner 12759 SARATOGA WOODS CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-3853 7-006 LIU or current owner 12783 SARATOGA WOODS CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-3853 393-08-001 ROSALIND GRIFFITH or current owner 20360 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3809 393-08-004 JAMES J & JOANY CHEN or current owner 20308 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3809 393-08-030 JAMES ROZMAN 1656 BETTY CT SANTA CLARA CA 95051-2910 393-47-001 SARATOGA OAKS LLC 2780, VALLEJO ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94123-4615 393-47-004 CHUNG-TSENG & FEI HSU or current owner 12767 SARATOGA WOODS CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-3853 393-47-007 LINDA LEVY or current owner 12791 SARATOGA WOODS CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-3853 393-01-036, FREDERICK KURZWEIL or current owner 20413 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3852 393-01-039 ALBERT WANG or current.owner 20442 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3800 393-07-002 JACK & SUZANNAH CHEWNING or current owner 20330 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4356 393-07-009 RALPH W & TERESA CONWAY or current owner 12930 REGAN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-4319 393-08-002 ROBERT P & JOY WEISS or current owner 20342 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3809 393-08-028 ROBERT L & SUSAN MAY or current owner 20301 CHATEAU DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4364 393-08-031 PETER N LYCURGUS or current owner 12870 REGAN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-4318 393-47-002 ANTONIO D ALBO or current owner 12751 SARATOGA WOODS CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-3853 393-47-005 BETTY FILER or current owner 12775 SARATOGA WOODS CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-3853 393-47-008 CHIEN-CHUM CHOU or current owner 12797 SARATOGA WOODS CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-3853 393-47-009 IONE S LOW or current owner 12750 SARATOGA WOODS CIR SARATOGA CA 95070-3853 503-18-002 MILDRED L MILLER or current owner 12795 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3732 503-18-005 503-18-059 JOACHIM S & COLEEN WAGNER SRIDHAR SUNDARAM or current owner - ~ or current owner 12861 PIERCE RD 12811 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3713 SARATOGA CA 95070-3713 503=18-091 MARC L KOCIR or current owner 12795 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3732 503-81-017 CHIA J & JUDY CHANG or current owner 12856 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3714 503-81-019 MICHAEL & DIANE OVERHULSE or current owner 12840 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3714 503-81-022 VIVIAN M & ROBERT SNYDER or current owner 12940 BRANDYWINE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4219 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: Therese Schmidt 13777 Fruitvale Avenue SARATOGA CA 95070 503-81-020 MARC L KOCIR or current owner 12855 SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-4227 503-81-023 KUEI-CHENG LIN or current owner 12950 BRANDYWINE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4219 503-18-004 DAVID A & NANCY WALB PO BOX 343 ' SARATOGA CA 95071-0343 C 503-18-089 LEONARD A & DALVA FULGHAM or current owner ' 20502 WARDELL RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3717 503-81-018 JOSEPH ROMEO or current owner 12848 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3714 503-81-021 RAYMOND A & KATHLEEN MEDVED or current owner 12920 BRANDYWINE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4219 503-81-034 WILLIAM W & MACY IP or current owner 12921 BRANDYWINE DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4225 • • • 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 10th day of October 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: #07-086 -12860 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road APPLICANT/OWNER: Prasad/Argonaut Associates, LLC. APNs: 393-01-024 Description: The applicant requests approval for a Conditional Use Permit and a Sign Permit to operate a dentist office and install a wall mounted sign at an existing tenant space within the Argonaut Shopping Center in the CN zoning district. 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, October 2; 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 • Attach • • ,, r. ~ ~~~~% ~~ S~~ at~~~ . ~ei~~k~~r I~~t~fac~t~~n ~`~t-~~ Date: ~ f(1i ~ PROJEC_ ADDRESS: ~~~~'L', a(~r~r"~'YU~-t %c - n~~-~~vz.~1 Applicant Name: G~/~ ~f?'~rl~ ~~~ ~~ ~ - _ --Application Number:-------------- .~pjD) I~~L~O~[~ ~~~ ~ SEP 0 6 2006 LuJ CITY OF SAItATOGA _~ ,°*AMUNITY DEVEL(1?'"-"'"' Staj~and the Planning Cornnrission prefer ihat neighbors take this opportunity to express arty concerns or issues they may have directly io the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative o, f all residents residing on your properiJ.. . Regardless of the opirriorl expressed below, you reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later.date dvrirxg the actual public revie~a~ and appeal periods. j 4y signature below certifies the follo~~~ing: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do Td6~T have an3~ concerns or issues v~~hich need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. LJMy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; "and l have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheeis if necessary): ^ --- ~ J ,~- NeighborDame: ~-}.k'. ~~2, //~ti" Neighbor Address: -7 ~ ~-- -' ~ ~ ~ T ~ Lvts~ '-~ ~,~.m~srt ~i.~ (J:`- `~~ e ~~ Neighbor phone #t: (G%~~) ~-~ $ ~ ~3~% Signature: Printed: CitJ~ of Saraioga Planning Department ~~~~ of ~a~-~t~~~ . Date: ~ ~'~ ' PRC~7E ADDRESS: ~~~~~ ~ ~ t~ y,rt,~ry Y ~'i.~-t i= - ,_?d~t%~=) Ted, r=l ~!~ ~~ S;~/ - ~ J~~2f~5~~ D L~~~~d~ ~ipplicant Name: s/ S E P 0 6 2006 ----- -APPlicationNumber:--------------_ --- - - _. _ .. _ .. __ _ _ CITY OF SARATOGA Srafj°and the Planning Cornrrrission prefer that neighbors take this opportunit~r ro expr•~S~UNITY DEVELOp~F~ any conceals or issues they Wray have directly to the applicant. Please erasure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your- property. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, youic r•eser•~~e the-right to amend your- opinion at a later date during the actuad public review acrd appeal periods.. . ~My signatwe below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of u%orlc; and 1 da N~~' have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~D7y signattu-e below certifies the follow-ing: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work: and l have issues or concerns, which after- discussion ~i~ith the applicant, have not l3eert addressed. My concerns are the follo.~~ing (please attach additional sheets ifnecessary): Neighbor Name: J!%'!"~ ~'~~''~ (, ~G'~~y L1~ i7~~S_~~ Neighbor- Address: 5/ ~~; ys ~7~' Neighbor Phone #: { ~fU Signature: Printed .~ I ,, ,; , Citl% Of SaralO~a Plarvzing Deparhnenr Date: 1 ~ ,~ , ... , .:, ,~. G P~osEC _ :~ Dl~ss:~~~~ ~~~~,~-ll~lf ~~~-~ ~ ~-~~~ ~~;-, ~~7J applicant Na1ne: ~Ti~`I~ application Ntunber: :~taif and the planciing Commission preler tl7.ai neighbof-s take this opnorccuzit~~ io eat~ress ~nl: concerns oj- issues they-, ~nav have ~lif•ectly to t~~e~applica~zi- Please enszra-~ the signaiur-e on Phis docucne~~.1 is represencaiive of colt' residenis ~ esidi~~g on _~-our properry. Regardless of the opinion eznf-essed below, you resew%e the right to ame~7i1 your opinion at a later dace duping tla~e actual public review anal appeal periods. ;; ~` y signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans: I understand the scope of work; and I do 1`rjo'~' ha~Je any concerns ar issues d~-bleb need tg be address by the applicant pror to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. I ~ ~. .-ivly signature below certi#ies the following: I have rep,-iewed the project plans; understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, «hieh after discussio-n with the applicant, have not laeen addressed. b1y concerns are the tollo«-inn (please attach additional sheets ii necessary): I • ,~ ~(f ~~i ~ieighbor ~TamE: ~~~ ~ ~%~~l~/ ~C~ Neighbor Address: ,71 ~l!QL U! G. Ci~~ Of SQ,"QdOga ~u~ny~~~- ~~ s~~i~-9 Neighbor Phone =~: ~y l1 r ~~~ ~ ~~~ Printed: 1~ ~' ~'ICZ7731i74g ~Cl'7a1"Une3ti~ ~ ~ ®~ , Date: ~, PROJE ~ =.~Dl~ss:~1~~ ~~~~~~.`-a-~,I~~'i~~~/-~~~~~ G~~,,r~-7~ Applicant Name: T~ 1~ i ~ ~~ Application Number: Statj`~and the Planning Corn~nission prefer iliac rzeighhors take this oJ~portunity to etihress anu concerrrs~of= issues izey t?iai% Dave directly to the-applicaiu.~ Please ensure il~1B signature or this documefu is represe~uaiive of all f-esidenis residing ort your properr},. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you reset-~~e the right to amend your opinion ai a laier date during the actual public revietiv and appeal periods. ;~ ~:-livly signature belo«~ certifies the toll'ou%ing: 1 have reviewed the project plans; l understand the scope of work; and I do 1s1~T have anv coneea-ns o~- issues ti~•hicl~ need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed projec~. i iMy signature below certifies the follo~~~ing: I have revie~~ed the project plans; I understand the scone of ti~-ork; and ~ have issues or eoncer~s4 which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. 'vIy concerns are the iollo~~~ing (please attach additional sheets ii necessary): \eiyhbor dame: ~.., '`;eiQhbor :=address: ~~~~~~ ~'t~ G1 SG 7 C' Neighbor Phone Si mature: Panted: ~~~- ~~?-sue ~~~~ /~ ~/ ICJ` ~` ~l"`~~-_`~ -~~~._ti___-- • City- oj~Saratoga Plannif~g Departme,7t date: ~ ~ , .., .~. PROIEC ~ _ DRESS: ~'F~ ~ ' G`-~~~I~1~'=- ~ -~~~ v>~- ~~/<% • =~pplicant'~ame: ~'~~. ~ , ~/ ;application Number: Stut~~ar_c! rile Pla;lnang C071Z711ZSS1071 JJre.J`el" t/ZaZ 1Zeigj2L~01"S take t/11S ~)7J70i"tZfZ21Z1% l0 2.1:I~i"eSS at1~~ cbllcerns or issues tf2e)~ riay Izave direcily ro t11e aphtichili. Please ensu..re t!?e sigtlaiure ot1 cllis cirocacment is 1-epresen~ative of all ;•esidents ~ eliding o11 your propert~~. Regardless of the opinion expressed below, you ;"eser~~e tize right io amellci }%our opinion at a later dale du1"i;1g tltie actcaal public review and appeal periods. ~~Iy signature below certif es the following: i have reviewed the project plans; l understand the scope cfwork; and I do iV~"F' Dave aaty concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. l~~Iy signa~rc below cer~ifies the follo~~in~: I have reviewed theproject plans; I understand the scone of work; and ~ have issues or concerns, ~vhieh after cliscussiQv with the applicant, have not heer~ addressed. 'vIv concerns are the fo1_lou~ing (1~lease attach additional. sheets if necessar~~): ~ \eighbor Narr!e: ~-;1 ~ C1i CGt.~ \eiahbor :address: ~i'Ci.~~C?, ~.~, cj~07~ '\ei~?hborPhone- ~~ ~~~ 3 ~ianature: Printed_ \' nt~ ;~~1a c~ ~i [~ C c~.r ~tn~ of"Saratoga Pia11ni11g Depurt111eni Date: ,, ~ r- ~" , ~ :: ~`'1 f~11 ~ ~ G ~ ,+ <~~ vas-, ~~~ PROJECT :-~.D I~ESS:~~~~ '~..t' f ~' , ~ ' Applicant Natne: ~'~~ :~pplieation 'dumber: Staj~'and_the ~lajzning Commission pr~ler than neighl?of-s lake this opportrtreity to expres• any concerns or issues tl2ey may have dir-ecrly to the a~plicanr. Please ensure the signature on dzis document is representatil%e o{all residerrtsresidi;~~g on your pf'opern%. Regardless of~ihe opinior7 expressed below, you resen~e the right to amend sour opinion ar a later- dare drerirrg the actual public revieti-v and appeal periods. ,~ I~~~~Iy signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans: I understand the scope of work; and I: da ~C~'1' lta~~e arty concerns or issues ~~~ttich need to be address I7v the applieant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. _~MY signature belotiv certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I b.ave issues ©r concerns, ~~vhich after discussi®n ti~~itit the applicant; nave not been addressed. `ply concerns are the follotiving (please attach additional shuts if necessar~~): t n~-, Neighbor ~~ame: ~i~~`~~~~ Neighbor address: 1 ~~~~ ~~ C:~ -~s~~t`~~~: ~~'~-'' fem. ~- ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~s~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ 1 ~ Neighbor .Phone=: ~ ~ ~ ~' ~'~ Signature: minted: [7 • City o~Sar-atr~ga - Planning Der~urtr~a-ei~~ • Date: ~ t~.~ ,._ ~ ~ ,.;, .~. ~ ~ ~ PROIEC ~ DRESS: ~~' '~~% ~ ~'f~-~`~-;N~'`~~~-~- ~ ~~~-~"~~'~ ~;`~' •~~~~ _~pplicant Iti~ame: ~'T/~~/~--~ application ~itimber: Slajf and the Planning Commission p:"efer tha~r neigi~bors iait:e ibis opporrl(niry to express ---~-- an} c©ncerns ot- issa~es they, may ~a~il~y ~o t~1e~ p ica;7c: Pl~clse~nszztci{ze - sig3zatut"e on this docl~lneni is 3-epresentative of all ;•esidenis residing on your propern~. Regardless of i~ie opinion expressed belo~~, you rese3ve the tight to amena yoacr opl3uon di a later dale du-ring the actual public review and appeal periods. . ;-~ _;lvly signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed tl:e project plans; 1 understand the scope of work; and ? do 1VC)T have anv concerns or issues tivhich need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. .'~~lv signature below certifies the follotivinQ: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion ~~ritli the applicant, have nat been addressed. ~Iy concerns are the _follo~uing (please attach additional sheets if necessarvj: ~ ~eiahbor Name: ' "~' ~ieiQhbor .zddress: Nei~hborPhoneT: t7$ B~3 -Dl~~ Signature: Printed: ~~s5 ~~lc~ ~i:T' 01 saYCZZOc"G'. Pta3277~Z1Zg Ue77Lt1"ZnY~n1 Date: ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ i., ~~.~ PR0.1EC ~, _ DIZFSS: ~r ~ V"' ~' ~ ~ Gi~ N~ i~ ~'.~ ~ ~~=~}-~ r `'~"` ` ~ :~.pplicant ~tame:~ j~-jf~ ~ ~~'.~ :application tiumber: Sta f a;zd tine 1'la;z;~in.a Co;nrnission prefer that neighbors rake this o~porira;rii~ r.o erpress -- - ---- ----and%-conc~rrts~;-~ssues-t~z~~a7ira~~ za~e-~;=;=ec-r-l~~-icy-rlae=a~~[-~c-a;zr-~le~~~~-ezz~u;-c-il~r-c------------------ signarure on ibis docar;ne;zt is represe;ztative oT all ;~esidents residing o;z _t~our propern~. Regardless of the opinion expressed belo~1~, you reserve the ;-fight to a;rzend your opi;~io;z ai a ! ter dare during the actual pz~blic ;-eviely a;zd appeal periods. '1~Iv signature below certii7es the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1 understand the scope of work; and ~~ da `v~"I' nave any concerns or issues ~{~lzic)3 need to be address by ts,e applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. =Mv siunaturc belotiv e-erti ies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, ~~vl~iclr after discussion with the applicant. have not been addressed. ~Iy concerns are the .follow~ina (please attach additional sheets if necessary): t /J ~ ~ a~ i ~~ I ~ ~~~d ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~1~,~~~~ ~ lit '~,ei_.ibor tiame: ~ ~~ ~1.~ t, Neighbor address: ~ ~~ ~ `~ ~ ~ (~ ~. ~. ,---~ 1 ~~~ 'veiQhbor Phone ~: ~ ~~ ` ~~~~~ ~~~ ~, ~ -~ Si~~a e: ~ ~ ~'~ P?-inted: ~ 1 LiIV OfSararOga PICZn;1lItQ ~t,'Z?CZ/"inleili • • • Attachment 4 ~, IiDn)~ [~~[~0~~ j~~ ull SEP 0 6 20U6 U CITY OF SARATOGA September 5, 2006 City of Saratoga PLANNING DEPARTMENT 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: 12830 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, California To Whom It May Concern: San Jose, California 95113 USA Tel: 408-282-3800 ~: aoe-29z-81oo www.colliersportish.com I am writing this letter in support of the Conditional Use Permit application submitted by Sahana and Ram Prasad, dba Argonaut Dental. I have been involved with the Argonaut Shopping Center for approximately ten (10) plus years and witnessed the center change from its 1960 era dated facade and tenant mix to its current revitalized state. ' As acting Lease Director for the Argonaut shopping Center, I strongly support this application for the following reasons: 1. A Family Dental Practice is a use that does not exist in the current center and will be much needed service to the community. 2. By locating a Dental Office at this location it will put the dental service close to where patients live, thus creating less automobile traffic. Most Saratoga dental offices today aze located to the North near Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Prospect Road. 3. The location within the Argonaut Center where the proposed dental office would be located is on the Northern section of the shopping center which has inferior visibility to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. Therefore it is better suited for office/service type business as opposed to retail business. Co-tenants on the North End of the Argonaut Shopping Center include Bodyline fitness "A Personal Fitness Trainer" and a delivery oriented pizza place. This section of the shopping center is better oriented for service type of business and a family dental practice will be a positive addition. The ownership of this center would not support a dental office if they were attempting to locate on the opposite end of the Argonaut Center, which has greater visibility and is better oriented for retail sales. 4. Due to the location and size of this particulaz space it has been very difficult to attract a retail business to this location. The last tenant in this location was Allwe Beauty. They vacated in March of 2005 and the space has remained vacant now for l 6+ months. • • • c:~uocummts And saringsVtpresedUNy Doacna~sVNy Piles~Peismal noc~ui_izsso_s~razoga_s~y.~nl~_ROad_ovoso«if.n« ~~ /'~ D • September 5, 2006 Page 2 of 2 5. Parking: The proposed dental office will have at peak times 3 employees and 2-3 patients, thus occupying a maximum of 5 parking stalls. Based on the overall parking in the center, 7.5 parking stalls have been allotted to this space. Therefore, by allowing the dental office we will free up 2.5 spaces for other customers of the center. I would appreciate your consideration in granting the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL ,7 I J John B. Machado Senior Vice President 408-282-3862 ' j machado@collierspan-ish.com • • C:1Docunwnu and SetungsViPfasaAVdy DotumentsVNy Files~Persoaal Docmnm~U.l_12830 satatoga_swnyvde ~ 0905()6~1].doc • ,, r • Attachment 5 ~y-~ Q~ :. N Z O U H w J r W a 0 N W a O W 0 Q' m Z --~ - H a w U w Z_ Q Y O Z Q a H J_ W H g W U lL LL n m V N a 0 0 w '` '~ \ s Z 3 ~ r8 Q .. \ ~Pti. 3..~ ~ 7 i ~ s~ Y. HA Ea. ~....~a+ ~ ~ ;~ r<; ~~ccc, ~~ " ,~G~.ti#b ~~~ ~~~~. ~ s ~ ~~ ~ a s o~ - ~ ~ ~°' ~, ~'j~I ^x z yti: # O O O ~t~S ~-~^ • ~~~M bW ~ ~~° ~ ~ e GI wr;. m ~, ; ~ ~ y S', o 3.: cC , ~ eAE ~ ~a~b v ~ O ~ •.. ~~ pwr.~ ~w~ ~ ~ 9~ ~~ sg~~~e yoo¢ ~ a ~ v ~ ~ ~ .,~~ ~~~~ ~~~~g ~'pe ~ Q o a a `. ~~~~ N ~ ~ 53 ~ z (O s ~ S vrai$ 3 y~<~ ~ i y a ~~~, `~ t c a ~ z a t. ~ ~ ,~ , .w . ~ x ~ a r ,•X ~: u ;'~ ~ . g ; .~ `' ~;,x ~.'f. z ,. . .. ~ i. z .._r i a a .~. ... ~. ~. ;; 3 '~ '~ ~t Y .:... Z Y ~ T k~ .. .. k.. ~ ;~ • 01 N a ...