The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-17-1993 CITY COUNCIL AGENDASARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. _ MEETING DATE: November 17, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works , AGENDA ITEM q-1 CITY MGR. SUBJECT: Warner Hutton House Improvements - Capital Project No. 9301: Increase in Construction Contract Amount Recommended Motion(s) : Move to approve an increase of $2,350 in the construction contract with Progressive Pacific, Inc. Report Summary: The awarded construction contract with Progressive Pacific, Inc. for the interior remodelling of the Warner Hutton House was for an amount of $18,975. At the time of the contract award, the Council also authorized staff to execute change orders to the contract of up to $3,000. As often happens with remodelling projects, a variety of unknown and unforeseen conditions become exposed during the work. At the Warner Hutton House, these conditions necessitated additional electrical, carpentry, framing, painting and finish work which, when completed, will result in extra work that exceeds the contract change order authority by $2,350. Therefor, staff is requesting Council approval to expend this additional amount on change orders to the construction contract. Fiscal Impacts: There are sufficient funds budgeted in Capital Project No. 9301, Account No. 4510 to cover the additional change order request. As this project is funded through the City's CDBG program, the additional project expenditures will be eligible for reimbursement from the CDBG program. Follow Up Actions: Staff will issue a change order to the contract to authorize the additional work. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The contract amount will not be increased and the additional work will not be authorized. In that event, it will not be possible to complete the project in its entirety. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z 3f� AGENDA ITEM: MEETING DATE: November 17, 1993 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Planning SUBJECT: CITY MGR. APPROVAL Final Draft Open Space Element and the Associated Negative Declaration Recommended Motion: Adopt the final draft Open Space Element and the associated Negative Declaration. Report Summary: In July of 1993, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the draft Open Space Element. Subsequently, the City Council held a public hearing on September 1 in which they received public testimony and continued the item to two scheduled work sessions, including one joint meeting with the Planning Commission, for further review and discussion. The staff report from the September meeting is attached for reference. During the course of these meetings, a variety of minor alterations were suggested by the Council. The Council also decided that, except where specified, the word "shall" applied to all policy statements while the word "should" modified implementation program statements. All of these changes have been included in the final draft document (attached). Additions to the text are shaded and deletions are struck over. Implementation Program a. Preservation of Open Space. The City shall proceed to take the necessary steps to promote the preservation and maintenance of open space in the foothill area > >:: >:> :: :::::.; icd:::<:: o < < »::» E o l <:ow: n ri z , :.:.::.::.::::::::.;:; nod;;:.. .. u��.... :.;:.;::.;:::..,::...; ??�:....;:.: :::; ::::g:::. ... . .......................................................................................................................................... ............................... .......................................................................................................................................... ............................... These modifications are a result of Council discussions with the Planning Commission pertaining to the Sphere of Influence Expansion study project. Draft Open Space Maps At the first Council meeting regarding this item, staff reported that the Regional Trails ( #3) and Sphere of Influence ( #7) Maps did not designate the current Sphere of Influence boundaries. After the adoption of the Open Space Element, staff will amend the-maps to reflect current City policy. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow -up Action: Amend Planning Department Work Program to enact adopted Implementation Programs. Amend draft maps as indicated. Consequences of not Acting on the Recommended Notion: Open Space Element will not be updated. Attachments: 1. Final Draft Open!Space Element and associated Negative Declaration. 2. Staff report dated 9/1/93 3. Draft Open Space Maps Motion and Vote: exeosel DRAFT OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CITY OF SARATOGA AUGUST 1993 Planning Commission Recommended Approval on 7/14/93. Revised by City Council 9/1/93 and 10/12/93. Approved by City Council / /93 City Council Mayor Karen Tucker Karen Anderson Ann Marie Burger Willem Kohler Victor Monia Open Space Task Force F.L. Stutzman Former Mayor, City Council Linda Davis Heritage Preservation Commission Fran Franklin Parks and Recreation Commission Christie Jameson Finance Advisory Committee Gillian Moran Planning Commission Stan Bogosian Area Resident - Village Jan Garrod Area Resident - Unincorporated Betty Hodges Area Resident - Montalvo Salley McElravey Area Resident - Golden Triangle Ann Waltonsmith Area Resident - Foothills City Staff Harry Peacock City Manager Paul Curtis Community Development Director George White Associate Planner Table of contents Page Introduction 1 Public Participation 2 Open Space Defined 2 Open Space Evaluation Criteria 3 Scenic Open Space Classifications 5 Open Space Lands Inventory 6 MROSD Open Space Lands 8 Open Space Issues 8 Open Space Goals 10 Open Space Policies and Implementation Programs 11 General Policies 11 Unincorporated Hillside Areas 12 Scenic Open Space 14 Trail System 16 Land Use Controls 20 Open Space Acquisition 21 Attached Maps General Plan Map Existing Open Space Map Sphere of Influence Map Ridgeline and Watercourse Map Roadway and Gateway Map Regional Trail Network Map Trail System Map Appendix National Recreation and Park Association Standards, 1990 Open Space Assessment Survey INTRODUCTION In 1970, the State Legislature added Open Space to the list of mandatory General Plan Elements. The legislative intent was to ensure that cities and counties recognize that open space land is a limited and valuable resource, which must be conserved wherever possible. Every local jurisdiction is required to prepare and carry out an Open Space Plan which, along with State and regional Open Space Plans, will achieve a comprehensive program to preserve and enhance open space. The City of Saratoga adopted its Open Space Element on August 7, 1974 in conjunction with the 1974 General Plan. The Element was last updated in 1981. The City's connection to the land and to the natural environment has a lengthy history. The City was founded and based on the lumbering and wood product industry, later evolving as an agriculture, resort and artist center, all well tied to and based on the resources and the beauty of the natural environment. In the latter part of this century, Saratoga became a single family, residential community. The City has been able to retain its identity and uniqueness by controlling the density and intensity of development, and by preserving the greenery of private and public gardens and yards, parks and hillside open spaces. However, the continuing and rapid urban growth in the Bay Area affects Saratoga as well. The City'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, development 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 decide on the character and quality 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 City, through a community survey. As a follow up to this survey, the City Council decided to examine the City's open space policies and to revise and update the Open ................. Space Element to �t eft the current community needs. 1 An Open Space Task Force was formed by the City in October 1990, to study open space conservation issues, formulate preservation policies and suggest implementation programs to accomplish and carry out the City's goals preserving and safeguarding its natural resources. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION During February and March 1990, the City conducted an open space assessment survey of Saratoga's residents. The purpose of the survey was to identify the community's current and future open space needs and assess residents' interest and willingness to pay for the acquisition and preservation of open space and parkland. The survey results indicated strong community support for the preservation and acquisition of open space and parkland. These results confirm a long -term commitment and desire of Saratoga's community to preserve the natural beauty and the quality of life which characterize Saratoga. Following the survey, the City Council appointed an Open Space Task Force consisting of five residents representing different geographic areas of the City, four representatives of the Planning, Heritage Preservation, Parks and Recreation Commissions and the Finance Committee, and the Mayor. The Task Force studied the open space issues and formulated policies and implementation programs for preservation, protection and acquisition of open spaces. The policies and programs suggested by the Task force are incorporated into this Open Space Element. After the completion of the draft element, public hearings were held by the Planning Commission and the City Council to allow additional public review and comment. OPEN SPACE DEFINED The definition of open space varies in different communities and may often change, as it is highly subjective. The residents of Saratoga, according to the 1990 community survey, perceive open space as a combination of many elements. The State of California requires each local government to have an open space plan. Government Code Section 65560(b)1 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 ". 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 the preservation of plants and 2 animal life, habitat of fish and wildlife species, areas required for ecologic and other scientific study purposes, water courses, riparian corridors, watershed lands and utility easements. Open space used for the managed production of resources, including but not limited to, forest land, rangeland, vineyards, pastures, agricultural lands, and areas of economic importance for the production of food or fiber, areas required for the recharge of groundwater, streams, and areas containing major mineral deposits. Open space for outdoor recreation, including but not limited to, parks, recreation areas, areas of outstanding scenic, historic or cultural value, areas particularly suited for park and recreational purposes, access to water courses and areas which serve to link major recreation and open space areas, utility easements, trails and scenic roadways. Open space for public health and safety, including but not limited to areas which require special management or regulations because of hazardous or special condition such as earthquake fault zones, unstable soil areas, flood plains, watersheds, areas presenting high fire risks, areas required for the protection of water quality and water reservoirs and areas required for protection 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 vegetation, orchards and roadway scenery. Within the City of Saratoga and its Sphere of Influence, there exists a diversity of open space lands which fall into each of these categories. A majority of the open space consists of hillsides and mountains in the southern and western areas of the City and Sphere of Influence. Most of this land is undeveloped and undisturbed. Small neighborhood parks and school sites within the City limits, serve the community. These parks are primarily located along the valley floor and in the foothill areas. OPEN SPACE EVALUATION CRITERIA The following standards have been established to assist the City in evaluating parcels for open space value. Such an evaluation does not imply increased public access. It is intended to provide the City with objective criteria on open space land that are consistent with the goals of the General Plan. Criteria for open space evaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: 3 Natural Resource Lands. Non -urban areas serving various purposes including: 1. Providing habitat and preserving plant and animal life, including habitats for fish and wildlife. 2. Serving ecological and other scientific studies and environmental education. 3. Generating oxygen, purifying air and water while not producing air pollutants. 4. Conserving water and soil. 5. Maintaining ecological balance. 6. Maintaining genetic diversity of plants and wildlife species. 7. Protecting watershed and water resources to ensure water supply and water quality. Production of resources. Areas of economic importance for the production of food and fiber and where appropriate, production of minerals and areas required for recharge of ground water basins, including: 1. Agricultural and grazing lands. 2. Areas containing major mineral deposits. 3. Cultivated lands or orchards, vineyards or tree farms. 4. Forest land. 5. Rangeland. 6. Marshes, rivers and streams for management of commercial fisheries. Outdoor recreation. Land providing room for a variety of passive and active recreational pursuits and offering important opportunities for the fulfillment of human and psychological needs, including: 1. Areas of outstanding scenic value. 2. Areas of historic and cultural value. 3. Accessible areas particularly suited for parks and recreation purposes such as hiking, riding, biking, swimming, tennis, ballfields and more. 4 4. Areas providing access to and links between major recreation, cultural and open space reservations, including trails, utility easements, banks of rivers and streams and scenic highway corridors. 5. Areas with inherent qualities that humans find visually pleasing, beautiful, relaxing, stimulating or enjoyable. Public Health and Safety. Parcels which pose a hazard to the public including: 1. Slopes over 30 percent. 2. Fault zones and the land on either side of known fault zones. 3. Areas of geologic instability. 4. 100 year flood plains. 5. Areas of high fire danger. Community viewsheds. Parcels which contribute to the perception of open space. Such perception should not depend on parcel size. SCENIC OPEN SPACE CLASSIFICATIONS A scenic open space classification system is used by the City to assist in the identification and evaluation of valuable scenic lands. Viewscale. A three -level scale has. been adopted to classify scenic open spaces: microscale, intermediate and macroscale. Microscale Open Space - Small, intimate open spaces are defined as microscale open spaces. The observer will experience views up to 300 feet. The views and attention are focused on details of forms, color, texture and foreground objects. Intermediate Scale Open Space - Areas ranging from 5 to 50 acres, identified by the sense of openness in the middle ground, with definite background limit (such as parks, or school sites) are defined as intermediate open spaces. Microscale views might exist along with the intermediate views. Macroscale Open Space - Lands of extensive openness, focused on grand vistas, are defined as macroscale open spaces. Undeveloped hillsides are an example of macroscale open spaces. Microscale and intermediate scale open spaces might exist within the macroscale views. 5 Intensity of Improvements. Scenic open spaces can also be classified by the level and intensity of man's imprint. Natural Environmental Views - This category includes topographic and geological features (ridgelines, hillsides, valleys, creeks and faults, landslides, floodplains), and botanical features (trees, native vegetation). Landscaped- Designed Views - Housing environs, roadways, trails, gardens and school sites are examples of landscaped designed views. Manmade Unenhanced Views - This category includes manmade unenhanced views such as utility easements. OPEN SPACE LANDS INVENTORY The City's existing open space lands are diverse in scale, use and level of improvement. While most of the open space in the hillside is characterized by undeveloped and undisturbed land, the typical open spaces in the foothills and valley floor are landscaped and designed. The open space inventory is described and categorized in this chapter. 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 subdivision approvals. These lands are designated as open space and are considered protected as such. This category includes over 250 acres of dedicated open spaces and easements. Agriculture Preserve under Williamson Act Contracts. In the City there are a number of agriculture sites of varying sizes, which are protected and restricted to agricultural or open space use only, as defined in the specific Williamson Act contracts. These lands add not only to the perception of open spaces within the City, but also serve as a vital link between the modern City and its agricultural past. Land area of agricultural lands under Williamson Act contracts total over 200 acres. This figure includes approximately 100 acres of agricultural lands where the owners have requested non - renewal of the Williamson Act contract. In those cases the contract will expire ten years from the non - renewal request date. 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. 6 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 Cemetery. Private lands such as Villa Montalvo are leased for public use. Flood Easements. Flood easements along creeks within Saratoga are under the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. A few portions are dedicated and owned by the District but large portions are still privately owned. The creeks and flood easements are important natural resources which contribute to the beauty of Saratoga. Community Facilities and Church Sites. These sites typically are large, with a number of structures and wide open areas. The majority of these sites are located within residential areas and contribute to the perception of open space. School Sites. Similar to the previous category, school sites contribute to the perception of open space in the neighborhoods in which they are located. In addition, school sites consist of playgrounds, many of which are used by the community through joint use agreements with the school district. Saratoga is currently served by nine elementary schools, three of which are private, two high schools and a community college. The total school site land area is over 300 acres; over 100 acres of these areas are already devoted to open space and recreation use. Parks. Twelve City parks are located throughout the City. The parks are at different levels of improvement. Most parks are used for neighborhood recreational activities. A number of these parks are used for City -wide activities. The total area of parks is over 70 acres. The City of Saratoga Park and Trail Master Plan evaluates the condition and the necessary improvements for each park in accordance with the needs of the neighborhood it serves. Large Residential Lots. Saratoga is generally characterized by large lots with large yards which creates a sense of openness. These lots typically include a small portion occupied by structures and the remaining land is visually open. Much of this open space is used as private backyard area and is not usually open or accessible to the general public. Vacant Undeveloped or Underdeveloped Properties. This category consists of vacant or partially vacant sites which are not designated as open spaces, but have scenic or other value as open spaces. These sites have the potential to be developed to a higher density in accordance with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. The undeveloped hillsides within the City and its Sphere of Influence are included within this category. A number of large, vacant or partially developed hillside sites still exist within the City limits. Most of the undeveloped hillsides lie outside the City limits, a portion of which is included within its Sphere of Influence. iA Regional Parks. Three major regional parks exist within or partially within the City's Sphere of Influence and are accessible to Saratoga residents. The three parks are Montalvo Arboretum, Stevens Creek Park and Sanborn County Park. These parks have a total of 1830 acres. Montalvo Arboretum includes 175 acres of woodland in the hills straddling the southern boundary of the City. The majority of this open space is located within the County. The land is operated in trust by the Montalvo Association and is leased to the County on a long term basis. The site contains the Arboretum and recreational open space. The Villa, which provides cultural activities and programs, is owned and operated by the Montalvo Association. The park is maintained by the County with Federal assistance. Stevens Creek Park is a multiple purpose park in Cupertino's Sphere of Influence. It is accessible to Saratoga residents by trail and scenic road. The park contains 655 acres. Sanborn County Park is a part of a larger regional Skyline Park. The Skyline Park contains 1,000 acres and extends from Sanborn Park to Skyline Boulevard. It is one of a series of multiple - purpose recreation areas which complement Castle Rock State Park and create an undisturbed corridor along the scenic mountain highway. MROSD OPEN SPACE LANDS Midpenninsula Regional Open Space District ( MROSD) is a governmental agency dedicated to the acquisition and protection of open space lands. The MROSD holdings include over 320 acres within Saratoga's Sphere of Influence. OPEN SPACE ISSUES ' The City's open space lands include open spaces which were dedicated as private or public open spaces. Other lands also serve as open space under their current use, but change of use may result in loss of these open spaces. This section will focus on the preservation of existing open space and the anticipated need for additional dedicated open space and parkland. Land Under Williamson Act Contract. The existing Williamson Act Contracts within Saratoga may expire in the near future, thus increasing the potential and pressure for development on these parcels. Private and Community Facilities. These properties are currently designated for use under the residential zoning category. Potential exists for more intensive development of the property in the future. For example, a portion of the Saratoga Country Club property is currently zoned Hillside Residential (HR). Under the current zoning, the property could be developed with single family homes. School Sites. The 1990 U.S. Census indicates that Saratoga is experiencing a continuing aging of its population, with a reduction in the student population. This change in population may lead to the closure of some existing schools. The City has the right under the Naylor Act to purchase portions of this property at below market prices. The City should be alert and prepared to acquire those sites when the opportunities t find' become available. .............. ............... Large Lots and Private Yards. Much of Saratoga is developed in low density, single family neighborhoods. Past city policies have relied on this land use to provide necessary open space to the exclusion of acquiring public neighborhood parks. There is still demand and necessity for additional neighborhood parks and pockets of dedicated open spaces. Hillside Lands within the City or its Sphere. These hills, and further away, the mountains, are valuable scenic open spaces which balance the growing urbanized areas. The conservation of these unspoiled open spaces with their scenic views and undisturbed wildlife habitat and native plants, as a permanent greenbelt around the City, is essential for the preservation efforts of the City's rural character and well- being. Insensitive developments endanger this last valuable natural resource. The preservation of ecological balance is essential for a better quality of life in the future. Open Space Linkages. The City's existing open spaces and parkland are currently spread throughout the valley areas and the hillsides. However, the continuity 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 pedestrian trail system. Parks. Although the City parks are located throughout the City, there are areas of the City without sufficient quantities of local open space. Higher density neighborhoods are particularly sensitive to the absence of open space. Development in the past, has been permitted on small lots without park land or open space dedications. It is important that active and passive recreation open space be provided on a neighborhood basis in reasonable proportion to the population in the area. Trail System. There are a number of issues related to the City's equestrian and pedestrian trail systems. Dedicated trail easements which are not identified or improved, are not accessible to the public. Some trail easements are not interconnected within the 9 City area, and are not connected to the regional trail system. Public facilities and schools are not well connected by trails for pedestrian use. OPEN SPACE GOALS 1. To provide and maintain open space resources of local and regional significance accessible to the public. 2. To preserve the hillside and mountainous land in its natural condition and inherent natural beauty. 3. To use open spaces to protect human life and property from natural hazards such as fire, flood, seismic, and geotechnical hazards. 4. To achieve and maintain a harmonious relationship between the natural environment and man -made structures and land uses. ...... ............................... 5. To protect and conserve natural resources including watersheds, r €tT€x productive agricultural land, native vegetation and wildlife habitat, mineral land, archeological and historic sites and areas of ecological significance. 6. To encourage preservation of land uses for open space and agriculture. 7. To preserve the natural and rural character of Saratoga. 8. To preserve and protect existing view sheds, view corridors and scenic open spaces. 9. To create and maintain distinctive, attractive entrance ways reflecting the City's rural character and scale. 10. To ensure that any new development is sensitive to the natural environment and the community's open space resources. 11. 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. 12. To provide and maintain a trail system which links open spaces, schools, public facilities, the Saratoga Village, and historic sites. 13. To encourage the awareness, appreciation and use of the City's open space resources in Saratoga's residents, particularly its youth. 10 14. To preserve and maintain existing open space resources. 15. To preserve open space and recreational resources provided on school sites and surplus school sites through acquisition and /or land use controls. 16. To preserve, protect and maintain riparian habitats and creek corridors. OPEN SPACE POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS The City of Saratoga recognizes the value of open space for 1) the preservation of natural resources, including watershed lands, plant and animal life; 2) viewshed preservation; 3) recreational use; 4) the managed production of resources such as agricultural lands; and 5) the protection of public health and safety through open space designations which restrict development in areas where environmental hazards exist. The City will work to insure the preservation of valuable open space in perpetuity through private initiative, land use regulations and acquisitions. GENERAL POLICIES It is the policy of the City to: 1. Open Spaee Element. The City of Saratoga shall preserve, through a variety of methods, as much as possible of the open space areas i' described in the .: ....................:.......::. Open Space Element for visual greenbelts, conservation and management of environmental resources,; public health and safety protection and for recreational use. 2. Open Spnee Management. The City should prepare an Open Space Management Plan in conjunction with its Capital Improvements Program. The Plan would identify open space needs as well as the appropriate use and ongoing maintenance needs of open space areas. 3. Citizen em encourage and facilitate the participation of individuals, citizens, groups, civic organizations, and those having special needs, such as the physically disabled, in the open space planning process. 4. Faeffi '' ovemefi* The City shall improve and upgrade existing municipal open space, parks and trails to serve the current and future recreational needs of the community. These shall be consistent with preservation of open space. 5 Preservation and !„en Spaee. Given the pr-essufe for development of open spaee lands, the City shall be vigilant in maintaining existing and future parks and 11 dedicated open spaces to ensure that they remain part of the public domain in perpetuity. UNINCORPORATED HILLSIDE AREAS The unincorporated hillside area lying south and west of Saratoga is characterized by relatively steep sloping, wooded foothills. Vehicular access in the area is limited to small country roads. Most of the lands within the unincorporated area are in a natural state with minimal development. In the low foothills and within the hillside valleys there are scattered single family residences, typically on large lots, as well as residences related to agricultural operations. Existing uses are generally compatible with the rural, verdant nature of the area and are mainly agricultural and open space in nature. Such uses include recreational trails, vineyards and small winery operations, equestrian stables, pastures and grazing lands, ornamental nurseries and commercial timber growers. The most intense uses are a summer concert theater (Paul Masson Mountain Winery), Saratoga Springs picnic grounds, and Villa Montalvo. The unincorporated foothills are of major importance to the City of Saratoga. The hillside area, although not a part of the City's corporate limits, is historically tied to the City by virtue of long- standing bonds between owners and residents of the hillside and the community. A portion of the unincorporated hillside is included in the City's Sphere of Influence and has the potential of being annexed to the City. The hills provide both a physical and visual backdrop to the community and represent the most significant open space resource in the entire City. Numerous possibilities exist for long term preservation of open space resources within these hillsides. A portion of the hillside area has already been purchased by local governmental agencies as regional parkland. Policies ,: :.:....�,.::::v:::::'::. '.::i":: .:`:i::i::ii:, iiii:;: j; i :::.:.:.:::::. S: F:: iiiiiiiii:+...::.. :......:..:.....<:i::�: ::�:}� :;:iti; 6. Future Land Use. l�� * * **"" �� I'I """ <a;:; aneerted::e££c z t;:;fio it is i the best interest ::.::.::.::.:: .::.::.:....................... ............................... ............................... of the eenffi+un4y protect open space and manage future land uses within 3 rerrati iris hillside area. 7. Agricultural Use. A significant component, of the open space value in the foothill area comes from agricultural uses which have a long history of existence tied to the heritage of Saratoga. In evaluating future land uses, efforts sheuld ha ; be made to maintain agricultural lands as a component of open space and to preserve the rural and agricultural heritage of Saratoga. 8. Public Use. Public use and enjoyment of the unincorporated hillside areas for recreational purposes, std mall be encouraged through direct or indirect public land 12 acquisition, encouraging both private and public recreational and agricultural uses. rt regulation o privately held ands to obtain maximum use o open space resourcesl the....e A: A menf..af.. ra�l..:and...c�o n .snag . eas Ynent should be consistent with conservation of the natural environment. 9. Appropriate Land Uses. Future land uses within the western hillside /sphere expansion area shall be consistent both with existing patterns of land use in the unincorporated hillside areas, and with the City's desire to maintain the area as predominantly open space and rural. These uses may include: • City, county, state, federal or special district parks, nature preserves and resource protection areas. • Private camp grounds, picnic areas and similar low intensity recreational uses. • Non - residential, for profit uses, which invite members of the public to enjoy open space resources and amenities in a small scale, low impact manner. • Residential uses which are and visually non- obtrusive. Residential development shall serve -fie maximize open space protection. • Agricultural uses, including vineyards, wineries, orchards, and pastures. Expansion of agricultural uses is encouraged in an environmentally sensitive manner. • Existing recreational facilities. Implementation Prop-rams _ i a. Preservation of Open Space . The City of Saratoga shall Itl proceed to take the necessary steps to promote the preservation and maintenance of open space in the foothill area ift' din, _bnt nc�I m�ted:::tp.: >:th� Ilc .In 13 b. Incentives to Agricultural Land Owners. The City should offer incentives to agricultural owners and operators as a way of continuing such uses. Incentives could include: • Allowing the sale of agricultural products grown or produced on the site, as well as the resale of goods related to on -site operations (e.g. equestrian equipment). • Residential density bonuses for significant investment in agricultural improvement (e.g.vineyards, wood lots or orchards) or open space dedications. • Allowing additional dwellings on family farm operations when such additional dwellings will permit continuance of inter - generational agricultural uses consistent with Williamson Act provisions. This will not constitute a residential subdivision of the land under the Williamson Act. • Modifying road construction standards in hillside agricultural areas. Curbs and gutters, which could interfere with agricultural operations, should not be required. SCENIC OPEN SPACE The City of Saratoga is characterized and blessed with natural beauty and scenic views. Natural and man -made landscaped areas, wide undisturbed views from the hillsides to the valley floor, beautiful private and public parks and unspoiled open spaces are irreplaceable components of the City's character. Protection of these valuable scenic open spaces is essential to preservation of the City's uniqueness and high quality. Policies 10. Evaluation Criteria. In evaluating scenic open space for planning purposes, the City of Saratoga shall consider macroscale, intermediate scale, and macroscale elements of each site, with the understanding that those sites which encompass all three scales may have the highest potential for providing quality scenic open space. . 11. Hillside Development. The hillsides and the valley provide Saratoga with its prime macroscale views. Therefore, development must include careful study of the effect on scenic open space. 12. Existing Vegetation. The preservation of ttittd titt specs izda .V..' >�a�a €o �'s >c lfi ral ��zz�ka: � e� ' shall be given ......... ....::.; :......::.::.::.;:.;:.:;;::. ;:;.;:.;;:.;;;::;.;:.;:.;:.;:.; :.;:.;:.;:.;:; .... g priority over development and provide for the perpetuation of nnaiati -ve such species. 'yy'e 14 13. Natural Environmental Features. The preservation of the natural environment including geological and ecological features shall be encouraged. 14. Major Entryways and Arterials. The major entryways and arterials throughout the City should be designed so as not to detract from .Saratoga's rural character and ; :. : .:...... :::....::.; ...:.....::.;:....::.;:...:...;:... ....;:.:;.:..................:. .....:; .:........:.........:...;...:.. scale. Pubixc:<::h...... >end::::Sa e:.:: >:: hail::::be::<:an::: >::: >xxrr r #aztt:::::�bzisxd r t .an::: >zn::::eval�t�:l..::::the -- _.......__....._........... � .............................._.................................................................... ............................... ........... 15. Street Improvements. Open space objectives shall take precedence over the width and landscaping of roadways and the inclusion of curbs, sidewalks and gutters. 16. Parking Lots. 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 aesthetically pleasing parking areas. 17. Acquisition of Scenic Open Space. The acquisition of scenic open space for park sites shall include an evaluation of the microscale, intermediate scale, and macroscale potential of each site. 18. Scenic Views and Trail System. The City's trail plan should s] access as many natural views as possible, including hillside macroviews and microscale views. 19. Creeks. The City's creeks shall be preserved and restored where possible, as natural scenic views. Implementation Programs, c. Hillside Development. In addition to the applicable city development standards, potential impacts to scenic views shall € .d be evaluated prior to development. Criteria shall l include but not be limited to the use of unobtrusive colors, .................. .................. .................. controlled grading, limited disruption of natural vegetation, use of structural height limits, and structural design and density guidelines. Special consideration shalltj be given to the eventual development of a canopy effect of tree growth. d. Existing Vegetation. The City should provide information and assistance to the public in the preservation and care of native trees whose existence can be threatened by environmental stress and development. e. Major Entryway and Arterials. A street tree planting, landscaping and maintenance program should be developed to encourage drought resistant, native vegetation to be planted and maintained throughout the City, especially in City owned and privately maintained rights of way. 15 f. Parking Lots. Large continuous expanses of asphalt should be limited by measures such as: overflow parking on pervious surfaces; an increase in the tree canopy coverage required; the encouragement of shared parking with adjacent and compatible uses. g. Non - Scenic Unenhanced Views. Man -made, non - scenic or unenhanced views such as railroad and utility facilities and quarries should be enhanced insofar as possible by erosion control measures, landscaping, use of color, and other methods of scenic improvement. h. Scenic Open Space Inventory. As a public reference, the City should prepare and update an inventory indicating all dedicated scenic open space resources in Saratoga. TRAIL SYSTEM The City of Saratoga stands as the gateway to the Santa Cruz Mountains. The City's rural character is reflected not only in the quality of the natural setting, but also in the spirit and interests of its residents. The City of Saratoga Open Space Survey indicated that walking and hiking are popular leisure time activities for residents of Saratoga. There is strong support for,the provision of a comprehensive network of trails to provide recreational opportunities for walking, hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding. In addition to the recreational benefits of a trails system, such a network throughout the City of Saratoga reduces dependence on the automobile as it enables persons to walk or bike to school, the library, work, shopping and other activity centers. The Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way presents an opportunity for linear open space. The development of trails along this corridor, as well as the creation of connections to the regional network of trails and pathways which link many of the area's large regional parks, will give residents of Saratoga an unparalleled opportunity to enjoy significant open space and recreational opportunities in the baylands, hillside areas, and throughout the Santa Clara Valley. The City of Saratoga encourages the establishment of a well planned, comprehensive trails network throughout the City. The following policies give specific direction for the establishment of this trails network. In 1977 the City adopted the Master Trails and Paths Plan which was added to and amended the Circulation Element. The Master plan was updated and amended in 1991. This plan was coordinated to complement the existing County Trails and Pathways Master Plan. Policies 16 20. Regional Trails Network. A regional system of hiking, bicycling and horseback riding trails should be encouraged which includes trails within and between all City, County, State and regional parks, and other publicly owned open space lands, as well as trails providing access from the City of Saratoga to these lands. 21. Trail Acquisition Criteria. The City shall promote the acquisition of trails as a mode of access and for recreational purposes, through purchase, dedication or gift. The trails network should emphasize: Creating connections between neighborhood, schools, parks and public open spaces, historical sites and activity centers. Connections to the xegional trails network. Acquisitions €er d trails shall fi t respect the rights of property owners as well as their privacy and security. Trails proposed for acquisition are identified on the Trails Map. 22. Coordination. Trail planning, acquisition, development,'and management shall be coordinated among the various volunteer agencies and local, regional, state, and federal agencies which provide trails or funding for trails. 23. Traditional Trail Routes. Trails shexld O 11. be established along traditional routes whenever feasible. 24. Development and Maintenance. Trail development, patrol and maintenance responsibilities s be coordinated with all entities involved in each trail segment. In most cases, development responsibilities are borne by the property owner and maintenance activities are undertaken by the City. The City is encouraged to work with volunteer groups to maintain City trails. 25. Trail Location and Design. Trails shall be located, designed, and developed with sensitivity to the resources and environmental hazards of the area they traverse, as well as their potential impacts on adjacent lands and private property, including potential impacts to private property owners' privacy and security. Trails shall be designed to City specifications; require minimal grading; and include effective erosion control measures. 26. Development Controls. The City shall control land development along designated trails in order to provide sufficient trail right -of -way and ensure that new development adjacent to the corridors does not detract from the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the corridor. 27. Creekside Trail Restriction. The City shall not acquire, plan or develop trail easements or public access easements along Wildcat Creek or Saratoga Creek, across 17 single or multi - family land uses as designated in the Saratoga General Plan abutting said creeks, or adjacent to said creeks between the centerline thereof and any single or multi - family designated property. This policy statement shall apply to Saratoga Creek from Prospect Avenue south to Tollgate Road, and to Wildcat Creek from Quito Road south to the Villa Montalvo Arboretum property line, with the exception of the section between Carnelian Glen Drive and Douglass Lane, as shown on the Trail System Map. 28. Access for the Disabled. Whenever feasible, trails shall be designed and developed to meet the accessibility needs of all segments of the population. 29. Trail Access. Trails should la] be designed with adequate ingress and egress points to minimize the need for parking at trailheads. Parking should be designed to be as unobtrusive as possible. 30. Transportation Improvements. Transportation improvements, such as road widening and bridge construction, should s1 1' include bicycling paths. Equestrian paths should be provided where necessary to complete connection to existing trail segments. Safe crossings shall be established where necessary. Implementation Programs i. Priority List. The City sh" u develop and maintain a list of priorities for trail acquisition and trail development. This list should be coordinated with the appropriate agencies j. Existing Trails. The ;City sha4 sou " develop and enhance existing trails and unimproved trail easements. k. Project Review. Each new development project sll)ol be reviewed in the field for proposed trail designations in accordance with the Trails Map. ............................. should be secured to insure a comprehensive trail system throughout the City. ............................. ............................. 1. Rails to Trails. The City should work for the future conversion of the Southern Pacific Railroad spur line as provided for in the Federal Rails -to- Trails law. m. Bike Paths. Bike paths along City streets should be made safer through the use of signage, striping, maintenance, parking restrictions and other methods as appropriate. In designing these paths, recreational bike paths should be designed as distinct from high speed paths. n. Trail Information. All trails should be marked. The City should provide readily available maps and information regarding the trail network. The City should sponsor an 18 annual "Saratoga Trails Day" to inform all residents of the trails network and encourage its use and maintenance. o. Motorized Vehicles. Use of motorized vehicles (with the exception of motorized wheelchairs) on hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding trails should be prohibited. Barriers shall be built to restrict motorized vehicles from trails. ................. p. Development and Maintenance. The City of Saratoga ubc t? Department shill lul be responsible for supervising and maintaining all existing and future trails. Creek Policies 31. Creeks are defined as perennial and intermittent watercourses. 32. Drainageways are defined as open hillside drainage swales which collect and concentrate stormwater. 33. Creek and Drainageway Conservation Zone is defined to consist of the watercourse or drainageway itself and surrounding banks on both sides, and a strip of land extending laterally outward from the top of both banks., to ^ width of at leant cn foot e ea..-1, side The establishment of this Zone should 11 incorporate the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Zone for flood control, maintenance and emergency vehicle access, 34. Establishment of a Creek and Drainageway Conservation Zone. The City should II establish a Creek and Drainageway Conservation Zone: • To protect Saratoga's creeks and drainageways from pollution and erosion. • To enhance and. protect water quality. • To provide adequate debris flow avalanche corridors. • To preserve the natural character of creek corridors. • To restore existing improved or altered creek corridors to their natural state ccnsenzfhflaa€enfir4re.; .. zremen .:...........................:............. .............:....:.......::::: ? • To preserve riparian habitat and wildlife corridors. 19 To provide transition areas between inhabited structures and waterways to protect properties from damage due to stream bank undercutting and flooding. For the preservation of scenic views. Implementation Program q. Enhancement of Creeks and Drainageways. The City should work with the Santa .... . ....:..........0 Clara Valle Water District, neighboring J urisdictions, p i l d r ........... :. U. .......... ........................... ........................ .................. . ( i ' tlt€ att at <':.> a ail:::: n "map s and landowners as appropriate, to <: >: <: > .................... . restore and enhance the creeks and drainaeeways to serve as wildlife habitats. LAND USE CONTROLS Land use regulations such as the City's zoning ordinance and design guidelines, serve as important mechanisms for open space preservation. In Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) Justice William O. Douglas, speaking for the United States Supreme Court stated: "The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well - balanced as well as carefully patrolled." Zoning is the primary instrument for implementing the General Plan policies. Permitted uses, development densities, minimum lot size, building height and setback limits, coverage, design, fence heights, parking, and other development parameters are zoning standards which can be used to allow controlled developments and land uses and to ensure preservation and conservation of open spaces and natural resources. Policies 35. Valley Development. For infill development on the flatlands, the City shetrld 1 consider ty the character of existing neighborhoods in order to 20 36. Hillside Development. For development on the hillside, open space and viewsheds can be preserved by techniques such as low density development, clustering, and dedication of open space as a condition of development. Critical viewsheds, ridgelines, Residential and sensitive ecological habitats be identified dt�d 37. Colors and Materials. Development within the City of Saratoga should l consider contextual surroundings, including the impact on viewsheds, compatibility with nearby structures and architecture, and integration with the natural environment. 38. Mass and Bulk. All buildings should s al'1 be scaled, proportioned, and articulated so as to minimize the appearance of mass and bulk to maximize the perception of open space. 39. Development Patterns. The traditional low density zoning within the City of Saratoga should �l be maintained. OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION Open space acquisition by the City is a necessary alternative to private initiative and land use regulations to preserve open space in Saratoga. It is important to have a proactive stance for buying available land. It is also important to have a mechanism in place to react quickly when choice parcels become available. Since the City is best able to move quickly with large sums of money needed for acquisition, private monies should be sought for help with preservation, development and maintenance after acquisition has occurred. Criteria for Acquiring CityOpen Space The City shall consider the following criteria when making open space acquisition decisions: Environmental health and safety issues (hydrology, geology, fire hazards, flooding). Scenic View (visual backdrop, unique site features, ridgelines). Biological resource conservation (wildlife habitat, endangered species). .................... ..............................: qY:. Historic /Landmark I significance. 21 Importance to the community as a whole or to adjoining neighborhoods. Neighborhood needs and interest. >isiii: :::' ::::::::: :::...... :::::::: .::::::::::::::':::ii::'::e ?iSi : ii : iri>.' ?'.h: iY i»»i:: i>:ii:»>:::7� : }; i:iii:4i: is is +iiiiiii:i::?i:>::J: ?`;Y;i: :::>::>::> :: >:: >:: >::;::;Itatance::;:n:<: rttcttn:::rf:::; rv..:..:; ;::::nci:::::': rr ::> '.:r:..; er:'; ::; ::::': P .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:: F..::::::::'.::::. ::.:::p.:::::::::::::::::P.:::. P.::::::. • An equitable distribution and mixture of park lands, recreation facilities and programs throughout the community. • Proximity to other open space areas. • Recreation potential. • Access to public open space. • Development potential. • Matching funds potential. • Potential maintenance and management costs and liability exposure for the City. Policies 40. Standards. The City s�ettld shah maintain, and where possible improve, the existing nret:::: of three 3 acres i "lfii of local serving public park and recreation facilities. per- 1000 peptilation The City should shall achieve (5) acres per 1000 standard by the year 2001. The City incorporates by reference, the National Recreation and Park Association Standards '(sge-AM d: . These standards ................::....... are to be used as a guide to identifying minimum goals to be achieved. 41. Conservation Easements. Open space; conservation or scenic easements z tid dti i Should ` I� be utilized to preserve open space lands and to protect critical areas in subdivisions. These areas should s Wl include but not be limited to riparian areas, wildlife habitats and areas of mature native vegetation.in subdivisions. 42. Density Transfer. The City f%ay sl consider the creation of a density transfer system whereby assigned development rights in preservation districts are transferred by sale to property owners in designated development districts. The purpose of this system is to direct development away from significant environmental resources and toward appropriate locations. 43. Agricultural Land. The City strongly supports the use of Williamson Act contracts to preserve land in agricultural use. In addition, the City should '8`h" all consider the formation of an Agricultural Land Trust to acquire the development rights of lands 22 currently in agricultural use in order to prevent the loss of such lands to urban development. The City may 0W.! also consider the purchase of agricultural land for leaseback to farmers. 44. Funding. The City should Shall establish and maintain a coordinated funding program for neighborhood and community parks and open space acquisition. The City should pursue all means available including private donations and dedications, private land trusts, State, Federal and other grant sources, use of assessment districts, bond issues, development requirements, user fees, public /private joint ventures and all other means to insure park and . recreation facilities are available for all City residents. 45. Acquisition Legislation. The City should.AW1, promote the enactment of Federal, State and local legislation intended to facilitate city's ability to acquire the surplus property of public agencies for parks, open space and recreation purposes. 46. Open Space System Coordination. The City should 1 coordinate the City's open space system with adjacent cities and county, state, regional and private open space systems. The City shall encourage and seek agreements with other governmental jurisdictions such as the Mid- Peninsula Open Space District, for the purpose of funding acquisitions, and coordinating the improvement, maintenance and use of open space. 47. Dedication Acceptance by other Agencies. The City encourages the County and other public agencies to accept dedications of open space lands .of regional significance, including water sheds, wildlife habitats, woodlands, historic sites, and scenic lands. 48. Public Utility Rights -of -Way. The City encourages the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and other public agencies and utilities to provide for safe and appropriate open space uses of their respective properties and rights -of -way. Implementation Pro rg ams s. Dedications and In -Lieu Fees. The City sha4 M."Ja"I'd the sponsors of new residential housing to provide for the open space needs of_future residents of that development in accordance with the Saratoga Park and Open Space standards and Quimby Act Parkland Dedication Requirements. Needs may be satisfied by the dedication of land and development of recreation facilities to serve the new residents. In -lieu fees may be considered when, during project review, it becomes clear that dedication and development of parkland is not a feasible or appropriate option. t. New Funding. The City r should consider expanding the existing Landscaping and Lighting District, and consider increasing the business license, utility, construction and transient occupancy taxes to fund open space acquisition and development. .1 23 u. Sale, Lease, or Use Agreements. The City shall JiC provide that all funds derived from the sale, lease, or use of City -owned park or open space be exclusively used for park or open space acquisition, capital improvements, or operation and maintenance costs so that the balance of use remains constant. v. School Property. The City should utilize the provisions of the Naylor Act to increase .................. recreational opportunities. The City &MU should: continue to explore the potential for establishing agreements with the school districts for the joint use of school property for public recreational uses. w. Voluntary Contributions. The City should develop a program to encourage voluntary dedications, grants of land, monetary contributions or gifts in kind to the City for parks and open space. osfinal 24 NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION STANDARDS Component Use Service Area Desirable Size Acres/1,000 Population Desirable Site Characteristics A. LOCAL/CLOSE -TO -HOME SPAC : Mini -Park Specialized facilities that Less than 1/4 mile radius. 1 acre or less 025 b 0.5A Within neighborhoods and in serve a concentrated or close proximity to apartment limited population or specific complexes, townhouse group such as tots or senior development or housing for citizens. the elderly. 1.0 to LOA Neighborhood Area for intense recreational 1/4 to 1/2 -mile radius to serve 15 +. Suited for intense Park/Playground activities, such as field a population up to 5,0001 a development. Easily games, crafts, playground neighborhood). accessible to neighborhood apparatus area, skating, population geographically picnicking, wading pools, etc. cantered with safe walking and bike access. May be developed as a school -park facility. 5.0 to e.oA C_ommunity,Park Area of divers environmental Several neighborhoods Ito 2 25+ acres May.include natural features, quality. May include areas mile radius such as water bodies, and suited for intense recreational areas suited for intense facilities, such as athletic development. Easily complexes, large swimming accessible to neighborhood pools. May be an area of served. natural quality for outdoor recreation, such as walking, viewing sitting, picnicking. May be any combination of the above, depending upon site suitabliltiy and community need i OT CLOSE-To-HOME SP4CE = 6.2 B. Regional Space: Regional/Metropolitan Park Area of natural or ornamental Several communities. 1 hour 200 +acres 5.0 b tO.OA Contiguous to or quality for outdoor recreation, driving time. encompassing natural such as picnicking, boating, resources fishing, swimming, camping, and trail uses; may include lay areas. Variable Area of natural quality for Several communities. 1 hour 1,000 +acres; sufficient area Diverse or unique natural Regional Park Reserve nature- orientated outdoor driving time. to encompass the resource to resources, such as lakes, recreation such as viewing, be preserved and managed.. streams, marshes, flora, fauna, and studying nature, wildlife topography. habitat, conservation, swimming, picnicking, hiking, fishing, boating, camping, and trail use's. May include active play areas. Generally, 80% of the land is reserved for j conservation and natural resource management, with less than 20% used for recreation development. TOTAL REGIONAL i PACE 1520 A/1,00 0 I I I National Recreation and Park Association Standards Component Service Area Desirable Size Acres /1.000 Population Desirable Size Characteristics C. SPACE THAT WAY BE LOCAL OR REGIONAL AND IS UNIQUE TO EACH COMMUNITY No applicable standard Sufficient width to protect Linear Park Area developed for t or Variable Built or natural corridors, more varying modes of the resource and provide such as utility right -of -way, recreational travel, such as maximum use. bluff lines, vegetation hiking, biking, patterns, and roads, that. snowmobiling, horseback- link or other components of riding, cross- country, the recreation system or skiing, canoeing, and community facilities, such pleasure driving. May . as school; libraries, include active play areas.. .commercial area, and.other JNote: any included for any park areas. of above components may occur in the "linear park.') Special Use Areas for specialized or No applicable standard. Variable depending on Variable Within communities. single purpose recreational desired size. activities, such as golf courses, nature centers, conservatories, arboreta, display gardens, and outdoor theaters. Also plazas or squares in or near commercial centers, boulevards parkways. Conservancy Protection and No applicable standard Sufficient to protect the Variable Variable, depending on the management or the resource. resource being protected. natural/cultural environment with recreation use as a secondary objective • I City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Hello, my name is and I am conducting a community survey for the City of Saratoga. We're interested in gathering your thoughts and ideas about parks, recreation and open space opportunities in Saratoga. The results of this survey will play an important role in planning the future of the community's parks and open space areas. This survey should take about 15 -20 minutes. Do you have time to participate? [If yes, say thank you and proceed; if no, say thank you] COEf LL5 REF #: DATE: Interviewer 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 INT: LK AR Time of Day 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TIME: am am pm pm Day of Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DAY: m t w th f s s Neighborhood /Area 1. Mt. Eden 9. Village NGHB: 2. Congress Springs 10. Sunland Park 3. Blue Hills 11. Kentfield 4. Triangle North 5. Quito 6. Fruitvale /Sobey 7. Fruitvale West 8. Glen Una Gender 1. Male 2. Female GEN: Ethnic Background 1. White 3. Hispanic 5. Other EB: 2. Black 4. Asian City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Page 2 Feb 23,1990 (SvyB) I would like to begin by asking you a few general questions about open space. Perception of Jpen Space 1. What do the words "open space" mean to you? 1a 1b 0 0 2 How would you describe the character of existing open space in Saratoga to a friend who has never been here? 2a 2b 3. Open space may be characterized by specific physical features or environmental elements. Using these cards, I'd like you to rank order the following items in terms of how important they are to your qualitative definition of "open space." T © Os ® Os © 02 Most Important Least important A. Natural, undisturbed hillsides t0 © 0 ® OO © 02 B. Undeveloped land O 20 OO ® OO © O C. Agricultural Fields 10 © OO ® OO © 02 D. Recreational parks 10 © Os ® OO © 02 (Larger, city -wide parks) E. Neighborhood parks t0 © Os ® Oa © 02 F. Low density housing 10 © OO ® OO © 02 G. Large setbacks from street 10 © O ® OO © 02 H. Open front yards , 0 Z Os ® OO © 02 City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Page 3 Feb 23,1990 (Svy8) Potential Planning Policies for Future Park and Open Space Areas 4. In providing new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed in a variety of directions. Please indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for.the improvement of open space, parks and recreation service in Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't Know /No Desirable Desirable Undesirable Undesirable Opinion Acquisition of new areas A. Acquire and develop more OB ® OO 1D ® OO ® Os ® Oa . OO ® OO O ❑o ❑o C7 CU M 0 J parkland for more active ® recreational use (e.g., athletic fields, playgrounds) B. Acquire parcels to maintain OB as low usage open space (e.g., parks with walking trails) C. Acquire parcels to develop OB several small parks rather than one larger park. D. Use City General Fund money OB to acquire school sites (if they close and become available) for park and recreation use. E. Dedicate areas of scenic OB preservation. Utilization of available'areas F. Use easements on private O property, which have already been dedicated, for hiking and equestrian trails. G. Work with the School Districts OB to develop joint -use recreation facilities on school sites. H. Utilize existing watercourses OB (e.g., Saratoga Creek) for trail use. I. Work with Southern Pacific O Railroad to develop the railroad right of way for trail use. (that is, the portion north of Saratoga Ave) ® OO ® Os ® Oa . OO ® OO O ❑o ❑o C7 CU M 0 J ® Os ® OO ® Os ® Oa . OO ® OO O ❑o ❑o C7 CU M 0 J City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Page 4 Feb 23, 1990 (Svy8) Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't Know /No Desirable Desirable Undesirable Undesirable Opinion Annexation J. Annex county lands in the (I t) western hillsides to the City to manage development in those areas. Development Standards K. Establish stricter controls OO ® OO OO on private property in order to preserve views and the feeling of open space. 5. Are there any other policies or programs which you think the City should consid 5a 5b 6. Would you support the acquisition of open space in and around the City regardless of whether you would use it frequently? 1. Yes 2. No Potential Funding Sources 7. Several strategies for obtaining additional funds for open space, park and recreation Improvements have been proposed. As I read each of the following strategies, please consider whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each strategy. Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't Know/ Agree Agree Disagree Disagree No Opinion A. Residents of Saratoga should Os ® OO © D tax themselves through a bond measure to pay for open space, park and recreation improvements. B. User fees should be charged OO ® OO ©O for specific facilities such as pools, ballfields, etc. C. The City should encourage OO ® Os © D sponsorship of parks by local corporations or organizations (e.g., "Adopt-a- Park" program). City of Saratoga open Space Assessment Survey Page .5 Feb 23, 1 990 (Svy8) Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't Know/ Agree Agree Disagree Disagree No Opinion D. The City should give priority Q C) Q t0 to parks and recreation programs when allocating surplus General Fund monies. $• To what extent would you be willing to pay for acquisition and maintenance of open space, parks and /or recreation facilities through a special taxpayers' assessment on a scale from very willing to pay, somewhat willing or not willing to pay. [Read scale as necessary] Current Park and Open Space Use 9. In general, what are your favorite recreation or leisure activities? (List 2 or 3 items) 9b . �. 10. in general, how often do you use parks or open space areas in Saratoga: Two or more times a week, once a week, two or more times a month, once a month, several times a year, seldom or never? Two or Once Very Somewhat Not Don't Know/ — Willing Willing Willing No Opinion To Pay To Pay To Pay A. Approximately $ 65.00 per ® O O O year for the average home which would pay for acquisition and maintenance . of approximately 1 acre of parkland per year. B. Approximately $ 100.00 per ® Q © t0 year for approximately 2 acres of parkland per year. C. Approximately $150.00 per ® Q © tD year for approximately 3 acres of parkland per year. Current Park and Open Space Use 9. In general, what are your favorite recreation or leisure activities? (List 2 or 3 items) 9b . �. 10. in general, how often do you use parks or open space areas in Saratoga: Two or more times a week, once a week, two or more times a month, once a month, several times a year, seldom or never? Two or Once Couple Once Several Seldom more times a week times a month times or Never a week a month a year City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Page 6 Feb 23,1990 (Svy8) 11. As I read through the following list, please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (This is a long list, so 17l try to move it tt rough it as quickly as I can) Strongly Somewhat Do Not Don't Know/ Support Support Support No Opinion. A. Playgrounds ® Oa © 1D B. Walking or hiking trails ® (I t0 C. Running or jogging trails ® Oa © tD D. Bicycle trails or paths ® OO © tD E. Horseback riding ® 0 OO t0 F. Fitness Courses ® 0O 20 tD G. Active sports fields ® OO © tD H. Connecting trail network ® 0 O tD I. Tennis courts ® OO OO tD J. Family Picnic Areas ® OO © t0 K. Group Picnic Areas ® OO © t0 L. Swimming pool i ® OO © t0 M. Agricultural Interpretive Cntr ® OO © t0 and /or ecological preserve N. Spectator sports ® OO © D 0. Dogwalking ® Q3 © tD R Activities for children ® OO OO t0 Q. Activities for teens ® OO zQO R. Activities for seniors ® OO © tD S. Arts and cultural programs ® OO © t0 T. Areas and activities for ® OO © tD people with disabilities U. Aerobics ® OO © t0 V. Meditation ® QQ © tD W. Birdwatching ® QQ © t0 City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Page 7 Feb 23,1990 (Svy8) 12. Are there any other recreation or open space improvements which you think are needed in Saratoga? 12a 12b GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION To finish up, I have a few questions for general background information. 13. How long have you been living in Saratoga? [# of Years] 14. Do you own or rent your place of residence? 1. Own 2. Rent 15. What is your current employment status? 1. Employed outside the home 2. Working at home 3. Retired 4. Student 5. In between jobs /looking 16. Which age category describes you best? ,T NA 20 NA SO NA ® NA OO 18 -25 © 26-35 S 36-50 50 51 -64 P 65+ 17. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? [Write in number] 18. What are the ages of the other persons in the household? O Under 2 O Under 2 ,O Under 2 02 2 -5 SO 2 -5 OO 2 -5 O 6 -10 O 6 -10 O 6 -10 ® 11 -17 ® 11 -17 ® 11 -17 OO 18-25 SO 18-25 Oe 18 -25 © 26-35 © 26-35 © 26-35 O 36-50 TO 36-50 O 36-50 C 51 -64 80 51 -64 e0 51 -64 OO 65+ s0 65+ OO 65+ City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Page 8 Feb 23,1990 (Svy8) 19. The City is compiling a mailing list to keep people informed about open space planning issues. Would you like to add your name to the list? [If yes, ask respondent to sign mailing list] 1. Yes 2. No 20. Is there anything else you'd like to say about things not covered on the survey? 1. Yes 2. No 21. Additional Comments 21a 21b 21c f That's all the questions I have ... Thank you for your time and participation. DRAFT CITY OF SARATOGA 1990 COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS A Summary of the Results of the Open Space Assessment Survey of Saratoga Residents Conducted During February and March 1990 Prepared by MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN 1802 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 (415) 845 -7549 March 1990 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. '� $u rvey. Admi nist ration . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 111. Survey Sample Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 IV. Highlights From the Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 V. Detailed Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Appendix: A. Survey Instrument City of Saratoga I. INTRODUCTION Open Space Assessment Survey Results LOU The purpose of this survey was to: (i) identify Saratoga residents' current and future open space needs so that open space policies, programs and services can more closely reflect community values and concerns; (ii) assess residents' willingness to pay for open space and parkland acquistion and preservation; and (iii) determine residents' receptivity to alternative open space funding strategies. A representative cross - section of the Saratoga community was surveyed, resulting in a.survey sample of 435 residents. - - The survey instrument was structured in five parts (see copy of survey instrument in Appendix A). The first part, Perception of Open Space, included three questions about the meaning of open space, the character of existing . open space in Saratoga and relative importance of specific physical features or environmental elements which characterize open space. The second part, Potential Planning Policies for Future Park and Open Space Areas, included questions testing the desirability of specific potential policies that could be adopted to improve open space, parks and recreation ser- vices in Saratoga. Another question was asked regarding respondents' willingness to support the acquistion of open space regardless of whether they would use it. The third part addressed Potential Funding Sources. It included a series of questions regarding respondents' level of agreement or disagreement with several strategies for obtaining additional funds for open space, parks and recreation improvements and a question measuring respondents' willingness to pay certain amounts for acuistion and maintenance of open space and parks. The fourth part of the instrument, Current Park and Open Space Use, included questions to assess respondents' favorite recreation or leisure activities, frequency of use of parks and open space areas and level of support for the provision or improvement of specific facilities and activities. The last part of the survey included questions for General Background Information. Highlights of the survey results are presented in Section IV, beginning on page 6. Bar charts are used to sum- City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 2 marize data from questions with multiple parts. In some cases, the wording of questions has been condensed for ease of graphic presentation. Please refer to the survey instrument in Appendix A to obtain a more complete inter- pretation of the findings. Detailed survey results are presented in Section V as a series of tab and bar charts for ease of interpretation. Above each chart, a short written summary puts into words what the charts,depict visually. Interpreting the Survey Results Closed -ended questions have been tabulated as the percentage of all survey respondents checking each of the possible categories. The percentage of respondents who check the "somewhat desirable" and "somewhat un- desirable" categories should be interpreted carefully. These "middle categories" are provided as options on the sur- vey in order to give respondents who are not willing to give their full support or full rejection to a proposal a chance to leave it open for further consideration. Checking these categories usually indicates that the respondent has given conditional approval or disapproval to the item, in other words, a "maybe yes, maybe no." In some cases, respondents may be saying that they require additional clarification of the proposal and/or further discussion before they are able to feel that some alternative is "very desirable" or `very undesirable" or to register Yes or No. This category also helps distinguish those who agree or disagree more sharply with an itdm. Open -ended qu, .stions (Le., questions without pre - codable answers), have been content- analyzed and presented as the number of times a particular item was mentioned (frequency) and as a percentage of the number of total mentions for a particular item. Most open -ended questions are displayed in rank order according to the number of times (frequency) the particular item was mentioned. Individual responses with fewer than 10 mentions are generally not reported. Findings from open -ended questions cannot be generalized reliably to ?h.e population of Saratoga as a whole since the total number of respondents providing answers to such questions is relatively small. In general, open -ended questions allow people to respond to a particular item in their own words, rather than solely within the confines of a pre - structured answer. They also provide an opportunity for respondents to state their opinion on items not addressed by the questionnaire, thereby offering a check on the relevancy of the items that are presented. , The major findings of the survey are summarized on pages 6 through 11, Section IV. Individual question results begin on page 12, Section V. City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 3 II. SURVEY DEVELOPMENT AND ADMINISTRATION The survey questions were developed by the consultant with input from City staff. The survey instrument under- went several drafts and a pilot test before it was developed into its final form (see Appendix A for a copy of the ac- tual survey instrument). � I The survey distribution plan was designed to reach a representative cross - section of the Saratoga community. Randomly selected addresses in each neighborhood were targeted for potential participation. A survey team was trained to administer the survey using in- person face -to -face interviews at residences. Survey team members introduced themselves to each potential respondent and explained the purpose of the survey, the general nature of the questions and how long it would take. All surveys were completed during the period from February 23 through March 10, 1990. . city of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 4 III. SURVEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS The chart below summarizes the survey sample characteristics. The first column describes the survey respondents' characteristics; the second column represents 1980 data from the 1980 Census or 1989 projections based on 1980 Census data (indicated by _ Survey Sample (n -435) Census Data/Projections* Gender (By observation) Male 50% 49% Female 50% 51 Age (Question 16) _ 18-25 3% 26-35 . 15% 85% 36-50 37% 51-64 28% 65+ 17% 15% Ethnkity (By observation) White 92% 92% Hispanic 1 % 3% Black 1 % 0% Asian 4% 5% Other 1 % 1 % Tenure (Question 14) Owner 91% 90% Renter 9% 1.0% Household Size (Question 17) Average size 2.89 3.11 Q m a Q N J u - Z Q LL 0 0 a M W 0 0 r Q a .a M LL 0 m ro J ti Question 8 by Question 4: Potential Planning Policies✓Aequisidon of New Areas Active Low Usage Several School Scenic Recreational Open Small Sites Preservation Parks Space Parks for Parks Areas Question 8 Subsamples Very Some - Very Some- Very Some- Very Some- Very Some - Desirable what Desirable what §kable what Desirable what esirable what Desirable Desirable Desirable Desirable Desirable _- - - - $65 per Year w'f_. !•' ]y .Xk '� �gyx' n`:Y' !t s �Y 'taxY r]ix X py Y : }S.X. i NA ►rk� Ri o A F� �n Y ^ e 6. ♦ +.F lt<1 r % iA s rria L'R.ycF �� Pr wd Y' iFC °px� Y i ♦ ex: .+a> _ '�:: �aY]5• :T- 'YY exm': .. v iA } :. -. •]::.. y +� -edF ....� _ti7 v .. i ... X w9v' ,► . _ �. ♦ �. _ Very Willing to Pay % % % % 9'0. % % % % % Somewhat Wilting to Pay % % % % % % % % % % Not Willing to Pay % % % % % % % % % % I . v s �{ }�(s �;.t^ Yw» 6 ,.x+j}['` ��f ~�` �y? �f+i�� %;J 7 )9v �riiln�!'•1C} 115 �•i� ,�,y f�cY�lX_i.- _ .� � _ 7t *,.nC!?-y ♦ 1Vr„ x' } d - - �i $i0a per Year v. Z-1. l Y� s Sf £ Very Willing to Pay % % % % % % % % % % Somewhat Willing to Pay % % % % % % % % % % Not Willing to Pay % % % % % % % . % % % -t'�:?}� ?::+� � }:fii - c�. , c,..: :%�::.. ? -i:`.y :�..�_�,. ...!4 -: 4 ..a f,'`. ..•:�v +_.4 ryv .:.•e- �� niW ^' }.: !: :3..kA � +h. ...g+ya; -' : ..�: - .) � _ a+a�� vu� :A r+F• � r }x Y -. E- - � .'S:v. , •v + �. Ye r $D per Year .......... . - - - _ - - ��: t:. -- - •If-- y.. +l ^� f • L ms:µ ] :". +'. Very Willing to Pay % % % % % % % % % % . Somewhat Willing to Pay % % % % % % % % % % Not Willing to pay % % % % % % % % % % Total Sample % % % % % % % % % % City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results DRAFT Page 6 IV. HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE SURVEY RESULTS A summary of the main survey findings is presented below and on the next few pages. Results from the General Background Information section of the survey, Questions 13 through 18, are summarized in Section III on pages 4 and 5 of this report. Detailed results for each question are included in Section V. Detailed survey results begin on page 12. Overall Findings • Overall, survey respondents showed strong support for open space, park and recreation service improve- ments. They favor a number of planning policies to acquire new areas, to utilize available areas and to preserve views and the feeling of open space. Open space means natural, undeveloped land to about half of the survey respondents, while the other half defines open space as parkland or landscaped land. • When asked to rank specific physical features that may characterize open space, respondents ranked natural, undisturbed hillsides,as the most important feature, followed by neighborhood parks, recreational parks and undeveloped land. • About a third of respondents think that existing open space In Saratoga Is very limited or, non - existent, though some describe the existing open space as pleasant and beautiful. • Each of the four proposed strategies for obtaining additional funds for open space and park improvements Is supported by at least two - thirds of the sample. • Respondents' willingness to pay $65 per year through a special assessment reflects support for acquistion and maintenance of 1 acre of parkland per year; however, fewer respondents are very willing to pay $100 per year and the majority of respondents were not willing to pay $150 per year. • Increased recreation opportunities are also supported by the majority of respondents, with most of the specific recreation facilities and activities addressed in the survey supported by over two - thirds of the sample. City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 5 The chart below summarizes survey sample characteristics for which no comparable Census data were available. - -= ----- - - - - =- -- Survey Sample Length of Residence (Question 13) 0 — 2 years 12% 2.5 — 5 years 14% 6 — 10 years 16% 11 — 15 years 17% 16 — 20 years 16% 21 — 25 years 9% 26 — 30 years 8% 31 — 68 years 8% Current Employment Status (Question 15) Work away from home 63% Work at home 14% Retired 20% In between jobs /Looking 2% Students 1 % Ages of Other Household Members (Question 18) Under 2 2% 2 -5 7% i 6-10 12% 11 - 17 12% 18 -25 . 11% 26 -35 11% 36-50 22% 51 —64 15% 65+ 8% City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Perception of Open Space (Q1, 02, 03) Page 7 • Survey respondents most frequently defined open space as undeveloped/underdeveloped land, parkland or recreation areas, areas with trees, lawns and fields, and natural and preserved flora and fauna (Question 1). • If survey respondents were to describe the character of existing open space in Saratoga to a friend who has never been there, a third would say that open space is very limited or non - existent, although some. .respondents would describe it as pleasant and beautiful. Some respondents would describe the hills adjacent .to town or the low density suburban character of Saratoga. Other descriptions, in order of frequency of N mention, included: adequate /average, 'lots of it," and old orchards (Question 2). When asked to rank the physical features that are most important to their qualitative definition of open space, survey respondents ranked natural, undisturbed hillsides as the most important feature, followed by �. neighborhood parks, recreational parks, undeveloped land and low density housing. The three items ranked least important were agricultural fields, large setbacks from the street and open front lawns (Question 3). Potential Planning Policies for Future Park and Open Space Areas (04, 05, 06) Over half of the survey sample indicated that each of the potential policies for the improvement of open space, parks and recreation service are desirable, showing that the community values open space and parks very highly and strongly supports related improvernents (Question 4). Acquistion of New Areas • The potential acquistion policies most favored by respondents were the acquistion of parcels for low usage open space, and the dedication of scenic preservation areas. The relative desirability of acquistion policies is summarized in the chart on this page (Question 4A — 4E). Low usage open space Scenic preservation Active use parks Several small parks School park sites 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of Sample ® Very Desirable Somewhat Desirable aummary cnarr ror uueswn 4A — 41: City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 8 • A large majority of respondents (88 %) indicated that they would support the acquistion of open space in and around the City of Saratoga regardless of whether they would use it frequently (Question 6). Utilization of Available Areas • The potential policies related to the utilization of available areas that were most favored by respondents were the the development of Joint -use recreation facilities on school sites; and the use of existing watercourses for trails. The relative desirability of each of the policies related to using available areas is summarized in the chart to the right (Question 4F — 41). Development Standards • The establishment of stricter controls on private property in order to preserve views and the feeling of open space war considered desirable by 65% of survey respondents. The relative desirability of this policy is summarized in the chart to the right (Question 4K). Annexation • The annexation of county lands in the western hillsides was considered desirable by 62% of respondents. The relative desirability of this policy is summarized in the chart to the right (Question 4J). Joint use school parks Watercourses for trails Railroad lands for trails Easements for trails 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of Sample ®. Very Desirable ® Somewhat Desirable Summary chart for Question 4F - 41 Stricter controls Annex County lands 0 20 40 60 % of Sample ® Very Desirable ® Somewhat Desirable Summary,chart for Question 4J — 4K 80 1001 City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 9 Other Open Space /Recreation Policies or Programs • When asked in an .open -ended question about what other policies or programs the City should consider, the most often mentioned items pertained to the acquisition and preservation of open areas in general and the acquisition and preservation of specific open space areas. The need for more parks and recreation areas was mentioned, as was a desire to increase enforcement of current development or building standards (Question 5). Potential Funding Sources (07, 08) Funding Strategies • Each of the four Oroposed strategies for obtaining additional funds for open space and park im . provements is supported by at least two- thirds of the sample, either strongly or somewhat. A resident tact is supported, though not as strongly as the other strategies. • The strategy most favored by respondents is the encouragement of park sponsorship by local corporations or organizations, followed by the allocation of general fund monies to parks and recreation programs. The percentages of respondents who indicated that they either strongly agree or somewhat agree with the proposed strategies is summarized in the table to the right (Question 7). N of Total `lb of Total Mentions Mentions Arrpiholprosorve exlsliug open space 39 13 Arrlohe /preserve specific open spaces 18 8 I evelcap more pa►kshecrealiona) areas 32 11 Fnlnrce current developmenMullding standards 21 7 I Imil housing donsilles 18 5. 1 hall dovelopmnnt 14 5 Improve park mabtenaiwe 14 5 Finite park safety 14 5 Mainlnln existing parks /open space 11 4 (nn nrw packs) Summary cnan ►or uuestron 5 .Summary chart for Question 7 City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 10 Respondents' Willingness to Pay for Open Space and Park Improvements • As seen in the chart to the right, over half of survey respondents indicated that they would be willing to pay $65 per year through a special assessment to fund acquisition and maintenance of open space, parks and recreation facilities. Over a third of the sample indicated that they would be very willing to pay $65. Though the majority of respondents are also willing to pay $100 per year, 32% are only somewhat willing to pay this amount. The majority. (55 %) of respondents are not willing to pay $150 per year (Question 8). Summary chart for Question 8 Current Park and Open Space Use (09, 010, 011, 012) .Walking and hiking were the two most favorite recreation or leisure activities reported by survey respondents. Other favorite activities mentioned Include: biking, swimming, tennis, golf, running and jogging, fishing and hunting, baseball and softball and skiing (Question 9). • A slight majority (56 %) of survey respondents indicated that they use parks or open space areas in Saratoga once a month or more, however one -fourth (26 %) of respondents reported that they use these recreation areas seldom or never (Question 10). City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 11 Recreation Facilities and Activities Increased recreation opportunities are also supported by the majority of respondents, with most of the specific recreation facilities and activities addressed in the survey supported by over two - thirds of the sample. The facilities or activities supported by over 80% of the survey sample are: walking or hiking trails (94 %), activities for teens (93 %), activities for children (93 %), activities for seniors (91 %), _ areas and activities for people with disabilities (90 %), playgrounds (89 %), running and jogging trails (87 %), bicycle trails and paths (87 %), family picnic areas (87 %), arts and cultural programs (86 %) 'and active sports fields (81 %). The relative levels of support for facilities and activities are seen in the chart to the right (Question 11). In an open -ended question, survey respondents most often mentioned the following recreation improvements as much needed in Saratoga: facilities for specific activities, activities for children and youth, and bike lanes (Question 12). Additional Comments (020, 021) Walking/hiking trails Activities for teens Activities for children Activities for seniors Activities for disabled Playgrounds Runnthglogglhg trails Bike trails /paths Family picnic areas Arts /cultural programs Active sports fields Connecting trail network Group picnic areas Tennis Courts Fitness courses Ecological preserve Swimming pool Aerobics Birdwatching Horseback riding Dogwalking Meditation Spectator sports Summary chart for Ouestion 11 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of Sample ® Strongly Support N Somewhat Support One third (33 %) of survey respondents had additional comments (Question 20). Of the 175 total comments, most pertained to respondents' concerns about various planning and regulatory issues or issues related to public utilities. Some respondents mentioned that they appreciated the survey and others mentioned that street cleaning maintenance and servicing-should be improved (Question 21). City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 12 City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 13 PERCEPTION OF OPEN SPACE Question 1: What do the words "open space" mean to you? Survey respondents most frequently defined the words "open space" as undeveloped and underdeveloped land, parks and recreation areas, and trees, lawns and fields. 11 1 Undeveloped /underdeveloped land Parks /recreation areas Trees, lawns, fields Natural, preserved flora/fauna No housing' Space between buildings; setbacks Undeveloped hillsides # of Total Mentions 213 176 93 47 22 11 10 % of Total Mentions 36 28 13 8 4 2 2 Up to two (2) responses were recorded for this question. The percentage of total mentions is the "mention rate," or the number of times an item was men- tioned divided by the total of all items mentioned for this particular question (618). Only categories receiving 10 or more mentions are listed. City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 14 Question 2: H&-.Y would you describe the character of existing open space In Saratoga to a friend who has never been here? Survey respondents most frequently described the character of existing open space In Saratoga as very limited to non - existent. Pleasant and beautiful, hills adjacent to town and low density suburban areas were also mentioned as characterizations of Saratoga's existing open space. # of Total ` % of Total Mentions Mentions Very limited to nonexistent 157. 32 Pleasant & beautiful 51 10 Hills adjacent to town 45 9 Low density; suburban 40 8 Adequate; average 31 6 Lots of it .17 3 Old orchards 15 3 Better than neighboring communities 11 2 Small parks 11 2 Up to two (2) responses were recorded for this question. The percentage of total mentions is the "mention rate," or the number of times an item was men- tioned divided by the total of all items mentioned for this particular question (497). Only categories receiving 10 or more mentions are listed. City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 17 Question 4: In providing new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed In a variety of directions. Please Indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for the Im- provement of open space, parks and recreation service In Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. (Continued) Acquire parcels to maintain as low usage open space (e.g., parks with walking trails) Fifty -four percent (54 %) of survey respondents indicated that this potential policy is very desirable and 35% Indicated that it is somewhat desirable. Seven percent (7 %) found this_potential.policy somewhat undesirable and 3% found it very undesirable. % of Total Sample 100 we .� M 20 0, Very Desirable Somewhat Undesirable Don't Know Somewhat Desirable Very Undesirable City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 18 Question 4: In providing new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed In a variety of directions. Please Indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for the Im- provement of open space, parks and recreation service In Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. (Continued) Acquire parcels to develop several small parks rather than one larger park. Thirty -eight percent (38 %) of survey respondents indicated that this potential policy is very desirable and 38% Indicated that it Is somewhat desirable. Fourteen percent (14 %) found this potential policy somewhat undesirable and 6% found it very undesirable. % of Total Sample 100 80 60 40 20 0 Very Desirable Somewhat Undesirable Don't Know Somewhat Desirable Very Undesirable City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 19 Question 4: In providing new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed In a variety of directions. Please Indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for the Im- provement of open space, parks and recreation service In Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. (Continued) Use City General Fund money to acquire school sites (if they close and become available) for park/recreation use Thirty -eight percent (38 %) of survey respondents indicated that this potential policy Is very desirable and 35% indicated that it Is somewhat desirable. Twelve percent (12 %) found this potential policy somewhat undesirable and 11% found it very undesirable. - - - % of Total Sample 100 80 60 40 20 0 Very Desirable Somewhat Undesirable . Don't Know Somewhat Desirable Very Undesirable City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 20 Question 4: In providing new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed In a variety of directions. Please Indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for the Im- provement of open space, parks and recreation service In Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. (Continued) Dedicate areas of scenic preservation. Sixty -two percent (62 %) of survey respondents indicated that this potential policy is very desirable and 26% Indicated that it is somewhat desirable. Five percent (5 %) found this potential policy somewhat undesirable and 3% found it very undesirable. 0 0 Very Desirable Somewhat Undesirable Don't Know Somewhat Desirable Very Undesirable City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 21 Question 4: In providing new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed In a variety of directions.- Please Indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for the Im- provement of open space, parks and recreation service In Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. (Continued) Utilization of available areas Use easements on private property, which have already been dedicated, for hiking and equestrian trails. Twenty -eight percent (28 %) of survey respondents indicated that this potential policy is very desirable and 34% indicated that It is somewhat desirable. Fourteen percent (14 %) found this potential policy somewhat undesirable and 16% found it very undesirable. % of Total Sample r• ll 1 .e 20 0 Very Desirable Somewhat Undesirable . Don't Know Somewhat Desirable Very Undesirable City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 22 Question 4: In providing new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed In a variety of directions. Please Indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for the Im- provement of open space, parks and recreation service In Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. (Continued) Work with the School Districts to develop joint -use recreation facilities on school I sites. Fifty -five percent (55 %) of survey respondents indicated that this potential policy is very desirable and 32% indicated that it is somewhat desirable. Seven percent (7 %) found this potential policy somewhat undesirable and 4% found it very undesirable. % of Total Sample 100 C0 .e 40 20 0 Very Desirable Somewhat Undesirable Don't Know Somewhat Desirable Very Undesirable City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 23 Question 4: In providing new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed in a variety of directions. Please Indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for the im- provement of open space, parks and recreation service in Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. (Continued) Utilize existing watercourses (e,g.,, Saratoga Creek) for trail use. I Forty-five percent (45 %) of.survey respondents indicated that this potential policy is very desirable and 28% Indicated that it is somewhat desirable. Eleven percent (11 %) found this potential policy somewhat undesirable and IWo found it very undesirable. - - % of Total Sample 100 E-0 40 all 0 Very Desirable Somewhat Undesirable Don't Know Somewhat Desirable Very Undesirable City of Saratoga Open Spare Assessment Survey Results Page 24 Question 4: In providing new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed In a variety of directions. Please Indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for the Im- provement of open space, parks and recreation service in Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. (Continued) Work with Southern Pacific Railroad to develop the railroad right of way for trail use. (portion north of Saratoga Ave) Thirty -five percent (35 %) of survey respondents indicated that this potential policy is very desirable and 34% indicated that it is somewhat desirable. Twelve percent (12 %) found this potential policy somewhat undesirable and 10% found it very undesirable. % of Total Sample 100 80 60 40 20 0 Very Desirable Somewhat Undesirable Don't Know Somewhat Desirable Very Undesirable City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 25 Question 4: In providing new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed In a variety of directions. Please Indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for the Im- provement of open space, parks and recreation service In Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. (Continued) Annexation Annex county lands in the western hillsides to the City to manage development in those areas. Thirty -one percent (31 %) of survey respondents indicated that this potential policy is very desirable and 31% indicated that it is somewhat desirable. -- Fifteen percent (15 %) found this potential policy somewhat undesirable and,12% found it very undesirable. I % of Total Sample H11117 :i MI 40 20 0 Very Desirable Somewhat Undesirable Don't Know Somewhat Desirable Very Undesirable City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 26 Question 4: 10, oroviding new parks and open space areas, the City may proceed In a variety of directions. Please Indicate what potential policies or directions you think are desirable for the im- provement of open space, parks and recreation service In Saratoga on a scale from very desirable, somewhat desirable, somewhat undesirable or very undesirable. (Continued) r Development Standards Establish stricter controls on private property in order to preserve views and the feeling of open space. Thirty -nine percent (39 %) of survey respondents indicated that this potential policy is very desirable and 26% indicated that it Is somewhat desirable. Fourteen percent (14 %) found this potential policy somewhat undesirable and 17% found it very undesirable. % of Total Sample 00 :0 .0 .0 Ci e Y 0 0 �-••-• Very Desirable Somewhat Undesirable Don't Know Somewhat Desirable Very Undesirable City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 27 Question 5: Are there any other policies or programs which you think the City should consider? Survey respondents most frequently mentioned acquiring and preserving existing open space areas (in general) and acquiring and preserving specific open spaces as policies or programs which the City should consider. Establishing additional parks, neighborhood parks and recreational areas, enforcing current development or building standards, limiting development and limiting housing densities were other frequently mentioned policies or programs. # of Total % of Total Mentions Mentions . Acquire /preserve existing open space 39 13 Acquire /preserve specific open spaces 18 6 Develop more parks /recreational areas 32 11 Enforce current development/building standards 21 7 Limit housing densities 16 5 Limit development 14 5 Improve park maintenance 14 5 Ensure park safety 14 5 Maintain existing parks /open space 11 4 (no new parks) Up to two (2) responses were recorded for this question. The percentage of total mentions is the "mention rate," or the number of times an item was men- tioned divided by the total of all items mentioned for this particular question (299). Only categories receiving 10 or more mentions are listed. 'kr City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 28 Question 6: Would you support the acquisition of open space In and around the City regardless of whether you would use it frequently? Eighty -eight percent (88 %) of survey respondents indicated that they would support the acquisition of open space in and around the City regardless of whether they would use it frequently. Twelve percent (12 %) indicated that iney would not. Yes No City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 29 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES Question 7: Several strategies for obtaining additional funds for open space, park and recreation Improvements have been proposed. As I read each of the following strategles, please consider whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each strategy. Residents of Saratoga should tax themselves through a bond measure to pay for open space /park improvements. Twenty -two percent (22 %) of survey respondents strongly agreed and 44% somewhat agreed with this strategy. Fourteen percent (14 %) somewhat disagreed and 16% strongly disagreed. Total Sample rongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Don't Know Somewhat Agree Strongly Disagree City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 30 Question 7: Several strategies for obtaining additional funds for open space, park and recreation Improvements have been proposed. As 1 read each of the following strategies, please consider whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each strategy. (Continued) User fees should be charged for specific facilities such as pools, ballfields, etc. , Thirty -six percent (36 %) of survey respondents strongly agreed and 30% somewhat agreed with this strategy. Fifteen percent (15 %) somewhat disagreed and 16% strongly disagreed. % of Total Sample 100 :I .� 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree. Don't Know Somewhat Agree Strongly Disagree City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 31 Question 7: Several strategies for obtaining additional funds for open space, park and recreation Improvements have been proposed. As I read each of the following strategies, please consider whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each strategy. (Continued) , I. The City should encourage sponsorship of parks by local corporations or organizations ("Adopt -a -Park program). Fifty -nine percent (59 %) of survey respondents strongly agreed and 25% somewhat agreed with this strategy. Six percent (6 %) somewhat disagreed and 6% strongly disagreed. % of Total Sample [Mill M M .e M 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Don't Know Strongly Disagree 0 City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 32 Question 7: Several strategies for obtaining additional funds for open space, park and recreation Improvements have been proposed. As I read each of the following strategies, please consider whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each strategy. (Continued) The City should give priority to parks and recreation programs when allocating sgrplus General Fund monies. Thirty -seven percent (37 %) of survey respondents strongly agreed and 36% somewhat agreed with this strategy. Thirteen percent (136/6) somewhat disagreed and 6% strongly disagreed. % of Total Sample 100 80 We 40 20 0 Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Don't Know Somewhat Agree Strongly Disagree City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 33 Question 8: To what extent would you be willing to pay for acquisition and maintenance of open space, parks and /or recreation facilities through a special taxpayers' assessment on a scale from very willing to pay, somewhat willing or not willing to pay. Approximately $ 65. 00 per year for the average home which would pay for acquisition and maintenance of . approximately 1 acre of parkland per year. Thirty -eight percent (38 %) of survey respondents indicated that they would be very willing to pay $65.00 per year. 35% somewhat willing to pay and 21% not willing to pay.___.___ % of Total Sample 100 M MI 40 20 0 Very Willing to Pay Not Willing to Pay Somewhat Willing to Pay Don't Know • City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 34 Question 8: To what extent would you be willing to pay for acquisition and maintenance of open space, parks and /or recreation facilities through a special taxpayers' assessment on a scale from very willing to pay, somewhat willing or not willing to pay. (Continued) Approximately $100.00 per year for approximately 2 acres of parkland per year. Twenty-three percent 23% of survey respondents indicated that the would be very willin � to a $100.00 r ear, 32% Y P ( 1 Y P Y ry 9 pay PB Y somewhat willing to pay and 37% not willing to pay. % of Total Sample 100 80 60 40 20 0 Very Willing to Pay Not Willing to Pay Somewhat Willing to Pay Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 35 Question 8: To what extent would you be willing to pay for acquisition and maintenance of open space, parks and /or recreation facilities through a special taxpayers' assessment on a scale from very willing to pay, somewhat willing or not willing to pay. (Continued) Approximately $150.00 per year for approximately. 3 acres of parkland per year. Fourteen percent ( 14% ) of survey respondents indicated that they would be very wililng to pay $150.00 Pe r year, 230/6 somewhat willing to pay and 55% not willing to pay. % of Total Sample 100 :I .M 40 20 0 Very Willing to Pay Not Willing to Pay Somewhat Willing to Pay Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 36 CURRENT PAP._K' AND OPEN SPACE USE Question 9: In general, what are your favorite recreation or leisure activities? (List 2 or 3 Items) Survey respondents most frequently mentioned walking and hiking as their favorite recreation or leisure activities. Biking, swimming, tennis, golf and running or jogging were also mentioned frequently. # of Total % of Total Mentions Mentions # of Total % of Total Mentions Mentions Walking 136 19 Baseball/softball 20 3 Hiking 100 14 Swing 19 3 Biking 57, 8 Reading 18 2 Swimming 44 6 Children's play 15 2 Tennis 35 5 Camping/backpacking 15 2 Golf 35 5 Boating/waterskiinig 13 2 Running/Jogging 28 4 Picnicking 12 2 Fishing/Hunting 24 3 Travel 11 2 Gardening/Yardwork 22 3 Dogwalking/play 10 1 Up to two (2) responses were recorded for this question. The percentage of total mentions is the "mention rate,' or the number of times an item was men - tbned divided by the total of all items mentioned for this particular question (729). Only categories receiving 10 or more mentions are listed. City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 37 Question 10: In general, how often do you use parks or open space areas In Saratoga: 71wo or more times a week, once a week, two or more times a month, once a month, several times a year, seldom or never? Seventeen percent (17 %) of survey respondents indicated that they use parks or open space areas in Saratoga two or more times a week and 13% indicated orice a week. Fourteen percent (14 %) indicated that they use these areas a couple times a month, 12% once a month, 18% several times a year and 26% seldom or never. 2+ times a week Once a week up le times a month Once a month ,Iveral times a year Seldom or Never 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of Total Sample City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 38 RECREATION FACILITIES AND ACTIVITIES Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging -and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. Playgrounds ' Fifty -three percent (53 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 36% somewhat support and 7% do not support the provision of playgrounds. % of Total Sample 100 A• I, HE 40 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 39 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Walking or hiking trails Sixty -six percent (66"/x) of survey respondents strongly support, 28% somewhat support and.4% do not support the provision of walking or hiking trails. % of Total Sample 10 0 17 M 40 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 40 Question 11: As I read -through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Running or jogging trails Forty-nine percent (49 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 38% somewhat suppbrt and 10% do not support the provision of running or jogging trails. % of Total Sample 100 M .I n Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 41 Question 11: As l read through the following list, please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Bicycle trails or paths Fifty -three percent (53"/x) of survey respondents strongly support, 34% somewhat support and 9 °r do not support the provision of bicycle trails or paths. % of Total Sample 100 :C .� M Q11 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 42 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Horseback riding Sixteen percent ( 16% ) of survey respondents strongly support, 40% somewhat support and 37% do not support the provision of horseback riding opportunities. % of Total Sample 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 43 Question. 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) �V Fitness Courses I Twenty -eight percent (28 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 42% somewhat support and 22% do not support the provision of fitness courses. % of Total Sample 1'0 0 r Fire, .I 40 011 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of.Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 44 Question 11: As 1 read through the following list, please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Active sports fields Thirty -seven percent (37 %) of survey respondents strongly support. 44% somewhat support and 14% do not support the provision of active, sports fields. % of Total Sample 100 @ 40 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 45 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me U you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Connecting trail network Forty -two percent (42 0%) of survey respondents strongly support, 38% somewhat support and 11 % do no_ t support the provision of a connecting trail network. of Total Sample 100 O ;. 40. 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 46 Question 11:.19 1 read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Tennis courts Twenty -seven percent (27 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 44% somewhat support and 29% do not support the provision of tennis courts. % of Total Sample 100 r--- :� 60 40 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Ouestion 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Family Picnic Areas Fifty -two percent (52 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 35% somewhat support and 11 % do not support the provision of family picnic areas. % of Total Sample 100 r-- — M HE 40 20 Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 48 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Group Picnic Areas Thirty -seven percent (37 %) of survey respondents strongly support. 39% somewhat support and 21% do not support the provision of group picnic areas. % of Total Sample 100 :$ .E 40 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 49 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Swimming pool Twenty -nine percent (29 %) of si trvey respondents strongly support, 31 % somewhat support and 36% do not support the provision of a swimming pool. % of Total Sample 100 8 0 60 4o -- — City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Resufts Page 50 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Agricultural Interpretive Center and /or ecological preserve Thirty -six percent (36 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 34% somewhat suppod and 22% do not support the provision of an agricultural interpretive center and /or ecological preserve. % of Total Sample 100. :c .� 40 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know i City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 51 Question 11: As 1 read through the following list, please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support nr do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Spectator sports Twelve percent (12 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 30% somewhat support and 529/6 0: not support the provision of spectator sports opportunities. % of Total Sample 100 r -- -- :1 .1 M 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 52 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Dogwalking Twenty-three percent ( 23% I of survey respondents strongly support, 32% somewhat support and 39% do not support the provision of dogwalking opportunities. % of Total Sample 100 O 60 40 20 Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 53 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Activities for children Sixty -three (63 %) of survey respondents strongly support. 29% somewhat support and 4% do not support the provision of activities for children. % of Total Sample -100 r- W :� 40 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 54 Question 1 is As I read through the following list, please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Activities for teens Sixty -seven percent (67 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 26% somewhat support and 5% do not support the provision of activities for teens. % of Total Sample 100 80 60 40 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 55 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Activities for seniors Sixty -three percent (63 %) of sun/ey respondents strongly support, 28% somewhat support and 6% do not support the provision of activities for seniors. City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 56 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Arts and cultural programs Forty-eight percent (48 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 38% somewhat support and 100/6 do not support the provision of arts and cultural programs. % of Total Sample 100 AN HI NEI 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 57 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please fell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Areas and activities for people with disabilities Fifty -eight percent (58 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 3211/6 somewhat support and 71% do not support the provision of areas and activities for people with disabilities. City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 58 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Aerobics Nineteen percent (19 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 39% somewhat support and 37% do not support the provision of aerobics programs. % of Total Sample 100 ' M 40 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 59 Question 11: As I read. through the following list, please tell me If you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Meditation Twelve percent (12 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 33% somewhat support and 48% do not support the provision of opportunities for meditation. % of Total Sample 100 �-- City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 60 Question 11: As I read through the following list, please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support or do not support encouraging and providing opportunities for each of these facilities and activities. (Continued) Birdwatching Twenty -three percent (23 %) of survey respondents strongly support, 35% somewhat support and 36% do not support the provision of birdwatching opportunities. % of Total Sample 100 M MI 40 20 0 Strongly Support Do Not Support Somewhat Support Don't Know City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 61 Question 12: Are there any other recreation or open space improvements which you think are needed in Saratoga? Providing facilities for specific activities was the most frequently mentioned other recreation or open space improvement needed in Saratoga. Survey respondents also mentioned providing more centers and activities for children and youth and increasing the number of bike lanes and improving bike lane maintenance as necessary improvements: # of Total % of Total. Mentions Mentions r Provide more specific facilities 27 27 Provide more .child /youth activities 14 14 Increase bike lanes /improve maintenance 12 12 Develop more playgrounds 8 8 Develop more hiking areas 7 7 Up to two (2) responses were recorded for this question. The percentage of total mentions is the "mention rate,' or the number of times an item was men- tioned divided by the total of all items mentioned for this particular question (100). Only categories receiving 10 or more mentions are listed. I I City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION Question 13: How long have you been living in Saratoga? Page 62 P Twelve percent (12 %) of survey respondents have lived in Saratoga for 0 - 2 years, 14% for 2.5 - 5 years, 16% for 6 -10 years, 17% for 11 - 15 years, 16% for 16 - 20 years, 9% for 21 - 25 years, 8% for 26 - 30, years and 8% for 31 - 68 years. % of Total Sample 0. - 2 years 12 '..5: 5 years 14 6 - 10 years 16 1 - 15 years 17 6 - 20 years 16 '.1 - 25 years 9 1-6 - 30 years 8 11 - 38 years 8 City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Question 14: Do you own or rent your place of residence? Ninety -one percent (91 %) of survey respondents own their homes while 9% rent. Own Rent Page 63 City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 64 Question 15: What Is your current employment status? Sixty -three percent (63 %) of survey respondents are employed outside the home, 14% are working at home, 20% are retired, 1% are students and 2% are in between jobs or looking for work. loyed outside home Working at home Retired Student rtween, jobs /jooking 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of Total Sample City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 65 Question 16: Which age category describes you best? Three percent (3 %) of survey respondents are 18 - 25 years of age, 15% are 26 - 35 years. 37% are 36 - 50 years, 28% are 51 64 years and 17% are 65 and older. 18 - 25 years old 26 - 35 years old r 36'- 50 years old 51 - 64 years old 65+ 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of Total Sample . City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 66 Question 17: Including yourself, how many people live in your household? Ten percent (10 %) of survey respondents indicated that only one person lived in their household, 35% indicated two persons, 26% indicated three persons, 21 % indicated four persons, 6% Indicated 5 persons, and 2% indicated five or more persons. 1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people 5 people than 5 people' 0 20 40 60 % of Total Sample 80 100 City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 67 Question 18: What are the ages of the other persons In the household? Two percent (2 %) of the other people living in the homes of survey respondents were under two years of age, 7% were 2 - 5 years, 12% were 6 - 10 years, 12% were 11 - 17 years, 11 % were 18 - 25 years, 11 % were 26 - 35 years, 22% were 36 - 50 years, 15% were 51 - 64 years and 8% were 65 years and older. Under 2 2 - 5 6 `- 10 11 - 17 18 -25 26 -35 36 - 50 51 - 64 65 and over # of Total % of Total Mentions Mentions 161' 2 51 7 90 12 90" 12 89 11 83 . 1 1 171 22 119 15 60 8 Up to three (3) responses were recorded for this question. The percentage of total mentions is the "mention rate," or the number of times an hem was mentioned divided by the total of all items mentioned for this particular question (769). City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 68 Question 19: The City is compiling a mailing list to keep people Informed about open space plan -. ning Issues. Would you like to,add your name to the list? Sixty -eight percent (68 %) of survey respondents expressed a desire to be included on the City's mailing list. City of Saratoga Open Space Assessment Survey Results Page 70 Question 21: Additional Comments Survey respondents most often mentioned concern about a variety of planning issues when asked for additional comments. Respondents also expressed concern over various regulatory issues and public utilitiy issues, and a desire for improved street cleaning, maintenance and servicing. # of Total % of Total Mentions Mentions Various planning issues 40 23 Various regulatory issues 25 14 Various public utility issues 17 10 Improve street cleaning & maintenance 14 -8 Provide more street lighting 10 6 Up to three (3) responses were recorded for this question. The percentage of total mentions is the "mention rate,' or the number of times an item was mentioned divided by the total of all items mentioned for this particular question (175). Only categories receiving 10 or more mentions are listed. RES -ND File No. GPA -93 -001 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION General Plan Amendment -,Periodic update of Open Space Element. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Amendment to the General Plan. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Executed at Saratoga, California this day of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 1993. DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER m i� (17�_M,Tff o2 0&iR&UQ)0 & 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 867 -3438 MEMORANDUM DATE: --- September 1, 1993 TO: _ City Council . FROM: Planning Staff COUNCIL MEMBERS: Karen Anderson Ann Mahe Burger. Willem Kohler Victor Monia if Karen Tucker SUBJECT: GPA -93 -001, Draft Open Space Element and Associated Negative Declaration Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Planning Commission recommendation to adopt the draft Open Space Element and the associated Negative Declaration. Background: The update of Saratoga's Open Space Element was initiated by the City Council in the Summer of 1991: At that time a planning consultant, Wildan and Associates, was commissioned to organize the process that would result in an updated draft document. Pursuant to this goal, the consultant conducted an Open Space Survey, formed an Open Space Task Force to study the Survey results as they related to the existing Element and held public meetings to discuss possible modifications. In late fall of _1991, a draft document, including a set of maps, was presented to the Planning Commission for review. Over the course of a number of work sessions and public hearings, the Commission finalized the current draft. Summary of Changes:_ The draft document differs from the existing Element in a variety of ways. The draft contains a number of minor technical,, formatting Printed on recvcieo oaoe, and organizational modifications. A summary of completely new or significantly expanded draft sections follows: 1. Open Space Definitions - Incorporates the definition and examples of Open Space as determined by the State of California. 2. Open Space Evaluation- Criteria - Establishes an objective standard to assist the City in evaluating parcels for open space value. . 3. Scenic Open Space Classifications - A new section which establishes a three level scale_ to classify open spaces and intensity of improvements. 4. Open Space Lands Inventory - This section, entitled "Existing Open Space Land Uses" in the existing element, has been reorganized and expanded to include non -site specific references to dedicated open spaces, Williamson Act parcels, flood easements, large residential lots and vacant or underdeveloped parcels.. 5. Open Space Issues - This section discusses issues - related to the references included in the Open Space Lands. Inventory. 6. Open Space,Goals - Modifies and expands Open Space Goals. 7. Unincorporated Hillsides - An expanded discussion of the unincorporated hillside areas and new polices and implementation programs. A further discussion of this section follows this summary. 8. Scenic Open Space - Establishes new policies and implementation programs relating to the new open space evaluation criteria and classification system referenced above. 9. Trail System - A new section which establishes policies and implementation programs for trail criteria, development, maintenance, acquisition, coordination and access. Also describes creek side trail policies and restrictions. 10. Land Use Controls - A new section which establishes new policies pertaining to land Use as it relates to Open space issues such as hillside development, colors and materials, mass and bulk, and development patterns. 11. Open Space Acquisition - New section which establishes criteria and sets policies and implementation programs for open space acquisition including funding, coordination, dedications, density transfers and school sites. As indicated previously, the draft document has been organized differently than the existing element with the intent.of producing a document that is easier to read and understand. In the existing element all of the.Goals, Policies and Implementation Programs are combined in a section separate from the related text. The draft document is organized with a separate goals section on page 10 and 11. The draft policies and implementation programs are ordered by Open Space topic and follow -a brief introductory statement. For the purpose of comparison, staff has prepared an annotated copy of the existing Goals, Policies and Implementations se.°tions (attached). In the left margin are notations which indicate the corresponding Goals and Policies in the draft document. Planning Commission Action: At the July -14 public hearing the Planning Commission made two changes to the draft element dealing with the Unincorporated Hillside section and two of.the draft open space maps.. 1. Unincorporated Hillsides - Beginning on page 12, the Unincorporated Hillside section was modified to eliminate an inconsistency created by a recent Planning Commission action. At the July 6 public hearing for the draft Prezone Map. project,. the Commission recommended to the City Council that no expansion beyond the existing Sphere of Influence Boundaries be undertaken. The Commission suggested the alternative of pursuing a Joint Powers Agreement with the County that would apply to the unincorporated hillside areas. This agreement would be supported by the policy statement approved'by the Commission at the July 6 meeting. This recommendation was in conflict with Implementation Program A. on page.13 of the draft document, which stated: "a. Sphere of Influence Expansion. The City of Saratoga shall proceed to.take the necessary steps to expand the City's Sphere of Influence in a southern and western direction in order to promote the preservation and maintenance of open space in the foothill area.', The Commission directed staff to amend this section to read: "a. Preservation of Open Space. The. City of Saratoga shall proceed to take the necessary steps to promote the preservation and maintenance of open space in the foothill area.#' 2. Draft Regional Trails and Sphere of Influence Maps: The attached draft Regional Trails ( #3) and Sphere of Influence ( #7) Maps, which depict an expanded Sphere of Influence boundary, were also in conflict with the July 6 Commission recommendation. The Commission directed Staff to explore the possibility of amending the existing maps to delete the expanded Sphere boundary lines and legend references, budget permitting. Staff has contacted the consultant that prepared the original set of draft maps. It was determined that it would be impossible to effectively alter the existing maps due to the complex screening process that "was employed in their creation. Staff is awaiting a. "ballpark " - estimate to prepare new maps and will report this •figure to the Council at the September l public hearing. Environmental .Documentation: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff completed an Initial Study for this project. No potentially adverse impacts were identified relating to the proposed General Plan Amendment and staff has prepared a draft Negative Declaration (attached). - - Recommendation: Review the draft document and consider the Planning Commission recommendation to adopt the draft Open Space Element and the associated Negative Declaration. Resp tfully 'Submitted, George W to Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Draft Open Space Element 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated 7/14/93 3. Annotated Copy of Existing Goals and Policies Section 4. Draft Negative Declaration 5. Correspondence 6. Exhibit "A ", draft Open Space Maps os3 �1. 1 Y71FiG.Y".%1' a ter-- o Fl o F-1 - F. �,..r.. M %-- " F1 El �_....� R �...�. CITY OF SARATOGA rM EXISTING OPEN SPACE ` s i CITY OF SARATOGA gun +N� rimes ' TRAIL SYSTEM W � � ,y #3 ♦ fit. t V, .. OJ 1 (i Q .1:,.111 �(� -1 i. fl,.✓\ _ S_� 1 r ,li':I } M� p10■ O •p p• 1 {I ay. YOONe,- :,�, - • 010 ♦O p•° �.. 10 ♦p■o* ►o 1 . .. O �' • ! . - ,Your Mnro ■ i0 ♦ ♦O.O ' 40 + u sjwc 'r `:. a' c ■ 010♦ r ❑ 5 0 00 �♦ ` 1 q •p CITY OF S AR ATOGA a.wr urr.errwr Ju00 1961 REGIONAL TRAIL NETWORK ? rl l �� to ., .` _, ' r' __� � � dam• 0 i� 6 �•� y t -- - _�, .. _ r I, ( Y !LE I,� ..� � yam• ` Y.,i.: ..� ! � -._- _ t 1, / GENERAL f j PLAN �eeeeo _ C11TSt1 ---- -__ I ,'- _:` �`cI L ; �,✓; y �.' ` % �� • �jS �'ds�iR' r s• 15 .�.,. � �.. , .. • t.j � .'•" y ly �, ��\ � ��^ / ^`�. 1 ,.r ( � ' C I TYwOF SARATOG'A� •011TH o •eo .�, 000 . -� I � ;-I. .. , aee20e ,uYt..ur .......... Y.u. •Writ[ •o.....• . -•- Clt♦ L�Yltt ' GATEWAYS A ROADWAYS #5 . CITY OF SARATOGA Audi 1MI r-ow GATEWAYS A ROADWAYS #5 . CITY OF SARATOGA JUNE 1991 •1200 41 WATERCOURSES 8 RIDGELINES GeHCHK QE INFLUENCE #7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. 'Z38-7 MEETING DATE: November 17, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: 94 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Communitv Development CITY MGR. APPROVA4A0 SUBJECT:. Draft Prezone Map for the existing Sphere of Influence and the Associated Negative Declaration Recommended Motion: Adopt the Draft Prezone Map for the Existing Sphere of Influence and the associated Negative Declaration. Report Summary: In October of 1991, the City Council adopted the Residential Open Space (ROS) zoning district regulations. These standards were developed specifically for use in the unincorporated hillsides and are consistent with the County's Hillside (HS) zoning district already in place. The Council directed the Planning Commission to prepare evaluation criteria that would serve as a means to apply the ROS zoning to unincorporated hillside areas. The Commission adopted criteria for this purpose (attached) in March of 1992. Using the approved criteria, staff performed a parcel by parcel evaluation of the Sphere of Influence (SOI) and prepared several draft,prezone maps for Commission review. In July of 1993, the Planning Commission completed their review and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the draft Sphere of Influence prezone map. The draft prezone map divides the. existing Sphere of influence into two prezone classifications, ROS and HR (Hillside Residential). As directed by the Commission, all parcels within the existing SOI that did not meet the ROS evaluation criteria were prezoned HR. The map will be used a guide for landowners in the SOI to predetermine what zoning regulations would apply to their properties-if they chose to annex into the City of Saratoga. The establishment of these prezone classifications does not restrict existing or potential land uses currently under County jurisdiction in the SOI. Copies of the ROS and HR zoning regulations and a generalized draft prezone map exhibit have been attached for reference. A larger, more detailed map is available at the Planning Department and will be presented at the meeting. Environmental Documentation An initial study was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). No potential negative environmental impacts resulting from the map were identified and staff has prepared a Negative Declaration (attached). If parcels that currently exist in the existing SOI apply for annexation into the City, further environmental review would be required on a case by case basis. Public Notice A legal notice of this hearing was mailed to all parcels within the existing SOI as well as to parcels within 500 feet of the SOI boundaries. A total of 927 parcels were notified. This number includes areas outside of the existing SOI in Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga. As a result of this notice, staff received inquiries from roughly 30 individuals. Of this number approximately 20 were landowners in the existing SOI. Fiscal Impacts: None. Follow -up Action: None. Consequences of not Acting on the Recommended Notion: The existing Sphere of Influence will not be prezoned and annexations into the City would be zoned on a case by case basis. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission approved evaluation criteria used in applying the Residential Open Space zoning district. 2. ROS and HR zoning regulations. 3. Negative Declaration 4. Reduced Draft Prezone Map Exhibit. Motion and Vote: PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED CRITERIA FOR DRAFT R -OS BOUNDARIES r , Lands which,Fmeet one or more of the following criteria are included in the R -OS zone district boundaries: 1. Agricultural lands under Williamson Act Contracts. 2. Land with steep to very steep topography - where the average slope of the site is 30% or over. 3. Lands which contain significant natural resources, such as dense native vegetation, streams, water courses, riparian corridors, watersheds, animal habitats, endangered animals or plant species or which have significant scenic value to the community. 4. Lands which are restricted by geological or other hazards such as fault zones and unstable slopes or located within a fire hazard zone. 5. Lands which include existing cultural or recreational facilities. 6. Lands where utility- services, mainly sanitary and water connections, are not available. 7. Lands within the City's USA, with lots of record which meet the minimum lot size standard for the R -OS zoning district. Revised 3/17/92 15- 19.050 District Spaces Required No. 1 One space for each 473.5 square feet of Purposes of Article. gross floor area No. 2 One space for each 380 square feet of Conditional uses. gross floor area. No. 3 One space for each 350 square feet of Development criteria. gross floor area. plus any additional Subdivision of sites. square footage allowed on the site as a Site frontage, width and depth. result of the acquisition of development Site coverage. rights created by the City upon formation Front yard, side yards and rear of Parking District No. 3. No. 4 One space for each 380 square feet of Height of structures. gross floor area. For -the purpose of determining the required number of parking spaces for a development looted within a City parking district, the tam "gross floor area" shall not include enclosed or covered areas used for off - street parking or loading or interior courts of a building not occupied by a use for which Off-street parking is requited, but such gross floor area shall include any exterior balcony used as the sole means of access to a business establish- ment and any basement, or portion thereof, occupied by a use for which Off-street parking is required. If a fraction- al number is obtained, one parking space shall be provided for a fraction of one -half or more, and no parking space shall be required for a fraction of less than one -half. (1) Modification of standards for historic structures. The Planning Commission shall have authority to modify any of the development standards contained in this Section, without the granting of a variance, if the subject of the application is a structure which has been designated as a historic landmark pursuant to Article 13 -15 of this Code, and the Planning Commission finds and determines that: (1) The modification will facilitate preservation of the historic structure; and (2) The application and the proposed modification have been reviewed and approved by the City's Heritage Commission; and (3) The modification will not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity; and (4) The modification will not adversely affect the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, or the avail- ability of on- street parking, and will not caseate a hazard to the public safety. 15- 19.060 Continuation of nonconforming uses. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 15- 55.130 of this Chapter, any clinic operating no earlier than 7:00 A.M. and no later than 9:00 P.M., any establishment 318 engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages and any res- taurant. market or delicatessen which, as of September 6. 1989, was lawfully established and legally operating as a permitted use, shall be.exempted from the requitement for elimination alter lapse of time pursuant to Section 15- 65.110 of this Chapter and also exempted from the necessity to obtain a use permit for continuation of such use, but in all other respects shall be regarded as a noncon- forming use. Any mini - storage facility lawfully operating pursuant to a use permit granted prior to September 6, 1989, may continue to operate pursuant to the terms and conditions of such use permit. Article 15-20 R -OS: RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Sections: 15- 20.010 Purposes of Article. 15-20.020- Permitted uses. 15- 20.030 Conditional uses. 15- 20.040 Nonconforming uses. 15- 20.050 Development criteria. 15- 20.060 Subdivision of sites. 15- 20.070 Site frontage, width and depth. 15- 20.080 Site coverage. 15- 20.090 Front yard, side yards and rear ym*d- 15- 20.100 Height of structures. 15- 20.110 Accessory uses and structures. 15- 20.120 Fences, walls and hedges. 15- 20.130 Signs. 15- 20.140 Off-street parking and loading facilities. 15- 20.150 Design review. 15- 20.160 Storage of personal property and materials. 15- 20.010 Purposes of Article. In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15- 05.020, the residential open space district is included in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following purposes: (a), To preserve hillside and mountainous land in its natural condition through the establishment of dedicated open space areas, and through environmentally sensitive low density residential use. (b) To promote those uses which support and enhance a rural character and preserve important resources such as forests. natural vegetation, watersheds, animal habitat, scenic beauty, recreational areas, open space and public access thereto. , (c) To ensure public safety, health and welfare by avoiding development on or near areas of natural hazards, topographic constraint and eaviroomentally sensitive areas such as -those with unstable geologiW.conditions, water. sheds, riparian coindors, wildlife habitats, and community view sheds. (Ord: 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15- 20.020 Permitted uses. The following permitted uses shall be allowed in the R-OS district: - (a) Single - family dwellings. No more than one dwell- ing unit shall be located on each loL (b) Accessory structures located on the same lot as a permitted use and not exceeding a total gross floor area of two hundred fifty square feet, including detached garages and carports, garden sheds, greenbouses, shade structures, recreation rooms, home bobby shops, cabanas, structures for housing swimming pool equipment and one guest house. Accessory structures for agricultural uses such as stables, barns: hay covers and storage sheds shall not exceed a total of one thousand six hundred square feeL (c) Agricultural uses such as raising of vegetables, field crops, vines, buits, and out trees, and horticultural specialties, and the processing of such products. (d) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article 1540 of this Chap- ter. (e) Stables, corals, and pastures for.the keeping of horses for private use. The minimum net site area shall be one acre for each two horses kept on the site. All horses shall be subject to the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7 -20220 of this Code. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 16- 80.030(x) of this Chapter, no stable or corral shall be located closer than thirty feet from any interior property line of the site or any structure for human habitation. Setbacks from perennial or intermittent streams shall be sufficient to avoid any discharge or mud slide into the stream. Any stable, corral or pasture which is fifty feet or less from any perennial or intermittent stream bank shall require the approval of the City Engineer and/or Santa Clara Valley Water District The property owners shall comply with the mitigation measures pursuant to the Water District and/or the City Engineer's requirements. In addition, the natural grade of a corral shall not exceed an average slope of fifteen percent. (f) Swimming pools- used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests. Pools shall be constructed subject to the standards provided in Section 15- 20.050 (g)(5) and Section 15- 80.030. 319 15- 20.040 (g) The keeping for private use of a reasonable nom ber of domestic dogs, cats. sheep, goats, and other small mammals, birds, fish and small reptiles, subject to the regulations as set forth in Article 7 -20 of this Code, and subject also to the restrictions and standards prescribed in Subsection 15- 11.020(h) of this Chapter. (h) Public parks, trails and other publicly owned open. spaces. (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15 -20.030 Conditional uses. The following conditional uses may be allowed in the R-OS district, upon the granting of a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 or Article 15 -56 of this Chapter: (a) Accessory structures exceeding a gross floor area of two hundred fifty square feel The height standards for such structure, may be modified by the Planning Com- mission through use permit approval. (b) Accessory structures for agricultural use exceeding one thousand six hundred square feet in total floor arcs. (c) Amphitbeaters and other facilities for outdoor presentation of drama, music or other forms of entertain- ment available to the general public. (d) Police and fire stations and other public buildings, structures and facilities. (e) Public utility and public service pumping stations, Power stations, drainage ways and structures, storage tanks and transmission lines. (f) One recreational court on a single site, to be used solely by pew resident on the site and their guests, subject to the regulations prescribed in Subsection 15- 80.030(e) of this Chapter. (g) Commercial stables, boarding stables and commu- nity stables, subject to the regulations prescribed in Sec. tion 7- 20.220 of this Code. (h) Facilities for sale of agricultural products pro- duced on the site, including on site retail sales of Christ- mas trees. (i) Wineries which may include conference facilities designed to accommodate no more than fifty guests with no overnight accommodation. 0) Picnic and camp sites. (k) Botanical gardens. (1) Clustered housing per Section 15- 20.060(d). (m) Veterinarian clinics. (Ord. 7198 § 2 (part), 1991) 15- 20.040 Nonconforming uses. Existing uses which were lawfully established prior to November 1, 1991 and meet the health regulations set forth in Section 7 -20220 of the City Code may be con- tinued in conformity with the provisions stated in Article 15-65 of the City Code. (Ord. 7198 § 2 (part), 1991) 15- 20.050 15- 20.050 Development criteria. No principal use shall be established, no main struc- MM shall be erected or constructed and no subdivision be approved in the R -OS district, nor shall any building or other permit be issued dolor, unless and until the appli- cant has complied with the following development stan- dards, which standards shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any and all other development criteria and re- quirements set forth in Chapters 14 and 16 of this Code: (a) Site development phin. A site development plan has been Prepared a•d approved by the advisory agency in accord with Section 14- 25.100 of the Subdivision Ordi- nance, and the physical location of each use and structure is as set forth on such approved plan. in addition to the regulations set forth in Section 14. 25.100, the site devel- opment plan shall incorporate the following design objec- tives: (1) All roads, buildings and other structural improve- ments or land coverage shall be located, sited and de- signed to fit the natural topography and shall minimize gig and modification of existing land forms and natural characteristics. (2) The planting and landscaping portion of said plan .shall, insofar as is reasonably Practical, provide for the retention of existing vegetation and shall. include an erosion and sediment control element setting forth reason- able mitigation measures in accord with the excavating and grading and. subdivision regulations of the City:: . (3) Grading shall be representative of adjacent topog- raphy and be an extension of natural contours insofar as reasonably Practical, and shall be designed to avoid or fully mitigate potential erosion, flooding, geooechnical and other hazards. (4) Water, sewer and other utility services, streets and Other access -routes shall be designed to avoid any geolog- ic or soils hazard and shall be specifically engineered to prevent the risk of failure or collapse. Setbacks from hazard areas shall be in accord with the engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering investiigation report and recommendations. (b) Engineering Geologic and Geotechnical Engi- neering reports. A preliminary engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation(s) and report(s) Prepared by a certified engineering geologist licensed by the State and by a registered geotechnical engineer or civil engineer qualified in soils mechanics licensed by the State, shall be filed in conjunction with the site develop- ment plan unless the City Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant determine that existing information pertinent to the subdivision or site approval makes preliminary analysis or any Part thereof unnecessary. The geologic and geotechnical reports shall fully and clearly include: 320 (1) A description and discussion of engineering geo- logic conditions at the site, including natural and artificial earth materials, structural lineations or discontinuities, .surface and ground water conditions, and all other perti- nent conditions or characteristics of the site, with refer- ence to surface conditions and exposures, geomorphology, and graphical logs of subsurface excavations. (2) An engineering geologic map of the site on a suitable topographic base, showing, as a minimum: the distributions of geologic materials on the site based upon mapping of geomorphic conditions and geologic expo- sums ms on and around the site; geologic features and poten- tial hazards; and the locations of all existing and intended improvements on the site. (3) An evaluation of all geologic hazards and geotechnical constraints that affect, or potentially could affect, the site relative to the existing or mtended land use This should include a clear statement as to whether a hazard exists at the site which may lead to structural damage if not corrected, an evaluation of the risk(s) each hazard poses, and the basis or reasoning for assigning specific risks. (4) A geotechnical (soil and foundation) engineering investigation addressing properties of earth materials, site preparation (clearing and stripping), gig requirements (cut and fill design and construction), pavement design, drainage (surface and subsurface), utility trench backfilling, design parameters for foundati ons, retaining walls and swimming pools, slope stability, technical plan review, and field inspection procedures. (5) Recommendations for appropriate grading prose- dures, geotechnical design criteria and any corrective measures deemed necessary to prevent or significantly mitigate potential damage to the proposed Project and to eliminate potential damage to adjacent Properties and to otherwise insure safe development of the property.. (6) Recommendations for additional investigations that should be made to insure safe development of the property. (c) Application acceptance. An application shall not be deemed complete until the City Engineer grants geotechnical clearance. (d) Additional studies required. The City shall also require the following additional studies prior to approval of a site development plan or as deemed necessary by the City Engineer, unless the City Engineer and the City Geotechnical Consultant determines that existing informa- tion pertinent to the subdivision or the site approval provides the same data as would have been obtained from any or all of such additional studies: (1) With respect to any terrain that may be susceptible to impacts from existing or potential instability, an inves- ligation by a certified engineering geologist shall be required for all slopes affecting futume or existing devel- opment. This investigation shall include a detailed evalua- tion of the natural slope conditions and recommendations for the treatment_gr correction of any potentially unstable slopes. Slope :stability studies may require extensive subsurface exploration and analysis. (2) A slope stability analysis showing the proposed building footprint(s) and immediately surrounding areas having an adequate factor of safety of at least 1.5 under static conditions against failure in the event of the maxi- mum expected earthquake on recognized faults, including but not necessarily, limited to the San Andreas, the Berrocal, the Mont& Vista/Shannon or the Sargent faults. (3) With respect to any area in the State's Special: Studies zones or within two hundred feet of a mapped or otherwise recognized truce of a potentially active earth- quake fault; an investigation by a certified engineering- geologist addressing the seismic hazards related to the nearby tram. with particular emphasis on evaluation of possible surface faulting and characterization of seismic ground motion. Investigative techniques may require geologic and geomorphic mapping and analysis, subsur- face exploration, and possibly geophysical traverses to demonstrate that oo fault exists within fifty fat of a structure for human habitation. If deemed necessary by the City Geotechnical Consultant, an area greater than two hundred feet from a possible fault trace may be sub- ject to the same investigative requirements and an in- creased setback of structures for human habitation from faults, may be required. (e) Inspection reportL The results and rec ommenda- lions of the engineering geologic and geotechnical engi- neering investigations referred to in Paragraphs (b) and (d) of this Section shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the City Geotechnical consultant and Shall become conditions of approval of a development proposal. The Geotechnical Engineer and the Engineering Geologist may be required to submit reports during grad- ing, during construction, and following completion of the Project. The final report(s) shall affirm that the grading and foundation excavations were done under the supervi- sion of an appropriate registered Geotechnical Engineer and/or Engineering Geologist, shall describe the as -built conditions of the project, and shall contain such other information as may be requited by the City Engineer and City Geotechnical Consultant (f) Financial assurances. The applicant shall post security deposit or a bond of an amount determined by the City Engineer as one measure to ensure the comple- tion of all geological and geotechnical reports and correc- 321 15- 20.050 rive work required as part of conditions of the project approval. . (g) Location of building situ. (1) In locating building sites, preference shall be given to areas classified in the City's Ground Movement Potential Maps as Sbr, Sls, Sun and Sex. Sites on poten- tially moving slopes (Prow, Ps, Pd) and moving slopes (Ms) shall not be approved unless geologic and soil engineering analysis provided by the applicant demon - strate long-term stability to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Geotechnical Consultant No tenor- tive or final map, building site approval or building or grading permit shall be granted for a property which in- cludes land within an Md or Mrf area unless it complies with all the requirements described in Section 16 65.030. (2) Corrective measures which are deemed necessary by the City Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission subject to the following findings: That the measures necessary to permit such development are W consistent with the objectives of this zone district as set forth in Section 15- 20.010; (ii) necessary to minimi a risks from geologic hazards; (iii) will not result in the removal of any pfd nee, as described in Section 15- 50.050; (iv) will not result in irrevocable damage to the City's scenic resources; and (v) will produce a benefit to the general public greater than the environmental impact of the cor- rective measures. (3) The City may require an additional fee from the applicant to cover the expense of producing ground movement potential maps of the geological study area in which the property is located, including areas that may suffer potential ground movement as a result of the pro- posed developmenL (4) The average natural grade of the footprint under - neath any dwelling unit or other structure shall not ex- ceed thirty percent slope, except that a variance pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter may be granted. (5) The average natural grade of the footprint under- neath swimming pools shall not exceed fifteen percent slope. No variances shall be granted for any swimming pool to be constructed. (6) Location of building sites in relation to major and minor ridgelines shall comply with the requirements set forth in Section 15- 20.100 of this Article. (7) . Building sues including driveways and private and public streets, shall not be located within one hundred fifty feet of the top of perennial or intermittent water- course banks unless approved by the City Engineer and Santa Clara Wateer District. Private sanitary sewer, leach fields or drainage fields shall comply with the setback and other requirements of Santa Clara Health Department. 15- 20.050 (h) Grading. (1) Grading shall be limited to the minimum neces- sary for use of a site. Portions of a site exceeding thirty Percent slope shall not be graded without prior specific approval by the Planning Commission. Grading shall be minimiZed in areas Classified in the City's Ground Move- ment Potential Maps as Ps or Pd. Any grading which would unreasonably affect the natural topography of the area shall not be permitted. (2) The combined cut and fill of any grading on a hillside lot shall not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, mcludmg any excavation for a swimming pool, Unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission based on the finding that (a) The additional grading is necessary in Order to allow reasonable development of . the property Or W achieve a reasonable vehicular access to the proposed development (b) The natural land farms and vegetation are being Protected. (c) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain. (d) The increased grading is necessary to facilitate an architectural design which is integrated into the natural topography. (e) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surround- ing views or from distant community views. (3) Corrective grading for existing or proposed devel- opments may be permitted with prior specific approval by the Planning Commission based upon findings that the corrective grading. (i)' is consistent with the objectives of this zone district as set forth in Section 15- 20.010; (ii) is necessary to minimize risks from geologic hazards; and (iii) will not result in irrevocable damage to the City's scenic resources; and (iv) will produce a benefit to the . general public greater than the environmental impact of the corrective grading; and (v) will not result in the removal of any of protected tree, as described in Section 15- 50.050. (4) Grading and other site improvements under and around structures shall be designed to minimise visual impact as viewed from other properties. (5) Cut Or fill slopes shall not exceed ibree horizontal to one vertical. (i) Grade of private streets and driveways. The design of 'all private streets and. driveways shall be sub. ject to the approval of the Fie Marshall and the City Engineer - Any private street Or driveway which exceeds a grade of eighteen percent for a distance in. excess of fifty fen, shall also require approval by the Planning Commission upon all of the following findings that the: 322 (i) construction of the driveway will prevent damage from geologic hazard, (ii) will minimize grading aid visual impact and Crii) will result in preservation of natural vegetation and prevent destruction of wildlife habitat. G) Landscaping. In the selection of new landscaping, Preference shall be given to natural, indigenous and drought resistant plants and materials in accordance with City Xmiscape Standards. Nonindigenous landscaping shall be limited to the immediate area around the house. The total of non - native landscaped area including the allowable impervious coverage shall not exceed twelve thousand square feet. The impervious coverage shall be determined subject to limitations set forth in Section 15- 20.080 of this Article. The remaining portion of the site shall be preserved in a natural and undisturbed state except for necessary ckaring' for the purpose of preven- tion of fire hazard as required by the City Code Article 7 -15. Removal of existing native trees shall be subject to the regulations provided in Article 15 -50 of the City Code and shall be replaced by same or similar species as required by the City Arborist (k) Open space dedication At least thirty percent of the gross site area of a subdivision, of a new home or of an addition, or combination Of successive additions over the life of the structure, resulting in an increase of 50% Or greater to the floor area of an existing home, shall be dedicated in fee to the City of Saratoga at the time of recordation of the final map or building permit whichever comes first. The location of said open space shall be subject to the review and the approval of the Planning Commission. A written agreement describing the open space area shall be executed between the property owner and the City and recorded in the office of the County Recorder. Such agreement shall set forth the restrictions and allowable uses for the open space area, as determined by the Planning Commission. The allow- able uses shall be consistent with and promote the pur- poses of Section 15- 20.010 of the City Code. (Ord 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15- 20.060 Subdivision of sites. (a) Determination of lot size. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph (c) of this Section, each lot seated upon the subdivision of any property within the R -OS district shall contain a minimum number of acres based upon the average slope of such lot, determined in accor- dance with the following formula: Minimum lot size - 20 + 4 (S - 10) Where: S = average slope in percent, as calculated in accordance with Section 15- 06.630 of this Chapter. (b) Table of lot sizes. The following table represents the minimum lot size required for each lot created by the subdivision of property, as derived fram the formula set forth in .Paragraph (a) of this Section. Average Milo Average Mlishoav Avenge MWmom Slope Acres Slope Atres Slope Aare 10 or Ian .20 24 76 38 132 11 24 25.. 80 39 136 12 28 26 84.: 40 140 13 .32 27 _ ._ 88 41 _144 14 36 28 92 42 148 15 40 29 96 112 16 44 30 100 44 156 17 48 31 104 45 160 18 52 32 .108 46 164 19 56 33 112 47 168 20 60 34 116 48 172 21 64 35 120 49 176 22 68 36 124 so a mere 180 23 72 37 128 (c) Increases in lot size The 'City may require any or all of the lots within a subdivision to have a larger size than required under Paragraph (a) of this Section if the City determines that such increase is necessary or appro- prim by reason of site restrictions or geologic hazards. (d) Clustering of lots. The Planning Commission may approve a use permit for a subdivision having lots smaller than the size required under Paragraph (a) of this Section, if all of the following are satisfied:. (1) The reduction in the lot size is for the purpose of clustering building sites in order to create dedicated publicly owned open space which may contain recreation facilities, including but not limited to, equestrian and hiking wails, as permitted in Section 15- 20.020(h). (2) The reduction in lot size is offset by an equal or greater area of land which is dedicated to the public as permanent open space. (3) The cluster development reduces the gross devel- opment area which shall include but not be limited to grading, streets, driveways, main structures, accessory structures and impervious coverage so as to min4mize to the extent possible, views of such area from public lands, streets and highways. (4) No single lot has a net site area of less than twen- ty thousand square fat. (5) The total number of lots into which the property is being subdivided shall be determined in accordance with the following formula:. 323 15- 20.070 a = . 1 0.0609375 - 0.00109375 S' Where: a is the average land area per dwelling unit S is the average slope of the lot in percent.. Tae average slope of a lot or parcel shall be deter- mined according to the following formula. S 0.00229 x IL A Where: S is the average slope of the lot in percentage I is the contour interval in feet L is the combined length of contour lines in feet A is the gross area of the parcel in acres. (6) The size of each unit shall be determined in rela- don to the size of the lot on which it is located and the average slope of the site, in accordance with the formula set forth in the Design Review Ordinance Section 15- 45.030. In no case shall a single unit exceed six thousand square feet in area (7) The clustermg of building sites will result in greater preservation of the natural twain and vegetation. (8) The use permit approved by the Planning Com- mission includes specified standards which may deviate from those contained in this Article as follows: (i) length Of driveway, (ii) reduction in building height, (iii) reduc- tion in allowable floor area, (iv) reduction in site cover- age, (v) increase in site dimensions and NO increase in setbacks. (9) The clustered development shall be connected to a sanitary sewer system. (e) Further subdivision prohibited. Upon recorda- tion of a final subdivision or panel map covering any site within the R -OS district, no lots or parcels shown on thereafter be further subdivided so as to increase the total density permitted under this Section for the entire subdi- vision or parcel depicted on the final map. (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15- 20.070 Site frontage, width and depth. (a) The site frontage and average width and depth of any lot in the R -OS district shall be not less than the following: Frontage Width Depth 100 fL 500 fL 700 ft 15- 20.070 (b) The Planing Commission shall have authority to modify the standards provided in paragraph (a) , of this Section upon the findings that the changes in the dimen- sions of the lot M will contribute to preservation of open space; (ii) will conform with the topography of the area and will minimi enyjroamental imVactS. and (iii) will not result in perception of higher density than a lot of standard dimensions. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (a) of this Section: (1) The minimum site frrontage, on a cul-de-sac tdm- around shall be sixty fat where seventy-five percent or more of the frontage abuts the turnaround. (2) The frontage and width of an access corridor to a flag lot shall be not less than thirty feet. (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15 -20.080 Site coverage. The maximum site impervious coverage on any lot m the R-OS district . shall not exceed either twenty-five percent or twelve thousand square feet; whichever is less. Driveways may be excluded from the calculation of site coverage, as determined and approved_ by the Planning Commission, subject to the fmdmgs described in Section 15- 20.50(i), except for when a conditional use permit is granted by the Planning Commission for clustering devel- opment. (Ord 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15- 20.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yard. (a) Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph (b) of this Section, the minimum front yard, side yards, and rear yard of any lot in the R -OS district shall be as follows: Front Interior Exterior Rear Yard Side Yard Side Yard Yard Single Story 50 ft. 40 ft. 50 fL 100 ft. Two Story 70 ft 60 ft. 70 ft. 120 R (b) On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be consid- ered the depth for the purpose of measuring the front, side and rear yards, unless to do so would impact the lot's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. (c) The Planning Commission may modify the mini- mum setback standards upon the findings that the varia- tion from the standards will result in a significantly reduced environmental and visual impact, minimiz the grading and preserve the natural vegetation and wildlife habitat. (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 324 15- 20.100 Hight of structures. , No structure shall exceed two story tar shall any structure exceed the following heights: (a) No structure shall extend to an elevation within eight fen fiom the top of the nearest adjacent major n0gelme that does not have dew tree cove!. (b) No structure shall extend to an elevation more than twelve feet above the nearest adjacent minor ridge that does not have dense tree cover. (c) A smWa a not limited by Paragraph (a) and (b) above shall WE Aceed -twenty-two feet - height. The Planning Commission may modify the height standard if the Design Review findings in Section 1545.080 can be made. In no case shall the !eight of a structure exceed twenty-six feet. - .(d) Accessory structures shall not exceed twelve feet in height; provided, however, that the planning Commis- sion may approve an accessory structure extending up to fifteen feet in height if the Commission finds and deter- mines that (1) The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the train struc- ture on the site; and (2) The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; (3) The additional height is necessary for a 'structure for agricultural use. (Ord 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15 -20.110 Accessory uses and structures. Accessory uses and structures shall comply with the special rules as set forth in Section 15- 80.030 of this Chapter. (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15 -20.120 Fences, walls and hedges. Fences, wails and hedges shall comply with the regula- tions set forth in Article 15 -29 of this Chapter except for Subsection 15- 29.020 (03) which shall not apply to the R -OS district (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15- 20.130 Signs. No sign of any character shall be erected or displayed in the R -OS district, except as permitted under the regula- tions set forth in Article 15 -30 of this Chapter. Signs which do not exceed twenty square feet area. and five feet in height shall be permitted for stables and other conditional uses as part of the conditional use permit. (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15- 20.140 off- street . parking and loading facilities. Off - street parking and loading facilities shall be pro. vided for each use for which parking is required on the site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15 -35 of this Chapter. In addition to the regulations in Article 15 -35, parking lots should be designed to mini- mize environmental and visual impacts by avoiding large continuous lots and by the use of gravel and turf stones and landscaping for screening. (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15- 20.150 - -- Design review. The construction or expansion of any main or accesso. ry structure in the R -OS district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15-45 or Article 15-46 of this Chapter, provided, bowev- er, where a single - family dwelling is the principal use on the site, then the allowable floor area determined in accordance with Section 15 -45.030 shall in no event be more than six thousand square feet, excluding any de-- tached garage or accessory structure for which a use permit is granted. (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) 15. 20.160 Storage of personal property and materials. The regulations and restrictions set forth in Section 15- 12.160 of this Chapter, pertaining to the storage of certain items of personal property, shall apply to the R -OS dis- trict and the same are incorporated herein by reference. (Ord. 71.98 § 2 (part), 1991) Article 15 -21 MU -PD: MULTIPLE USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Sections: Final development plan. 15- 21.010 Purposes of Article. 15- 21.020 Allowable mixed uses. 15- 21.030 Site area. 15- 21.040 Site density. 15- 21.050 Site coverage. 15- 21.060 Setbacks. 15- 21.070 Development standards. 15- 21.080 Modification of standards. 15- 21.090 Height of structures. 15- 21.095 Fences, walls and hedges. 15- 21.100 Signs. 15- 21.110 Off-street parking and loading facilities. 15- 21.120 Requirement for PD permit 15- 21.130 Conceptual development 325 15- 21.020 15- 21.140 Final development plan. 15- 21:150 Issuance of PD permit 15- 21.160 Expiration of PD permit; extensions. 15- 21.170 Continuing jurisdiction of Planning Commission. 15- 21.180 Appeals to City Council. 15- 21.010 Purposes of Article. In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15- 05.020 of this Chapter, the multiple vw planned develop- ment district is included in the Zoning Ordinance for the primary purpose of establishing development standards for mixture of uses, density, site coverage and setbacks, while preserving to the City the authority to modify such standards by imposing more restrictive or approving less restrictive requirements for development. The multiple use planned development district is also included in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following specific purposes: (a) To provide a means of guiding land development or redevelopment in areas of the City that are uniquely suited for a planned coordination of mixed land uses. (b) To provide for a greater flexibility of land use and design than would be possible through strict application of the regulations applicable to other zoning districts. (c) To encourage imaginative and innovative planning concepts and variety in the development patterns of the City. (d) To promote a mixture of harmonious and integrated uses on a site while protecting the integrity and environment of neighboring properties. (e) To provide a more efficient use of land resulting in the creation of additional public or private common areas and open space. 15- 21.020 Allowable mixed uses. Any combination of the uses specified in this Section may be allowed in a MU -PD district, provided that not less than fifty percent of the gross site area shall be, devoted to residential uses, including the off- street parking and loading facilities and common areas for such uses. The percentage of gross site area occupied by any single use, including the off - street parking and loading facilities and common areas for such use, should not exceed the standard set forth below: Use Site area standard Single - family dwellings or multi-family dwellings or combination thereof 50% Zoning Regulations ARTICLE 15 -13 HR: HILLSIDES RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Sections: 15- 13.010 Purposes of Article 15- 13.020 Definitions 15- 13.030 Permitted Uses 15- 13.040 Conditional Uses 15- 13.050 Development Criteria 15- 13.060 Subdivision of sites 15- 13.070 Site frontage,.width and depth 15- 13.080 Site coverage 15- 13.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yard 15- 13.100 Height of structures 15- 13.110 Accessory uses and structures 15- 13.120 Fences, walls and hedges 15- 13.130 Signs 15- 13.140 Off - street parking and loading facilities 15- 13.150 Design Review 15- 13.160 Storage of personal property and materials S15- 13.010 Purposes of_Article In addition to the objectives set forth in Section 15- 05.020, the. hillsides residential district is included in the Zoning Ordinance to achieve the following purposes: (a) To maintain to the maximum degree feasible, the natural environment and existing rural character of the area to which the district is applied., (b) To encourage development on gently sloping sites having natural screening features in preference to develop on steep, visually exposed sites. (c) To implement the open space element of the General Plan by ensuring maximum preservation of open space, including major ridgelines, densely wooded areas, and riparian vegetation. (d) To prevent development that.. would be subject to significant uncorrectable geotechnical or flood hazards_. (e) To implement the Northwestern Hillside Specific Plan as adopted by the City on June 2, 1981, for the area included within the Specific Plan boundaries. B15- 13.020 Definitions In addition to.the definitions set forth in Article 15 -06 of this Chapter, all of which are applicable to this Article, the following definitions shall apply to certain terms used herein: (a) City's geologic maps means the Ground Movement Potential Maps, as adopted by the City in Section 16- 65.020 of this Code, including the geologic data and text report to be utilized in conjunction therewith. (b) Major Ridge means a line connecting the points of highest elevation at the top of and parallel to the long axis of the lines of hills designated as major ridges as generally shown on the map entitled "Major Ridges - HR District" adopted as part -of this Article. (c) Minor ridge means a ridge other than a major ridge that is fifty feet or more above two points one hundred fifty feet distant from the top of the ridge on either side. B15- 13.030 Permitted uses The following permitted uses shall be allowed in the HR district: (a) Single - family dwellings. (b) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use, including garages and carports, garden sheds, greenhouses, shade structures, recreation rooms, home hobby shops, cabanas, structures for housing swimming pool equipment and one guest house. (c) Raising of vegetables, field crops, fruit and nut trees and horticultural specialties, and the processing of such products as are so raised or grown on the premises. (d) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article 15 -40 of this Chapter. (e) Stables and corrals for the keeping for private use of not more than two horses on a site. The minimum net site area shall be 40,,000 square feet for one horse and 801000 square feet for two horses, except that in the equestrian zone only, a second horse may be kept if the net site area is at least 40,000 square feet. All horses shall be subject to the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7- 20.220 of this Code. (f) Swimming pools used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests. (g) The keeping for private use, of a reasonable number of domestic dogs, cats and other small mammals, birds, fish and small r reptiles, subject to the regulations set forth in Article 7 -20 of this Code, and subject also to the restrictions and standards prescribed in Subsection 15- 11.020(h) of this Chapter. (h) Public parks, trails and other publicly owned open space. SiS- 13.040 Conditional Uses The following conditional uses may be allowed in the HR district, upon granting a use permit pursuant to Article 15 -55 or Article 15 -56 of this Chapter. The conditional uses listed in paragraphs (k) , (1) , (m) , (n) & (o) of this section may be permitted, provided the uses do not create major traffic or noise impacts and are found to, be compatible with the immediately surrounding area: (a) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a conditional use. (b) Public utility and public service pumping stations, power stations, drainage ways and structures, storage tanks and transmission lines. (c) Recreational courts, to be used solely by persons resident on the site and their guests. (d) Boarding stables and community stables, subject to the regulations prescribed in Section 7- 20.220 of this Code. (e) Model homes utilized in connection with the sale of new single- family dwellings in a subdivision, located upon a lot within the same subdivision or, in the discretion of the Planning Commission, upon a lot within another subdivision developed by the applicant; for such period of time as determined by the Planning Commission, not to exceed an initial term of one year and not exceeding a term of one year for each extension thereof. (f) Stables and corrals for the keeping for private use of more than two horses on a site. The minimum net site area for each horse shall be 40,000 square feet, except that in the equestrian zone only, one additional horse may be permitted for each 40,000 square feet of net site area. All horses shall be subject to the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7- 20.220 of this Code. (g) Plant .nurseries, excluding sales of items other than plant materials. (h) Wineries. (i) One second unit, as authorized by a use permit granted pursuant to Article 15 -56 of this Chapter. (j) Cluster development in accordance with Section 15- 13.060(c). (k) Community facilities. (1) Institutional facilities. (m) Police and fire stations and other public buildings, structures and facilities. (n) Religious and charitable institutions. (o) Nursing homes and day care facilities. 515- 13.050 Development criteria No principal use shall be established, and no main structure shall be erected or constructed in the HR district, nor shall any building or other permit be issued therefor, unless and until the applicant has complied with the following development standards, which standards shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any and all other development criteria and requirements set forth in Chapters 14 and 16 of this Code: (a) Site development plan. A site development plan has been prepared and approved by the advisory agency in accord with Section 14- 25.100 of the Subdivision Ordinance, and. the physical location of each use and structure is as set forth on such approved plan. The planting and landscaping portion of said plan shall, insofar as is, reasonably practical, provide for the retention of existing vegetation and land formations, and shall include an erosion and sediment control element setting forth reasonable mitigation measures in accord with the excavating and grading and subdivision ordinances of the City. Grading shall be representative of adjacent topography and be an extension of natural contours insofar as reasonably practical, and shall be designed to avoid erosion, flooding, slides and other hazards. Water, sewer and other utility services, streets and other access routes which traverse any geologic or soils hazard shall be specifically engineered to eliminate the risk of failure or collapse, and setbacks from hazard areas shall be in accord with the geologic and soils investigation report and recommendations. (b) Geologic and soils report. A preliminary combined geologic and soils investigation and report prepared by a certified engineering geologist licensed by the State and by a registered civil engineer qualified in soils mechanics by the State, shall be filed in conjunction with the site development plan unless the City Geologist determines that existing information pertinent to the subdivision or site approval makes preliminary analysis or any part thereof unnecessary. The geologic and soils report shall fully and clearly present: (1) All pertinent data, interpretations and evaluations based on the most current professionally recognized soils and geologic data. (2) The significance of the data, interpretations and evaluations with respect to the actual development or implementation of the intended land use through the identification of any significant geologic problems, critically expansive soils or other unstable soil condition which, if not corrected, may lead to structural damage or future geologic problems both on and off the site. (3) Recommendations for corrective measures deemed necessary to prevent or significantly mitigate potential damage to the proposed project and adjacent properties or otherwise to insure safe development of the property. - (4) Recommendations for additional investigations that should be made to. insure safe development of the property. (c) Additional studies required. The City shall also require the following additional studies prior to approval of -a site development plan or prior to issuance of a building permit,:unless the City Geologist determines that existing information pertinent to the subdivision or the site approval provides the same data as would have been obtained from any or all of such additional studies: (1) Soil and foundation engineering investigation by a registered civil engineer addressing site preparation (clearing and stripping), grading requirements (cut and fill design and construction), pavement design, drainage (surface and subsurface), utility trench backfilling, design parameters_ for foundations and retaining walls, soil stability, 'technical plan review, and field inspection procedures. (2) With respect to any terrain on or within one hundred feet of a significant recognized landslide deposit, an investigation by a certified engineering geologist including a detailed evaluation of the natural slope conditions and recommendations for the treatment or correction of any unstable slopes. . Slope stability studies may require extensive subsurface work. (3) With respect to any area within one hundred feet of a recognized trace of the potentially active Berrocal fault, an investigation by a certified engineering geologist addressing the seismic hazards related to the nearby trace, with particular emphasis on evaluation of possible surface faulting. Investigative techniques will require subsurface trenching and possibly geophysical traverses unless clear evidence is presented to show that no fault crosses the site of a habitable structure. (4) A slope stability analysis showing the building site and its immediately surrounding area having a factor of safety against failure of at least 1.5 or equivalent, in -the event of an earthquake on the San Andreas Fault having a magnitude of 8.3 on the Richter scale. (d) Inspection reports. The results of the geologic and soil investigations referred to in Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Section shall be reviewed and approved by the City and shall become conditions of 3pproyal of a development proposal. The soils engineer and the engineering geologist may be required to submit reports during grading, during construction, and following completion of the project. The final report shall affirm that the grading and foundation excavations were done under the supervision of a soils engineer and /or engineering geologist, shall describe the as -built condition of the project, and shall contain such other information as may be required by the City. (e) Location of building sites. (1) In locating building sites, preference shall be given to areas classified in the City's geologic maps as Sbr, Sls, Sun and Sex. Sites on potentially moving slopes (Pmw, Ps, Pd) and moving slopes (Ms) shall not be approved unless geologic and soil engineering analysis provided by the applicant demonstrate long -term stability to the satisfaction of the City. (2 ) The average natural grade of the footprint underneath any dwelling unit, swimming pool or other structure shall not exceed thirty percent slope,_ and no dwelling unit, swimming pool or other structure shall be built on a slope which exceeds forty percent natural slope at any location under. the structure between two five -foot contour lines, except that: (i) a variance pursuant to Article 15 -70 of this Chapter may be granted where the findings prescribed in Section 15- 70.060 can be made, and (ii) an exception under Article 14 -35 of the Subdivision Ordinance may be granted where the. findings prescribed in Section 14- 35.020 can be made. (f) Grading. The combined cut and fill of any grading shall not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, including any excavation for a swimming pool, unless a larger quantity is approved by the Planning Commission upon making all of the following findings: (1) The additional grading is necessary in order to allow reasonable development of the property or to achieve a reasonable means of access to the building site; and (2) The natural land forms and vegetation are being preserved and protected; and (3) The increased grading is necessary to promote the compatibility of the construction with the natural terrain; and (4) -The increased grading is necessary to integrate an architectural design into the natural topography; and (5) The increased grading is necessary to reduce the prominence of the construction as viewed from surrounding views or from distant community views. (g) ,Grade of private streets and driveways. Unless otherwise permitted by the Planning Commission, no private street or driveway shall exceed a grade of eighteen percent for a distance in excess of fifty feet. 815- 13.060 subdivision of sites. (a) Determination of lot size. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Section, each lot created upon the subdivision of any property within the HR district shall contain a minimum net site area based upon the average slope of such lot, determined in accordance with the following table: *Average Net Site Average Net Site Slope Area Slope Area 0 or less 2.00 26 3.42 1 2.03 27 3.52 2 2.07 28 3.62 3 2.10 29 3.73 4 2.14 30 3.85 5 2.17 31 3.96 6 _ 2.21 32 4.09 7 2.25 33 4.24 8 2.29 34 4.39 9 2.34 35 4.55 10 2.38 36 4.72 11 2.43 37 4.90 12 2.48 38 5.10 13 2.53 39 5.32 14 2.58 40 5.56 15 2.63 41 5.82 16 2.69 42 6.10 17 2.75 43 6.41 18 2.81 44 6.96 19 2.87 45 7.14 20 2 -.94 46 7.58 21 3.01 47 8.06 22 3.09 48 8.62 23 3.16 49 9.25 24 3.25 50 10.00 25 3.33 *Average slope in percent, as calculated in accordance with Section 15- 06.630 of this Chapter. (b) -- Zncrease in lot size. The City may require any or all of the lots within a subdivision to have a larger size than required under Paragraph (a) of this Section if the City determines that such increase is necessary or appropriate by reason of site restrictions of geologic hazards. (c) Clustering of lots. The Planning Commission may approve a use permit for a subdivision having lots smaller than the size required under Paragraph (a) of this Section, if all of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) The reduction in lot size is for the purpose of clustering building sites in order to create dedicated open space accessible_ by the public which may contain recreational facilities, including but not limited to, equestrian and hiking trails, as permitted in Section 15- 13.030(h). (2) The reduction in lot size is offset by an equal or greater area of land which is dedicated to the public as permanent open space. (3) The cluster development reduces the gross development area which shall include but not be limited to grading, streets, driveways, main structures, accessory structures and impervious coverage so as to minimize, to the extent possible, views of such area from public lands, streets and highways. (4) No single lot has a net site area of less than 20,000 square feet. (5) The total number of lots into which the property is being subdivided shall be determined in accordance with the following formula: 1 N= -------- - - - - -- . 0.5 - .008S Where: N = the net site area per dwelling unit. The average slope of a lot or parcel shall be determined according to the following formula: 0.00229 IL S= -------------- A Where S = the average slope of the lot in percent I = the contour interval in feet r M� A�" L = the combined length of contour lines in feet A = the net site area of the parcel in acres (6) -The size of each unit shall be determined in relation to the lot on which it is located and the average slope of the site, in accordance with the formula set. forth in the Design Review Ordinance Section 15- 45.030. In no case shall a single unit exceed 7,200 square feet in area. (7) The clustering of building sites will result in greater preservation of the natural terrain. (8) The use permit approved by the Planning Commission includes specified standards which may deviate from those contained in this Article as follows: (i) length of driveway; (ii) reduction in building height; (iii) reduction in allowable floor area; (iv) reduction in site coverage; ' (v) increase in site dimensions; and (vi) increase in setbacks. (9) The clustered development shall be connected to a sanitary sewer system. (d) Resubdivision. Upon recordation of a final or parcel map covering any site within the HR district, applicants may request resubdivision of lots or parcels shown on the map only where the newly proposed lots meet all applicable general plan, zoning and subdivision provisions. Where a clustered subdivision has been approved pursuant to Paragraph (c) of this Section, no lot, including the open space lot(s) may be further subdivided unless the entire clustered subdivision continues to meet applicable general plan and zoning density requirements. (e) Exempted lots. Any lot shown as a unit on a recorded subdivision or land division, or any lot otherwise legally created, is exempt from the density requirements set forth in Paragraph (a) of this Section provided such lot was created prior to April 25, 1978. Any lot so exempted will not lose its exempt status if either of the following events takes place subsequent to April 25, 1978: (1) A portion of the lot is exchanged for a portion of any adjoining lot, the result of which does not decrease the original square footage of the lot; or (2) The lot is enlarged by the addition of land from any adjoining parcel. S15-13.070 Site frontage, width and depth (a) The minimum site frontage, width and depth of any lot in the HR district shall be as follows: Frontage 80 ft. Width 100 ft. Depth 150 ft. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (a) of this Section: (1) The minimum site frontage on a cul -de -sac turnaround shall be sixty feet where seventy -five percent or more of the frontage abuts the turnaround. (2) The frontage and width of an access corridor to a flag lot shall be not less than twenty feet. 515- 13.080 Site coverage The maximum site coverage on any lot in the HR district shall be as follows: (a) The maximum coverage shall be twenty -five percent (25 %) or 15,000 square feet, whichever is less. (b) In determining the amount of impervious surface, the area of a single driveway providing vehicular access from the street to the required enclosed parking spaces on the site, and any related turnaround area determined to be necessary. for safety purposes, shall be excluded. 515- 13.090 Front yard, side yards and rear yard (a) Front yard. The minimum front yard shall be thirty (30) feet or twenty percent (20 %) of the lot depth, whichever is greater. (b) Side yards.' The minimum side yard shall be twenty (20) feet in the case of an interior side yard and twenty -five (25) feet in the case.of an exterior side.yard, or ten percent (10 %) of the lot width, whichever is greater. (c) Rear yard. The minimum rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet in the case of a single -story structure and sixty (60) feet in the case of a multi -story structure, or twenty -five percent (25 %) of the lot depth, whichever is greater. (d) . Determination of yards for flag lots. On a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the purpose of measuring the front, side and rear yards, unless to do so would adversely affect the lot's normal yard orientation in relation to adjacent lots. (e) In determining compliance with the requirements set forth in Paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d) of this Section, the following special rules shall be applied: (1) on a flag lot with an average width that exceeds its average depth, the longer dimension may be considered the depth for the purpose of measuring the front, side and -rear yards. (2) Where a single -story addition which does not exceed twenty -two feet in height is added to an existing multi- story structure, the single -story addition shall comply with the single -story rear yard requirement, but need not comply with the multi -story rear yard requirement. (3 ) Where a second story is added to an existing single -story structure, or where an existing or new multi -story structure contains a portion thereof which is single - story and does not exceed twenty -two feet in height, the multi -story rear yard requirement shall be applied only to that portion of the structure which is multi- story. 815 - 13.100 Height of structures No structures shall exceed two stories nor shall any structure I the following heights: (a) No structure shall extend to an elevation within eight feet from the top of the nearest adjacent major ridge that does not have dense tree cover. (b) No structure shall extend to an elevation more than twelve feet above the nearest adjacent minor ridge that does not have dense tree cover. (c) A single - family dwelling not limited by Paragraphs (a) or (b) above, shall not :exceed twenty -six feet in height. Any other type of main structure not limited by Paragraphs (a) or (b) above, shall not exceed thirty feet in height. (d) An accessory structure not limited by Paragraph (a) above shall not exceed twelve feet in height; provided, however, the Planning Commission may approve an accessory structure extending up to fifteen feet in height if the Commission finds that: 1. The additional height is necessary in order to establish architectural compatibility with the main structure on the site; and 2. The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 615- 13.110 Accessory uses.and structures Accessory uses and structures shall comply with the special rules as set forth in Section 15- 80.030 of this Chapter. 815- 13.120 Fences, walls and hedges Fences, walls and hedges shall comply with the regulations set forth in Article 15 -29 of this Chapter. 815 - 13.130 Signs No sign of any character shall be- erected or displayed in the HR district, except as permitted under the regulations set forth in Article 15 -30 of this Chapter. 815 - 13.140 Off - street parking and loading facilities Off - street parking and loading facilities shall be provided for each use on the site, in accordance with the regulations set forth in Article 15 -35 of this Chapter. 815- 13.150 Design Review The 'construction or expansion of any main or accessory structure in the HR district shall comply with the applicable design review regulations set forth in Article 15 -45 or Article 15- 46 of this Chapter. 815 - 13.160 Storage of personal property and materials The regulations and restrictions set forth in Section 15- 12.160 of this Chapter, pertaining to the storage of certain items of personal property, shall apply to the HR district and the same are incorporated herein by reference. tsvia \forms \hr -ord RES -ND File No. AZO -93 -002 Saratoga DECLARATION THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOT REQUIRED (Negative Declaration) Environmental Quality Act of 1970 The undersigned, Director of Planning and Environmental Control of the CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation, after study and evaluation, has determined, and does hereby determine, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Section 15063 through 15065 and Section 15070 of the California Administrative Code, and Resolution 653- of the City of Saratoga, that the following described project will have no significant effect (no substantial adverse impact) on the environment within the terms and meaning of said Act. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Prezone boundary map for the existing Sphere of Influence (SOI) . Map delineates the prezoning designation boundaries for the previously adopted Residential Open Space (ROS) and Hillside Residential (HR) zoning districts. Zoning will only apply to subject properties upon annexation to the City. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT REASON FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 An initial study was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. No significant impacts were identified. Executed at Saratoga, California this day of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 1993. DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZED STAFF MEMBER ]I i� /q3 To" Sa,ra I0- CJN/ Councc- 1 gf- Yn G l 1e_ r`Sd,n ' M5(-11 SUMMARY Santa Clara County General Plan policies applicabler to City I Rq o CoL7ti� General Plan of Santa Clara County - Amendments 1981 - 1989: 1981 Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map Policies • Lands Unsuitable for Urbanization (File #81 -2 -7) "Amendment to the C n t d E within urban service areas, particularly for lands which have the characteristics of "lands unsuitable for urbanization." (p. 21) [File #81 -2 -7 contains the following:] � "Lands unsuited for urban development should be 1983 see mp ylivj C9enera. P a+l �_aesr4�Q�r�s a s_t8'�eS $ o s ructe nvironment chapter of the General Plan to clarity policies for lands foun d annexed to cities or included within urban service areas only if the land has been designated for non -urban uses such as open space reserves or parks...... gWhere unincorporated lands unsuited for urban development are included in urban service areas, county land use designations and zoning shall be applied to provide appropriate non -urban land uses and densities." JThe following hazard and resource areas are considered unsuited for urban development: "Hazards: a. Flooding, etc....; b. Seismic Hazards, including areas mapped as having high ground failure potential, known landslides, areas of high landslide susceptability, areas of saturated, unstable soils, zones of potential surface displacement near faults in areas of steep land, h. Watershed lands, areas generally above 15% slope. "(Adopted by the Board of Supervisors Action, December 15, 1981) •Ridgeline Protection File (File #81 -2 -5) "Roads, building sites, and facilities shall not be allowed to create major or lasting visible scars on the landscape.... Land should be divided in such a way that building sites, if possible, are not located on ridgelines." (p. 21 of General Plan Amendments) Amendments to the General Plan -Natural Environment - Vegetation as 2. Policies (p. D25) 13. A "no construction" limitation 14. Whenever possible, a buffer between the base of the foothills potential for landsliding. Resource (file #1974- 00- 00 -83GP) shall be placed on slopes above 30 %. strip of open land should be required and existing canals where there is a high GENERAL PLAN SANTA Cl ARA COUNTY: Policies aD-d Provisions Rural Areas Policies Summary (p. B1): 1. Lands unsuited for urban development should not be annexed to cities or included in urban service areas.... Land Use Map Summary (p. B2): The General Plan recommends that urban service areas and new city incorporations include only those lands which are suitable for urban development. Public Safety summary (p. B5): Careful land use planning which avoids development in areas with natural and constructed hazards is essential to protect the health and safety of residents in Santa Clara County.... Among the many natural and constructed hazards which must be considered in the planning process are: earthquakes, floods, landslides, fire.... Natural Environment section : Water supplies in rural areas: A6 ;.367 Qr 'OLICIES: 3. a. Preserving open land in both agricultural and hillside watershed areas. . Minimizing sedimentation and erosion through control of grading ,... cutting of trees, emoval of vegetation, placement of roads and bridges... IMPLEMENTATION: 2. Develop and implement erosion control standards and practices, including control of grading, removal of vegetation, and design of drainage. (Implementors: Cities, County, Resource Conservation Districts) 6. Implement the recommendations of the Regional Environmental Management Plan dealing with control of surface runoff. (Implementors: County, cities, etc.) (pp. D10 -D11) Creeks and streamside areas: POLICIES: 1. The remaining riparian vegetation associated with the streams and creeks of Santa Clara County shall be protected through the following means: a. By setback from the top of the bank, b. Regulation of the removal of trees and other vegetation, d. Controlling and designing of grading, road construction, and bridges near streams to minimize loss of riparian vegetation. 3. Where possible, riparian woodlands, marshes and flood plains which have been altered should be allowed to return to a natural state. 4. In flood plains which are not already developed, land uses shall be restricted to avoid need for major flood control alterations to the streams. 8. Lands near creeks and streams shall be considered to be in a buffer area consisting of the following land: a. An area extending 150' from top bank line landward where the creek is predominately in its natural state (has not been converted to a concrete or rip -rap channelization.) (p. D13) IMPLEMENTATION: 1. All public and private projects in the county adjacent to and within creeks and streams shall be reviewed for conformance with the policies of this plan. (Implementors: County, Santa Clara Valley Water District) 2. Develop and enforce regulations limiting the removal of trees and vegetation. (Implementor: County) 6. Restore when possible, riparian vegetation which has been lost through past actions. (Implementors: County, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Cities, Landowners) 7. The State Department of Fish and Game shall be notified at the outset whenever alteration of streambanks or streambeds is proposed, based on the need for their assistance and their authority under Fish and Game Code Section 1601 -03 and the California Environmental Quality Act. (p. D14) (Implementors: County, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Cities, Landowners, Special Districts) Veaetation . Wildlife Habitat. and mountain soils: ..in any potentially unstable hill area it is wise to avoid forms of landscaping which require the application of water to the site. Plants should be chosen which are ecologically compatible with the area. (p. D24) POLICIES: 5. Healthy specimen trees shall be protected from cutting. 14. A "no construction" limitation shall be placed on slopes above 30 %. 15. Whenever possible, a buffer strip of open land should be required between the base of the foothills and existing canals where there is a high potential for landsliding. IMPLEMENTATION: 3. Deny applications for new construction including new roads or home sites which result in disturbance of the terrain, soil mantle, or vegetation cover where slopes exceed 30 %. (p. D25) Heritage Resources: Natural and cultural heritage resources include: Natural areas [specific - -ck. map], Paleontological sites, Archeologic sites... IMPLEMENTATION, p. D29 #1. Review existing land Bvelopment, building, demolition and environmental assessment ordinances and guidelines and make amendments as necessary to assure that no heritage resource is destroyed inadvertently or by failure to provide safeguards in the ordinances. (Implementor: County, Cities) Constructed Environment: POLICIES: 4. LandR: dfor urban developmerttOwt t01.as;or. included in urban service areas only if the tarxl400". 1t~;det�ip�bF uses such as open sp aesweq: or parks. The `foi]owing hazard and resoume we= ar6 considered unsuited for urban development: Hazards: a. Flooding .... b. Seismic Hazards, includes areas mapped as having high ground failure potential, known landslides, areas of high landslide susceptibility, areas of saturated, unstable soils, zones of potential surface displacement near faults in areas of steep land,...; Resources: H. Watershed Lands, areas generally above 15% slope. 'Where unincorporated lands unsuited for urban development are included in urban service areas, County land use designations and zoning shall be applied to provide appropriate non -urban land uses and densities. 5. Urban expansion should be planned and programmed on a staged basis, consistent with applicable plans (e.g., city, County, countywide plans)... 6. Development activity should minimize degradation of the natural environment and diminishment of heritage resources. IMPLEMENTATION: 2. Reevaluate the urban service areas of all cities for possible revision using the following criteria as a minimum guide: d. Suitability of lands for urban development. (Implementors: LAFCO, Cities) 3. Initiate joint studies to mutually designate land unsuitable for urban development in local general plans and delineate an urban expansion limit. Until completion of these studies the County shall designate appropriate non -urban land uses for the unincorporated land unsuitable for urbanization. (Implementors: County, LAFCO, Cities) (p. E6) Annexations. Detachments and Other Boundary Changes: Annexation laws were created to provide flexibility for cities and special districts to extend services and grow into new areas .... The result is the inefficient pattern of incorporated limits. Islands of unincorporated territory are scattered through many of the fifteen cities, giving the appearance of an archipelago of county pockets among a sea of incorporated area. Instead of concentrating their annexation activity in a compact area, cities have stretched long tentacles out to connect to territory far from their urban core. These have been described � "cherry stem" annexations. The shape of certain cities defies description...: IMPLEMENTATION: 3. Consider initiating proceedings to disannex lands unsuitable for urban development., (Implementors: Cities, LAFCO) Projects Conforming to the General Plan: IMPLEMENTATION: 4. Develop and adopt a final set of criteria for General Plan screening of land development , and as an interim measure use the following as an appendix of specific criteria: • (Processing) Non - conforming lots: Building sites and potential access must not be on land greater than 30% slope. DOROTHY E. WEBB ATTORNEY AT LAW 19640 REDBERRY DRIVE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95030 (408) 354 -3884 November 17, 1993 Saratoga City Council Saratoga City Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: Pre - zoning for expanded Sphere of Influence, hearing November 17, 1993 I reside with my husband, Robert L. Webb, at 19640 Redberry Drive in an unincorporated area served by the Los Gatos post office. We strenuously and unequivocally oppose any action by the City of Saratoga in any of its departments or bodies that could lead to annexation by the City of Saratoga at any time of our property or property continguous to it. At the time Saratoga was first incorporated, the impelling reason was to avoid acquisition of Saratoga Village and environs by the City of San Jose, with its consequent (it was thought) over- building and expense to the residents. Now, many years later, the same objections apply to acquisition by the City of Saratoga of heretofore peaceful and comfortable for living unincorporated areas near Saratoga. We are quite happy as we are. The county provides all necessary services, and given the budget problems of Saratoga, it is apparent that the City of Saratoga is biting off more than it can chew with any expansion; i.e., you cannot afford US. In addition, we fear that any incorporated body finds it extremely difficult to withstand the blandishments of determined developers, and prefer the known hazards of county organization to both known and unknown hazards that come with incorporation into a small, uneconomic and amateur city that is determined to remain charming but that cannot really afford it. rot y E. Webb NOVEMBER 17, 1993 MARGARET SLEMMONS 19655 Redberry Dr. Los Gatos, CA 95030 TO: SARAT OGA CITY C OUNC I L RE: HEARING REGARDING THE REZONING MAP FOR SHPERE OF INFLUENCE The establishment of a pre - zoning map for areas in the Saratoga.sphere of influence is a preliminary procedure leading to annexation. I am opposed to any action that will lead to annexation of Redberry Drive. The City of Saratoga must consider seriously the high costs added to their city budget that such'an action will require. It is difficult and expensive to provide and maintain services in fragile watershed hill- side lands. These.lands are vulnerable to:'erosion, landslides, extreme fire hazard, water damage, and high road maintenance. In the early 1980's, Saratoga considered the removal of some hillside lands from its urban service area because the city did not want the added financial burden for providing art maintaining services. The State of California and all of its cities are experiencing hard economic times, and Saratoga is no exception. Cities are cutting back on budgets, not adding new costs. The City of Saratoga cannot afford to take on new I responsibilities at this time, h I recommend t at the city c ouncil support its planning commission's decision and vote "N ". Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. Most Gratefully, Margaret Slemmons N DATE: October 12, 1993 TO: City of Saratoga: City Council and Planning Commission FROM: Alan and Meg Giberson, 15561 Glen Una Drive SUBJECT: Draft Open Space Element and Sphere of Influence Expansion In seeking to redraft its Open Space Element, Saratoga has a ready guide in the Santa Clara County General Plan. The County General Plan ( "GP ") is both topical and authoritative on the very issues with which Saratoga currently grapples: 1) dealing with urban boundaries, and 2) protecting hillsides threatened by development. Significantly, the County General Plan now provides the guidelines for the protection of the land over which the City Council wishes to extend its influence through expansion of Saratoga's SOI (sphere of influence). To adopt an Open Space Element which provides less protection than the lands currently enjoy under County guidelines would be questionable in view of the Council's expressed desire to "protect" through expansion. Such decreased protection would also constitute a significant effect requiring CEQA review, as it would "[c]onflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located...." Some (but by no means all) of the differences between the two plans: The County GP provides, for instance, that: • "Creeks and streamsides shall be preserved in their natural state providing for... open space (LU 9); • Lands near creeks and streams shall be considered to be in a buffer area consisting of the following land: a. An area extending 150' from top bank line landward where the creek is predominantly in its natural state... "(NE 38) (emphasis added). In contrast, some Council and Commission members have proposed weakening the 'already - problematic language of Saratoga's Draft Open Space Element, which defines creek zones as extending only 50' on either side of the creek and which recommends that • "[t]he City should establish a Creek and Drainageway Conservation Zone..." (emphasis added). We urge that Saratoga observe the environmental protection mandate of its citizens as expressed recently in the 1990 Open Space Assessment Survey, and previously in the adoption of the 1980 Northwest Hillsides Initiative. The City General Plan should reflect all environmental protections available in the County General Plan, as adopted 1981, and reprinted 1990. Any less would be a grave betrayal of the public trust. SARATOGA.CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. Z U AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 17, 1993 CITY MGR. h�6&04 ORIGINATING DEPT.: Public Works ' • • SUBJECT: Status Report on Quarry Creek Mitigation, Capital Project No. 9109 Recommended Motion(s): None required. Receive and file. Report Summary: At your previous meeting, the Council requested a status report on the Quarry Creek Mitigation, Capital Project No. 9109. As you will recall, the Council approved a $23,455 Consulting Services Agreement with H.T. Harvey and Associates on October 6 for development of the wetland restoration project at West Valley College and the replanting plan at the Quarry Creek site. Authorization for the consultant to proceed with the work was given by the City on October 18 after the necessary contract documents and other paperwork were processed. As of this writing, the consultant is proceeding with Task No. 1 of the scope of services which includes the preparation of conceptual Plans for both elements of the project. I expect that the conceptual plan for the wetland restoration project will be complete within the next two weeks. At that time, it will be circulated to the City, the College, Fish and Game, Army Corps and other interested parties for comment. I will also make certain that a copy is sent to Mr. Martel for his review. Also at your previous meeting, Mr. Martel suggested that the former ski slope on the easterly end of the campus could perhaps serve as a better location to develop the wetlands project. Since then, City and college staff have looked at the feasibility of this alternative and are of the opinion that this location is not nearly as favorable as the identified site in the "wildlife sanctuary" for the following reasons:- 1. The topographic changes which would be required to lower the area to a suitable elevation to even attempt wetland creation are too great. The resulting area would require encroaching into the adjacent athletic fields on the campus. 2. The costs for demolition of the ski slope, and grading would be prohibitively costly, easily in excess of the available budget for the project. 3. The area appears.to be of insufficient size to create the amount of wetlands required to mitigate for the Quarry Creek project. 4. The area is on the edge of. the campus and would require cooperation from several adjacent property owners whereas the. "wildlife sanctuary" site is entirely within the campus property. 5. The college may want to reconstitute the ski slope at some future time. 6. The potential for long term success of the wetlands which would be created appears much less favorable than at the "sanctuary" site. 7. Access to the site for equipment, vehicles, laborers, students, etc... -is much more limited than for the "sanctuary" site. For these reasons and several others, I do not recommend that the ski slope area be evaluated any further as a suitable alternative for wetland creation. It is my opinion that time, effort and money will only be wasted pursuing this option. On the contrary, the "sanctuary" site offers a unique opportunity to establish valuable wetland habitat by creating conditions where existing wetlands can expand into an area which at present, provides very little habitat value at all. When the conceptual plan is complete, I will want to arrange for a Council visit to' the "sanctuary" site to show you first hand the possibilities which exist at this location. Until then, I strongly recommend that you allow staff and the consultant to complete the development of the conceptual plan as proposed to you and approved by you on October 6. Afterwards, if you do not support continuing with the efforts to create the wetlands at this location, then you can decide to abandon the project at that time. Fiscal Impacts: None at this time. Follow Up Actions: None at this time. Staff and the consultant will complete the development of the conceptual plan. Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: N /A. G) e c` � • \ . � 1 a � \ � 1. ` :' � . ' • Ll • - - - : w ➢�- � .. T9 Mme. OCTOBER 1993 Wilson Announces New State Wetlands Policy The Wilson Administration recently unveiled a new wetlands policy in which the State will take over federal responsibility from the Army Corps of Engineers for 404 wetlands permitting in the San Francisco Bay Area. California will exercise its option, which has always existed under Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, to assume authority for wetlands permitting —on a pilot basis at first and later on a permanent basis throughout the state. Characterized as a comprehensive new approach to the management and conservation of wetlands by State Resources Secretary Douglas Wheeler, the policy has three general objectives: to reverse the current decline in California's wetlands base; to achieve an overall increase in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetlands throughout Califor- nia: and to reduce procedural complexity and Confusion in the administration of wetlands conservation programs. (';tlifornia's nr��' police call. for conducting an inventory of .urvi� intl ��rll;uul.. increasing the aCrcaf:e of csulm;t %kOkI ufs by .;0"; l0 10';; .and encouraging property owners to bC better stewards of their own (ands. The policy also seeks to streamline regulations and adopt a single definition of what constitutes wetlands. In the Bay Area, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board will assume responsibility for the 404 program on a pilot basis. The long term objective is for the state's nine Regional Water Boards to assume full responsibility for this program throughout the state. The Wilson plan has generally been praised by the business and farm community and has been endorsed by the Federal EPA. CELSOC's own Community Planning and Environmental Commit- tee was also favorably disposed after reviewing the plan at a recent meeting. But reviews from environmentalists have been mixed. "They have bent to the wishes of the building industry," said Marc Homes, program director at the Save San Francisco Bay Association. "it is a real disap- pointment." On the other hand. Dan Chapin with the California Waterfowl Association said, "This is a great day as far as we are concerned." The key components of Governor Wilson's program are: • Adopt a single regulatory definition for wetlands. Conduct a comprehensive statewide inventory of California's wetlands (such data is currently not available in a form that is broadly accessible and useful to the public and private sectors). OEstablish regional and statewide goals to increase wetland acreage and quality. OPromote landowner incentive programs to preserve, restore, and enhance wetlands, including the provision of adequate funding from state and federal sources. • Remove a layer of government by exercising State control over the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 program, including: I ) Establish a short-term pilot project in which 404 permitting authority is transferred from the Army Corps of Ftigincers to the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board: and ?1 Based on the experience with the Bay Area pilot project, in the long -term assume state or additional regional authority for wetlands permitting under Section 404, and pursuant to adequate federal funding for this new state responsibility. • Enhance efficiency and coordination in the wetlands permitting process through pre- and post- application coordination meetings, fixed time deadlines for permits, and concurrent permit review periods. Support a natural resources bond measure that earmarks $70 million for wetlands acquisi- tion, restoration and enhancement. • Support the establishment and broadening of wetlands mitigation banking. The Wilson Administration intends to implement these components of its wetlands policy through Executive Orders, administrative actions by boards and commissions, cooperative agreements between State and Federal agencies, and legisla- tion if necessary. ■ Update Remove a layer of govern- ment by exercising State control over the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 program. 5